91Èȱ¬

'IS IT A CRIME OR DE RIGUEUR TO PASS THE BUCK IN A LIBERAL-DEMOCRACY'? ;-)

Interesting: "Investors will note that regulators have taken long, hard looks at Madoff over many years, and failed to detect fraud." 91Èȱ¬'s Robert Peston 12th Dec 2008

Whilst in The Independent today: "Mr Madoff combined this exclusivity with secrecy and a reputation for throwing investors who asked too many questions out of his club - all of which helped him to evade the US federal regulators who will now come under intense scrutiny themselves." as they are designed to be?

CO2 AND TERROR

Well done J Gordon Brown, champion of the courageous! Will he manage EIGHT POSTURINGS before we depart that stage of dishonour?

Surely the abuse of troops (cynically deployed to fight an abstract noun) by a politician seeking poll ratings, ranks even lower than an opposition leader flying to find some icy backdrop, to show resolve in another war, this time on an invisible gas?

J Gordon Brown, you shall never be forgotten.
We still remember what Tony did (even though THEN he was C of E).

Back From the Front

In the news broadcasts over the shoe throwing incident, they pointed out the war on Iraq had cost $600 billion so far.

The next news article was Gordon Brown saying that 75% of terrorist activity had connections to Pakistan.

Do I have grounds for being confused.


Madoff

So what is the difference between this and what has been done 'legally' to bring down the economic system. The results seem to be the same.

Celtic Lion

talking of failure of regulation both isle of man and northern ireland have dropped energy prices by over 20% so why not the rest of the uk?

do you think if prices had risen 100 dollars instead of fallen 100 dollars the energy companies would not be raising prices before may?

our political class reach for the usual 'windfall tax' which doesn't help people paying the money in the first place.

Given that Ofgems own metrics show the uk energy market is three time over the level used to judge if we have a competitive market why has no action been taken to break up the defacto cartel of mainly foreign owned multinationals?

if this was a third world country what would be the conclusion of this inability to do anything about a cartel? That the political class had been fixed?

"WHY DO PEOPLE STILL PUT THEMSELVES IN THE LINE OF FIRE?"

The key word in that question is 'STILL' is it not? Many know what it implies, few will address the truth of it, and I won't spell it out here. But I WILL be listening, with great care, to Newsnight's choice of questions and the content of answers evoked.

I cannot believe that this mad war will go on for much longer. It does not have any grassroot support, the casualties are increasing daily, the government keeps saying we are doing this so they do not attack us here....does anyone really believe that? Don't fforget that this is the same gang of crooks who swore that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that Cyprus was forty five minutes away from attack, dodgy dossiers, all the lies, all the smokescreens, all the denials, whitewash, Hutton, John Scarlett and yet here we are five years down the line being asked to support these brave men that are putting their lives on the line to save the face of some politician. There are no Taliban at Calais, this is not Helman, the French, Italian and Germans do not seem to have casualties that this country has to endure....why? You do not win wars in Afghanistan. Do not take my word for it...look at it's history. Bring those brave men home...now.

MADOFF'S 'FRACTIONAL RESERVE HEDGE FUND'

It only comes to grief when there's a run on deposits? A reminder about The Masters of Never Never Land.

Why have bankers not learned the lesson that 'if it sounds too good to be true then it probably isn't?

The answer is that once they had moved away from their safety zone, of borrowing and lending safely to having to make money by themselves, they were soon out of their depth. They simply didn't understand what they were supposed to do.

Their solutions to this fell into three main areas:

1. Hire the 'rocket scientists' who seemingly did understand - but they did not know who these were! Indeed, it was these geniuses who gave us ever more complex derivatives which nobody could understand.

2. Follow the leaders - back those who made the greatest profits, as seemingly did Madoff, regardless of any insights into how they worked. It was heaven for con-men. Look for ever more to emerge from the woodwork.

3. Trust your friends - social contacts became important, even though this did not relate to expertise. Even in the 1980s a friend and myself, who between us had less than £10,000, so impressed the board of a major property company that they offered us a chance of a £1 billion development. In a fit of honesty we turned it down. Others were not so ethical and it went bust of course.

The real answer was pronounced in the 1990s: stick to the knitting, to what you know! This was the one (Peters &Waterman) lesson the banks did not learn. They led an exciting life, but we are all paying for their fun.

WRIT LARGE

"For many it's just for a few years of adventure before settling down into "civvie street" and doing something else. For others it's a career."

Jonathan Bell's words, above, illuminate truths that go unacknowledged, but in the interest of what; of whom? Who wants this?

Are we not following long-outmoded patterns of behaviour, that made some sense when the king rode to battle at the head of his troops; now continued because no one has the savvy to cry 'hold enough'?

"Lorry drivers in north-west Pakistan say they will no longer deliver supplies to Nato and US-led forces in Afghanistan due to worsening security."

I hope that may get some kind of coverage this week as its clearly awful news. Hard toi fight a war without bullets and rockets n'all.

Obama has got to have the worst "In Tray" in the history of the US - by a mile. Go Barak.

Can't read the other comments above so assume its more "race realist" gibberish - but thanks for making me smile!

My son was commissioned last Friday. He has chosen an infantry regiment and is due to go to Afghanistan in April 2010. Coming from a non-military family I am astounded and humbled by the commitment of the both the young people who sign up for the army - not for nothing is the Sandhurst motto "To serve to lead", and also the troops. Over the past year I have talked to many of the NCOs at Sandhurst who all say the army has been the best thing that has ever happened to them.

What appalls me equally is the casual way our politicians put our troops in harms' way without ever having thought through the consequences. Two questions to ask them, at totally different levels:
1. No foreign power has ever won in Afghanistan. Why is this time different, and why should our troops die for your vanity - playing a "world statesman"
2. We've been in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003. Why do we still not have enought helicopters or ground attack aircraft ?

"But who are the young people that make these sacrifices, who fight on the politicians' behalf? Who ultimately fight on all our behalf?"

Who do you mean by "All"? There are a large number of people in the UK, and certainly around the world who are quite opposed to our presence in Afghanistan. It's true that there are fanatical and ruthless fighters in Afghanistan, but that was also the case back in the 80s, except then the US and Britain were happy to support them and the media towed the line.

If the 91Èȱ¬ were reporting on a Russian occupation of Afghanistan, the tone of the story would be very different, probably focusing not on the deaths of Russian soldiers, but on civilians killed in airstrikes and other "mistakes".

Much of what the 91Èȱ¬ writes about Afghanistan is reminiscent of stories in Pravda in the 80s. Back then it was a case of "our soldiers are there to fight extremists, and if the bad guys just stopped, everything would be fine". The reporting is very far from impartial. It seems that whenever Russia conducts some kind of military operation, the 91Èȱ¬ go into full assault and pretensions of balance and impartiality are quickly discarded.

For example, Newsnight had this to say about the Russian response to Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia.

Newsnight 11/8/08:
"The Russians are calling it a peace enforcement operation, it's the kind of Newspeak that would make George Orwell proud."

When was the last time any announcements by the US or UK were refered to in this way?

And going back further to the assault on Grozny, the 91Èȱ¬'s Robert Parsons was fist-shakingly angry.

"Grozny was once a city of half a million people. Now it is torn down, crushed and violated."

"It is thought as many as 40,000 people may have still been in the city at the height of the inferno. How many of them were incinerated, crushed by falling masonry or shredded by shrapnel nobody yet knows. "

Why are British troops in Afghanistan anyway?
They say their enemy is the Taliban, the very same group that offered to hand over Osama in return for the US to cease bombing them.
Of course, Bush refused.

I remember a bescarfed Sandy Gall cheering on the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s, when the US and UK were arming them to fight the Russians.
If you want to fight Al-Qaeda (even though such a grouping probably exists only in ideology), attack Pakistan and Saudi Arabia from whence the Sunni Wahhabism comes.

Reap what ye sow.

I presume the Newsnight piece won't mention that Karzai was a CIA and MI5 asset or that outside Kabul, over 70% of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban.
There has been virtually no reconstruction and as with Iraq, corruption is rife.

The British failed in Afghanistan before and will do so again.
Bring them all home.

what a beautiful and moving film. Some times you need to stop arguing the politics and listen to the people that have lived it. Thank you to them and thank you to the bbc for taking the time.

The interview with the soldiers who had fought in Afghanistan was one of the best things I've seen this year, both moving and thought provoking. Well done.

EXTREME PAINT-BALLING

The interview with the three participants, showed motives of: 'experience' (paratroopers fight) 'least worst option' (better than crime) and 'prove myself' (be one of the team.

Protection of Britain; 'Queen and country' and 'sacrifice' - even when prompted - did not figure. My respect goes to three open, honest, and un-opportunistic individuals.

Thank you Newsnight.

Jeremy's final fudge that 'they and we are different' was about as lame as it gets. But I am glad I did not have his job at that moment; where to hide?

What an incredibly moving film on the soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. I was shocked to hear that nearly one fifth of the soliders on the severely injured solider's team died, and so many were injured. The other two soliders may not have been physically injured/scared, but I am sure they are mentally a mess.

I have twittered on to my wife about Newsnight having too many "Specials" This one tonight with JP talking to those three young soldiers was outstanding and I will not twitter ever again. Thank you Jeremy for an exceptional piece of interviewing.
Cheers

Watched Paxman's interview of the 3 squaddies tonight on Newsnight.
Whilst not denying their courage ( doing their "duty" ) , one could not help noticing the slightly quiet, for Paxman, and maybe a little guilty expression on his face.

I wonder also whether , like me, some viewers might have been considering the reasons why troops, both American and British were deployed in the first place ?

Went something like this :-

* Twin Towers got blown up . There is increasing evidence to suggest this was literally the case.

*Osama Bin Laden got the blame, almost the next day ! Hence leading to the assault on Afghanistan, which is still being continued now 8 years down the road !

* Combine this with the second fork of attack, this time on Iraq, which at the time seemed like Bush was still directing his hatred because of 911, only on Saddam this time.
* Whatever justification, he felt, Bush went to war without sanction, taking Blair and our 3 squaddies with him.

Strike a chord, anyone?

Go1 #10

"Can't read the other comments above so assume its more "race realist" gibberish - but thanks for making me smile! "

There you go again. Making assumptions. I haver just read posts 1-9 inc and can find no reference to race. Which is in line with your confession that you have not read them. You just 'assume' - like you do about so many things. What is it about simple facts that you find so frightening? That you dare not even look?

WAKEY WAKEY!

barrie (#17) Well said barrie, pretty much what I was going to post. The UK is NOT at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and the army is NOT fighting on our behalf. Where is the declaration of war? alone has forces from 41 countries contributing, and is part of the so-called 'Global War on Terror' where anyone who is not with the US in its to extend Liberal-Democracy (aka dysgenesis and 'credit crunches') gobally (via regime change, be that in former Soviet countries, Pakistan, Iran, N Korea, Syria, Lebanon, Zimbabwe...), and force where necessary (Iraq), was deemed by Bush et al. to be against them, sometimes being designated 'terrorists' or 'Islamo-Fascists' (these 'evil-dooers' try to regulate you know, they are no fans of ponzi schemes - the German NSDAP then consider what those who oppose Liberal-Democratic freedom think (rightly or wrongly) they are resisting).

Those who join the military services do so in order to fight. Interviewees last night made this as clear as they could in spite of Paxman's efforts to make out otherwise. The captain was the clearest, although even he didn't quite dare say it (and probably would have been censored if he had?). People do this for the 'buzz' much as people do other extreme things (e.g. crime). Posters who are getting all misty eyed need to wake up to the realty about all of this and not milk these opportunities for online disingenuous emoting.

This 'war 'is all about spreading deregulation, i.e. light touch government - ultimately - debt-slavery throughout the world. You're either for it, or you're against it. If you're against it, (i.e. some kind of 'selfish saver', you're potentially some kind of Jihadist ('struggler') or worse, 'terrorist'....;-)

NOTES FOR A PhD THESIS ON 'PART-TIME WAR'.

This blog becomes daily more fascinating in the range of viewpoints and expressions offered. I think if we had recourse to 'virtual blow' icons, there would be a brawl.

Clearly, none are 'uneducated' who post, but, just as clearly, we would make a poor coalition - for whatever purpose.

Just what WAS imparted by each of the four who comprised the Paxman interview? And what inference would an unbiased observer draw from the whole interview?

Barrie (#23) 'All's fair... '... It's just one of those days.

@21:

Gangof one is simply saying what most of us know; that about 50 people post here, that the audience is comprised of the posters, and that most of it is reactionary drivel.

Relax, it's not like anyone is actually reading this stuff.

Whilst allegedly fighting for 'our' freedom and Liberal-Democracy, look a little further to the left, and think about those NYC demographics.

CREATIVE FICTION

Groinwhippet (#25) "Gangof one is simply saying what most of us know; that about 50 people post here, that the audience is comprised of the posters, and that most of it is reactionary drivel. Relax, it's not like anyone is actually reading this stuff."

Except that it seems that you do, so doesn't that make your post 'reactionary drivel'? (I'm assuming, of course, that you aren't omniscient).

@27:

Slow day at work for me. What's your excuse?

Oh, and if you'd care to read again, my post doesn't suggest that it is, itself, 'reactionary drivel'.

Just that very few people will read it.

Groinwhippet (#28) "What's your excuse?" Does one need an excuse? Like thegangofone, you'll be demanding papers next ;-)

What you said might be drivel, logically speaking (unless you're omniscient), as prima facie your rhetoric appears to be another instance of the less than endearing creative fiction so typical of thegangofone, unlesss, that is, you have empirical evidence of the blog readership and the ratio of readers to posters?

This is not to diminish the offence(s), but why (in the absence of clear intention/mens rea) was the charge of murder brought against and a conviction obtained? I can see how politically this had a clear purpose, but ? Will this go to the Lords?

@30

According to the report under your link, he shot him.

Presumably procuring, loading, aiming and firing a gun was considered sufficient intent.

VG/JP/91Èȱ¬

Would it be fair to say, some people dont they are born

Groinwhippet (#31) "Presumably procuring, loading, aiming and firing a gun was considered sufficient intent."

Very probably. It's rather like 'terrorists' placing a bomb which kills indiscriminantly, there being no specific victim(s) but a clear intent to kill and maim. Here there were presumably rival gang members in the vicinity.

It has its merits in the crackdown on gun crime, but I can see how there could be gounds to appeal.

@33

"I can see how there could be gounds to appeal."

I was trying to establish why you think there should be grounds to appeal.

It wasn't the same as a bomb, or even, at a stretch, a shotgun fired blindly.

He had a specific target, and shot the youth dead.

It wasn't manslaughter, nor was it indiscriminate.

Few things are black and white, so I understand you raising the question, but this is case is open and shut.

@32

What on earth are you talking about?

Groinwhippet (#34) "He had a specific target, and shot the youth dead. It wasn't manslaughter, nor was it indiscriminate."

Rhys Jones was not one of the specific targets, he was, allegedly, not a gang member, just on his way home from football, so effectively, an innocent 'byststander'. That's why I was a little surprised at the murder charge. The judge and jury were persuaded that Mercer intended to kill one or more of the rival gang members as he shot across the car-park, but he did not.

Nevertheless, it is a , which is clearly designed to send a serious message. Sadly, these messages tend not to work on those most at risk of such behaviour.

@36

You're still in the holding tank, so I don't know what you said.

Night night.

G

Don't know why I bothered to post on this vacuous blog !

Goodnight.

hondablack #38

Is the black Honda two wheels or four?

If you know of a less vacuous 'ole - p'raps you'd let us know about it? Then maybe some of us could go there.

Erratum PNAS = PNAC ()