Random News Stories

[Demolition Squid]

Where you are doing it is evident right in that post. You're screeching about how terrible it was he was drunk at times, ignoring the fact that he was seeking treatment for and fighting his illness from 2005. It takes time to recognize there is a problem. Upon recognizing it, he sought treatment for it. Given that he was still a better politician drunk than most of them sober, in his case, I don't see the problem. You're acting as though this illness were a moral failing which should bar him from office. No. I disagree. You can keep screeching at me about it but it isn't going to change my mind.

Because hey, guess what, not all situations are equal and I'll hold a train driver to higher standards regarding his eyesight than a politician too. Or should David Blunkett have been banned from the office on the basis of his blindness? Should Paul Maynard resign because he has to take special measures to be able to vote due to his cerebral palsy?

As for the coalition vote, that is exactly what I meant. I agree with you; he should have voted against it. However, his reasons for NOT doing so were equally clear; he spoke about it at the time and he didn't just do it because it seemed like the easy option. He was able to form a decent, rational explanation for his actions.

And it wasn't just about being selfish or bettering himself. If he had wanted it, there is little doubt in my mind he could have easily gotten a cabinet position and done very nicely out of the coalition. He didn't. You'll need to find some far stronger arguments regarding his failures as a human being - especially if you're using that, of all time periods, to try and back up the idea his drinking was the issue in play there.

[Junkenstein]

Well, you need to find some better arguments for his successes as a politician.

I understand that you like the guy, but the pair of you seem to be treating him like some kind of idol/martyr based on what, exactly? A few good soundbites and alcohol issues? On a human to human level, he might have been an OK guy. Or not. I don't know or care because he never contacted me on a personal level. As such, I can only really judge the man based on how I know him and what is presented to me.

I know him because he's a politician. What is presented to me often sounded nice but there was never any chance of any of it coming to pass. How do you feel about people who offer things they can't provide? Trust them? I fucking don't.

You're acting as though this illness were a moral failing which should bar him from office.

No, I'm saying he was often physically and mentally not able to undertake the tasks of office. That's the problem. You can try and tell me that he made good calls drunk but we both know it's not the point. The point is that if he were sober there would be no question about any of this, he would have done a good a job as possible to the fullest extent of his abilities. The problem is that there is that very question. Did he really argue all his points to the best of his abilities? Did he make the best decisions at all times? Did he tick the box he intended to tick each vote? It may sound petty but it's a simple question of competence. As a really fucking solid rule of thumb, 99.9% of companies will judge you as incompetent to do your job if you keep turning up drunk.

As for the coalition vote, that is exactly what I meant. I agree with you; he should have voted against it. However, his reasons for NOT doing so were equally clear; he spoke about it at the time and he didn't just do it because it seemed like the easy option. He was able to form a decent, rational explanation for his actions.

Err, I'd go further than that and say he shouldn't have just voted against it but loudly walked the fuck away in protest. You know, like those Labour MP's I mentioned earlier regarding the Iraq thing. It just seems like a more moral and principled thing to do.

Do you have that explanation handy? While we will probably have different reads on it, I'd prefer to talk about them directly as they will probably have use in a larger discussion about UK politics. If it amounts to "changing the system from within" it's going to be depressing as he really should have learnt by then that this is not going to occur from within the existing system.

[Demolition Squid]

No, I don't have the explanation handy - and to be honest I'm now bored of reading the same thing over and over again. You can chalk this one up as a 'victory' if you like because I'm out.

[Rev Thwack]

Is it a victory when your opponent quits due to frustrations with trying to explain simple concepts to you?

[Demolition Squid]

In the spirit of random news stories - here's another that demonstrates the continued failure of private business in the prison system I predicted would blow up last year.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/09/yarls-wood-immigration-removal-centre-women-children

Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre is holding vulnerable women and children for too long in conditions that are causing them serious distress and are not suitable for those with mental health problems, according to a damning independent report.
...
It describes a "serious deterioration" in the centre's healthcare service. While Yarl's Wood is run by the contractor Serco, from September its health service has been provided by another private firm, G4S, on behalf of NHS England. While detainees had previously complained about the rude attitude of healthcare staff, the report says, during 2014 this reportedly worsened into "a failure to take detainees' complex physical and mental needs seriously". Specific incidents included one woman waiting almost three weeks for blood tests for a medical condition, and a family left without asthma and diabetes medication for a week.

So here's a double whammy of failing detention AND failing private healthcare.

My boss has some strong opinions around G4S. They are, of course, the people who fucked up the olympic security contract. For a while they were blacklisted from public contracts, but it didn't last long - he believes mostly because G4S upper management is largely composed of people with oxbridge/private education ties, which lets them get into central government contracts regardless of their actual suitability for the jobs.

Naturally such a thing would be unthinkable.

[Junkenstein]

No, I don't have the explanation handy - and to be honest I'm now bored of reading the same thing over and over again. You can chalk this one up as a 'victory' if you like because I'm out.

Fuck it, I'm out too. So much for actually trying to move the conversation to a different subject.

Anyway,

+3 points for a nice Maynard reference and tone in general.

[Cain]

It's definitely something along those lines, but worse than you think, why G4S keeps getting contracts.

Two of the parent companies that went on to form G4S are the British security company Securicor and the American security company Wackenhut.  Wackenhut was notorious in its a day as being essentially the private sector's answer to McCarthyism - staffed with extremely right wing and politically connected former police officers, FBI agents and intelligence personnel.  Securicor is a sort of British answer to that - typically understated and less notorious than the American version, but staffed by former Met officers and MI5 officers too, with a fairly similar worldview.

G4S also commands one of the largest private miliary companies in the world, though this is carefully disguised as many companies are still referred to by their former names, with their actual divisions only being referred to in-house.

[Demolition Squid]

Huh, interesting.

Thanks for that insight Cain - I knew they were big, but I didn't realize they were that big.

[Cain]

620,000 employees in 125 nations worldwide.  The exact extent of their private military numbers isn't fully known...but for example, Armour Group is one of the many companies G4S owns, and they have 9000+ on the payroll.

[Cain]

Hey, remember we have to stop Iran from building nuclear reactors because they'll give uranium to terrorists who will make dirty bombs?

Well...

Israel built and exploded so-called "dirty bombs," explosives laced with nuclear material, to examine how such explosions would affect the country if it were to be attacked by the crude radioactive weapons, the Haaretz daily newspaper reported Monday.

Israeli defense officials and scientists refused to comment on the report when reached by The Associated Press. However, Israel has what is widely considered to be an extensive nuclear weapons program that it has never declared.

The Haaretz report, which included photographs, said the project conducted 20 detonations with explosives laced with a radioactive substance. Mini-drones measured radiation levels and sensors logged the force of the explosions, Haaretz reported.

Researchers quoted in the Haaretz report said the Israeli tests were for defensive purposes only. They said high radiation was found at the center of blasts while small particles carried by wind didn't pose serious danger, except for the psychological effect of such an attack.

The newspaper said the project, code-named "Green Field" and conducted by staff from Israel's nuclear reactor in the southern town of Dimona, ended in 2014 after four years of tests. Most were conducted in Israel's Negev Desert and one in a closed facility, it said.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey, remember we have to stop Iran from building nuclear reactors because they'll give uranium to terrorists who will make dirty bombs?

Well...

Israel built and exploded so-called "dirty bombs," explosives laced with nuclear material, to examine how such explosions would affect the country if it were to be attacked by the crude radioactive weapons, the Haaretz daily newspaper reported Monday.

Israeli defense officials and scientists refused to comment on the report when reached by The Associated Press. However, Israel has what is widely considered to be an extensive nuclear weapons program that it has never declared.

The Haaretz report, which included photographs, said the project conducted 20 detonations with explosives laced with a radioactive substance. Mini-drones measured radiation levels and sensors logged the force of the explosions, Haaretz reported.

Researchers quoted in the Haaretz report said the Israeli tests were for defensive purposes only. They said high radiation was found at the center of blasts while small particles carried by wind didn't pose serious danger, except for the psychological effect of such an attack.

The newspaper said the project, code-named "Green Field" and conducted by staff from Israel's nuclear reactor in the southern town of Dimona, ended in 2014 after four years of tests. Most were conducted in Israel's Negev Desert and one in a closed facility, it said.

But that's Israel, so it's different. They're white.

[Rev Thwack]

Hey, remember we have to stop Iran from building nuclear reactors because they'll give uranium to terrorists who will make dirty bombs?

Well...

Israel built and exploded so-called "dirty bombs," explosives laced with nuclear material, to examine how such explosions would affect the country if it were to be attacked by the crude radioactive weapons, the Haaretz daily newspaper reported Monday.

Israeli defense officials and scientists refused to comment on the report when reached by The Associated Press. However, Israel has what is widely considered to be an extensive nuclear weapons program that it has never declared.

The Haaretz report, which included photographs, said the project conducted 20 detonations with explosives laced with a radioactive substance. Mini-drones measured radiation levels and sensors logged the force of the explosions, Haaretz reported.

Researchers quoted in the Haaretz report said the Israeli tests were for defensive purposes only. They said high radiation was found at the center of blasts while small particles carried by wind didn't pose serious danger, except for the psychological effect of such an attack.

The newspaper said the project, code-named "Green Field" and conducted by staff from Israel's nuclear reactor in the southern town of Dimona, ended in 2014 after four years of tests. Most were conducted in Israel's Negev Desert and one in a closed facility, it said.

But that's Israel, so it's different. They're white.

Yea, but they're the wrong white. You need the blonde haired, blue eyed white people. Any German from the 1930's could have told you that.

[Junkenstein]

On a re-read and re-assessment, I've probably been a bit of a dick about Kennedy there.

Apologies where appropriate.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey, remember we have to stop Iran from building nuclear reactors because they'll give uranium to terrorists who will make dirty bombs?

Well...

Israel built and exploded so-called "dirty bombs," explosives laced with nuclear material, to examine how such explosions would affect the country if it were to be attacked by the crude radioactive weapons, the Haaretz daily newspaper reported Monday.

Israeli defense officials and scientists refused to comment on the report when reached by The Associated Press. However, Israel has what is widely considered to be an extensive nuclear weapons program that it has never declared.

The Haaretz report, which included photographs, said the project conducted 20 detonations with explosives laced with a radioactive substance. Mini-drones measured radiation levels and sensors logged the force of the explosions, Haaretz reported.

Researchers quoted in the Haaretz report said the Israeli tests were for defensive purposes only. They said high radiation was found at the center of blasts while small particles carried by wind didn't pose serious danger, except for the psychological effect of such an attack.

The newspaper said the project, code-named "Green Field" and conducted by staff from Israel's nuclear reactor in the southern town of Dimona, ended in 2014 after four years of tests. Most were conducted in Israel's Negev Desert and one in a closed facility, it said.

But that's Israel, so it's different. They're white.

Yea, but they're the wrong white. You need the blonde haired, blue eyed white people. Any German from the 1930's could have told you that.

Most of the israelis I know ARE blond and blue eyed... because they're of German Jewish stock.

[Rev Thwack]

Hey, remember we have to stop Iran from building nuclear reactors because they'll give uranium to terrorists who will make dirty bombs?

Well...

Israel built and exploded so-called "dirty bombs," explosives laced with nuclear material, to examine how such explosions would affect the country if it were to be attacked by the crude radioactive weapons, the Haaretz daily newspaper reported Monday.

Israeli defense officials and scientists refused to comment on the report when reached by The Associated Press. However, Israel has what is widely considered to be an extensive nuclear weapons program that it has never declared.

The Haaretz report, which included photographs, said the project conducted 20 detonations with explosives laced with a radioactive substance. Mini-drones measured radiation levels and sensors logged the force of the explosions, Haaretz reported.

Researchers quoted in the Haaretz report said the Israeli tests were for defensive purposes only. They said high radiation was found at the center of blasts while small particles carried by wind didn't pose serious danger, except for the psychological effect of such an attack.

The newspaper said the project, code-named "Green Field" and conducted by staff from Israel's nuclear reactor in the southern town of Dimona, ended in 2014 after four years of tests. Most were conducted in Israel's Negev Desert and one in a closed facility, it said.

But that's Israel, so it's different. They're white.

Yea, but they're the wrong white. You need the blonde haired, blue eyed white people. Any German from the 1930's could have told you that.

Most of the israelis I know ARE blond and blue eyed... because they're of German Jewish stock.

We're taking the 40's German perspective here... Jews don't count because we're only counting people.