Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [5]

[Eldorion]

No offense taken. I've made my feelings on Bremer in Iraq known before (we had a bit of a bash fest on here last time he came up ).

I mean, at least we eventually had commanders like Petraeus who had bothered to learn even the most basic lessons of counterinsurgency from earlier situations, but yeah. The mind boggles.

[David H]

{{{{The Saudi's it seems have been told to get their house in order- not sure they have though}}}}

Easy to say, but consider the problem of housekeeping in monarchies where family ties often trump good governance (not pointing any fingers... )
Now consider how that works in a monarchy where " King Abdul Aziz has approximately a thousand grandchildren."[wikipedia]

So not an easy task....

[Eldorion]

Dave raises a good point. Consider the number of offices Saudi Arabia currently has consolidated in this one guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_bin_Salman_Al_Saud

- Deputy Crown Prince
- Minister of Defense
- Chief of the Royal Court
- Chair of the Council for Economic and Development Affairs

Oh, and by the way, he's a 30 year old with a bachelor's degree who got the gig because his father is the current King.

[David H]

US intelligence c. 2001 had its head firmly planted up its own ass.

^this^

but I would have thought you guys would have learned from Vietnam, disbanding the entire armed forces of Iraq after the invasion was not a smart move...

Yep! The retired 4 star generals and admirals unanimously opposed the invasion on those very grounds, and they sent a letter to Bush saying so (something only retired generals and admirals get to do) but it was ignored.

[halfwise]

There was an attempt to have the Afghani resistance do most of the fighting while offering air support, keeping the international ground forces down. This came out of the lessons of Vietnam, but see below. As to whether an invasion can be done 'right' - I think WWII with the reconstruction of Germany and Japan proved it can be; the problem is with overthrowing a complete government.  In Afghanistan there was basically no government to keep the basic functions going.  In Iraq Bremer had a still functionable machine but blew it.

I suppose I've just negated my point that the historical judgement on the decision to invade Afghanistan would be a toss-up.  You don't take out a country with no real government unless you plan to BE the government.

[David H]

More to the point, I think you made a better point.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{{Musing on an interesing apsect of internet life versus old fashioned country borders.
I happened to find out at work who the celebrity couple are caught in the sex scandal story that Figg was enquiring about before. But I cant tell her who it is.
You see there is a court injunction on its publication in the UK. But that can only apply to Uk publications.

So in the very next post, if a non UK personage, living outside the UK happens to have read the story or seen it on the news in their country, they can legally and happily say who it is. And everyone could read it, including all us Brits, despite reading it effectively being illegal in the UK in that no=one is allowed to write it down in the UK.

I on the other-hand could face a jail sentence, as breach of such an injunction carries a big penalty.

Something is clearly not right about this situation. Apart from the fact I don't care what they get up to, the fact I have a possible threat of prosecution just for typing the words disconcerts me very much.
I would hate for the Man to snuff me out, like a candle in the wind.}}}}

[Eldorion]

This is so weird. The ban applies to England and Wales -- and the Scottish press have already reported on this, same as they did with Ryan Giggs a few years back -- but they can't do so online because "[their] digital content is read in England"? That's ... not how the Internet works, except in autocratic regimes. And maybe in the UK too now?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/chose-name-list-super-injunction-7724893

I mean this is on the cover of the National Enquirer, at supermarket checkouts throughout the country (and yes, I'm aware of the Enquirer's reputation; they're just the most prominent source to report on it although not the most reputable). Is their site blocked in the UK?

[David H]

{{{ the fact I have a possible threat of prosecution just for typing the words disconcerts me very much.}}}}

{{{{{{{{even if you use encryption brackets???? }}}}}}}}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{{You never know David, they might have one of those eels Figg has that lets her read everyone's encryptions
But hey, very nice in Forumshire tonight, can anyone else feel the love tonight? All this talk of injunctions, its an act of war, really, part of the circle of life I suppose, full of dogs in the kitchen, and a dirty little girl, and if its Figg's place probably a honky cat too, mind you there is always Saturday night, Saturday nights are good (for fighting) and you never know your eyes might drunkenly meet someone else's at your song, and we all in love sometimes, and when your ready, we can go steady. So no injuction worries, what we need is harmony, not a club at the end of the street and all the nasties, but a good heart, some elderberry wine, an empty sky and lets just be some freaks in love Nohing to do with injunctions or courts at all }}}

[Eldorion]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Man, it's like topics just rocket off in any direction on this forum. Can we stay on the metaphorical yellow brick road for once in this thread? Sometimes I feel like the respectability of this forum is in danger of burning out like a candle in the wind.

[David H]

{{{{So then you wouldn't dare post something like this?

David Furnish, Elton John sex scandal: British media forbidden from covering couple
By Chris Jancelewicz National Online Reporter, Entertainment Global News

http://globalnews.ca/news/2645974/david-furnish-elton-john-sex-scandal-british-media-forbidden-from-covering-couple/ }}}}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{{ No way I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot barge-pole that's been in a kiddie pool full of olive oil }}}

[azriel]

I was at a Funeral For A Friend the other day, talking to Daniel about his sister, Bennie & how her car was misfiring on all its Jets ? I said "you need a holiday, go to an Island Girl" somewhere where you can see Grey Seals. Daniel is such a Brown Dirt Cowboy

[halfwise]

I'm suddenly lost.

[David H]

You've probably forgotten your EJ lyrics then.

[Amarië]

Good thing you're owned by a Norwegian then.

Kiddy pool of olive oil.

[Bluebottle]

No one has mentioned Rocket Man? That's.. criminal.

[Bluebottle]

Also i went to see Bill Bailey two nights ago, and he made sure to call Elton John a..

“a preposterous, wiggy, button-nosed berk”

[David H]

Man, it's like topics just rocket off in any direction on this forum.

[halfwise]

Congratulations to Sadiq Khan, new mayor of London. His election may help convince a larger fraction of newly arrived Muslims to integrate and participate in UK society.

Though American Muslims are supposedly more socially integrated, we have very few Muslim politicians. It does seem the rise of Trumpism is making them more vocal, and perhaps we'll see a change.

[Mrs Figg]

{{{{So then you wouldn't dare post something like this?

David Furnish, Elton John sex scandal: British media forbidden from covering couple
By Chris Jancelewicz National Online Reporter, Entertainment  Global News

http://globalnews.ca/news/2645974/david-furnish-elton-john-sex-scandal-british-media-forbidden-from-covering-couple/     }}}}}

wowzer

[halfwise]

A rather clear-eyed article on how the new mayor of London has manipulated the muslim card in the past. Written by a former extremist who has a way with words and an eye for political machinations.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/08/the-secret-life-of-sadiq-khan-london-s-first-muslim-mayor.html

[Mrs Figg]

Khan is certainly the 'right kind of muslim' (said with irony)

[Pettytyrant101]

{{{Today we got to see what the governments plans for the BBC are.
Most of the stuff they have been floating and threatening- not allowing the BBC to make populist programs like Strictly, Who, Bake Off, EastEnders ect got canned, no hint of it, same goes for banning them scheduling popular programs in peak viewing times- that's gone too.

Most of the changes were expected and unlikely to cause any trouble- some of them are even sensible!
The BBCiplayer loophole will be closed, so you will need a tv license to watch it. Ofcom, who are the independent arbitrator for complaints against all other media in the UK will now take over the BBC investigations as well- meaning the BBC no longer investigate complaints made against them themselves- which is sensible. And the license fee continues as the main way of funding for the next 11 years, though no longer frozen at £145 as it has been since 2010, but will rise in line with inflation.

However there is a but, and in my view its pretty big.

Two things trouble me- firstly the BBC have a new mission statement. The old one was 'To inform, educate and entertain.'
The new one is a bit longer- '"To act in the public interest, serving all audiences with impartial, high-quality, and distinctive media content and services that inform, educate and entertain."

Its the first two bits that are giving me trouble- 'To act in the public interest, serving all audiences with impartial'.

And the reason they trouble me is the other change- the BBC Trust which runs the BBC has been abolished to be replaced by a new board, of which the BBC will appoint 'more than 50%' of the board. But up to 49% of the Board can be government appointments.
This is a major shift and not good. This makes the BBC a government state broadcaster in my view and any pretence to impartiality even has to be now gone.
And it means these government appointees will have a say in what is 'impartial news'- Tories think the BBC are a bunch of lefty luvvies biased against them, Labour thought the BBC were so biased against them during the Iraq war build up the went apeshit on them over the reporting of the 'dodgy dossier', ending in the death of Dr Kelly, the BBC's source. And same goes for the public interest bit- would we ever even have heard of the dodgy dossier if Blair had 49% of the BBC board as his mates?

Fortunately the current head of the BBC Tony Hall sees this danger plain enough it seems- "We have an honest disagreement with the government on this. I do not believe that the appointments proposals for the new unitary board are yet right.
"We will continue to make the case to government. It is vital for the future of the BBC that its independence is fully preserved." }}}


I hope he does, and he wins the argument- as this particular change is the death knell of BBC reporting if it goes ahead as it is. }}}