BBC BLOGS - Newsnight: From the web team
« Previous | Main | Next »

Tuesday 6 December 2011

Verity Murphy | 14:40 UK time, Tuesday, 6 December 2011

A Crown Prosecution Service lawyer is to face disciplinary action for alleged failings over a case involving undercover police officer Mark Kennedy, who had spent seven years underground infiltrating green groups.

Tonight, Richard Watson, who broke the original story on Newsnight, looks into the findings of the report.

And Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer will be joining Jeremy live in the studio.

Following Sunday's parliamentary elections in Russia, Moscow has seen protests against alleged voting fraud.

Demonstrators faced off with supporters of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Moscow city centre, and at least 100 protesters were arrested.

We will be hearing from former prime minister and opposition politician Mikhail Kasyanov.

Plus, in the United States, the contest is heating up among Republicans who want to challenge President Obama for the White House.

In the run up to the Iowa caucuses in January, a key indicator of the how the conservative heartlands view the candidates, Mark Mardell reports on an already fraught campaign.

Our interview with poet Geoffrey Hill will now be running at a later date.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 2.

    ^Thank goodness the Telegraph doesn't have censoreship, someone there has already stated the above in that paper.

  • Comment number 3.

  • Comment number 4.

    '2. At 17:06 6th Dec 2011, ecolizzy -
    ^Thank goodness the Telegraph doesn't have censorship, someone there has already stated the above in that paper.


    An intriguing evening beckons to those seeking... um.. 'things'... that some in the media infirmament evidently feel others need to be spared.

  • Comment number 5.

    ecolizzy wrote: "Thank goodness the Telegraph doesn't have censoreship, someone there has already stated the above in that paper"

    The demographics of crime are well documented and have been freely available from the Home Office and Ministry of Justice for years, and there have been long investigations into it all too.

    What good does citing the odd case reported by the press do? Especially as In many of our inner cities (as we saw last night) almost the only people young enough TO commit crimes will be non White British. That's a point to bear in mind is it not?

    Women having gone out to work meant a decline of the old community infrastructure. Look to that as a driver. How many would be prepared to give up their "freedom" to earn for being a mother etc? Very few I suspect. But they will all blame the consequences on someone else.

  • Comment number 6.

    @2 Lizzy The Daily Telegraph uncensored?

    You won't see this sort of stuff on their media:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sark#Barclay_brothers.3F

    And then there's this:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/mar/21/telegraphcensorshipandtheb

  • Comment number 7.

    JunkkMale wrote: quoting ecolizzy "^Thank goodness the Telegraph doesn't have censorship, someone there has already stated the above in that paper."

    An intriguing evening beckons to those seeking... um.. 'things'... that some in the media infirmament evidently feel others need to be spared."

    Might this have anything to do with the BBC as a Pubic Sector organisation having to comply with the Equality Act (which subsumed and replaced the older Race Relations etc legislation) whilst the Telegraph as a Private Sector owned paper and Internet portal does not? is this possibly another way tat the Public Sector gets unwittingly clobbered by the public (us) at the expense of Private Sector economic interests?

    Is this is how we should be looking at oddities perhaps? Different rules applying in pursuit of state erosion? Again, if one won't even consider the "isms" what will the consequences be?

  • Comment number 8.

    2.
    At 17:06 6th Dec 2011, ecolizzy wrote:


    ^Thank goodness the Telegraph doesn't have censoreship, someone there has already stated the above in that paper.

    >
    Well said - the demographics of crime are not well documented as for many years the police have been fudging the statistics to improve their own crime detection rates.

    Studying individual crime & sentencing, as case studies, can be very revealing indeed - although some will not find that the facts will meet with their own political agenda & beliefs - if they have any.

  • Comment number 9.

    I certainly look forward to Jeremy's interview with Keir Starmer tonight :o)

  • Comment number 10.

    An interesting programme last night, and, within the constraints of the BBC, well modded by Sir J (Although it would have been very interesting to his thoughts - Sir J’s - on the discussion! Sometimes body ‘language’ can be quite informative ….. Or not!)

    Most interesting was the fact that someone/body was trying to get some understanding as to what might be the causes(s) - and continuation - of those events and, assuming there was no covert political motive, see if there was a ‘way’ of preventing such ‘occurrences’ happening again. Sadly the discussion - as with the research - achieved little other than irk a lot of posters here. As to why the piece achieved so little? …. For each and every one of those involved there were a myriad of conscious and subconscious reasons - and social ‘pressures’ - as to why certain actions surfaced.


    42. At 23:18 5th Dec 2011, Katie_reason wrote: ...... probably gave the best summary/post as to why - not enough space in 400 words to give ‘credit’ where it is due to all, sorry - and brown-dog’s related comments neatly filled in many of the gaps but was is needed is an objective sic attempt to secure ‘suitable treatment’

    At least the programme had the - venerable - idea of ‘going' in that direction!

    IMHO “suitable treatment” starts (emphasis on ‘starts’ please!) with sorting out the ‘proclivities’ of the people at the coal-face of the ‘education’ system i.e. those living icons that believe they walk on water, and are the sum of all that is truly ‘right’

    Yes! That’s them! You’ve got it! …….

    The Untouchables!


    Post ‘post’ thought:

    Am I the only one that noticed the banner during the film segment that said “xxxx wants to be a primary school teacher”?

    Most telling and, at the same time, most disconcerting! And dare I say it …..

    (No malice mods, just bald fear!)

    Very, very frightening!


    Post ‘post’ thought 2:

    A true shame Nn didn’t do an ‘extended’ piece on the other important research released this last week (The sole Beeb ‘broadcast’ on the subject was so ‘shallow’ it wasn’t even a puddle!) …. i.e.

    ‘What the brits think of immigration.’

    Now that would be a real ‘humdinger’ of a show!

    Nn could even have ignored the opinion of the politicians and the intelligentsia and involved the Great British Public!

    Oops! No chance!

    Newsnight still struggles with that particular concept!

    Oh well!

    400.

  • Comment number 11.

    JAperson wrote: "IIMHO “suitable treatment” starts (emphasis on ‘starts’ please!) with sorting out the ‘proclivities’ of the people at the coal-face of the ‘education’ system i.e. those living icons that believe they walk on water, and are the sum of all that is truly ‘right’ "

    There is NO treatment. All anyone can do is isolate these types from others for the latter's own protection. No experienced, COMPETENT, forensic workers (and most are lost through attrition) would take a WORD of what these offenders say at face value as they break social rules and laws for a living or just for the fun of it..

    Only those who know nothing ever talk about "treatment" etc. Blair was biting his tongue. He let SOME out, but should have been more blunt.

    Primary School teacher..........indeed. The LSE/Guardian "study" is a disgrace. An insult.

  • Comment number 12.

  • Comment number 13.

    To avoid confusion ……….

    for “The Untouchables!” (in my post at 10 above) read …..

    Teachers!

    But then …………

    Para 2 in 11 above certainly has some merit.


    26.

  • Comment number 14.

    Outstanding interview by Jeremy with Starmer :o) 6 cases per year...........

  • Comment number 15.

    #6 Ah yes Sasha you are right, I do know all about the Barclay brothers, and Mr Dog you make a good point about public bodies having to censor and private ones not, if it's in their interests!

  • Comment number 16.

    #8 Yes nautonier I think a lot remains hidden from view, one has to do a lot of research and reading to get to the bottom of anything. And who's got time to do that, unless an academic.

  • Comment number 17.

    Can someone from the BBC explain why Ron Paul is not even mentioned in the piece on Iowa when he is consistently polling in 2nd place?

  • Comment number 18.

    Theres too many young-uns in that NN office (which explains a lot) ..sack half of them and hire some forty somethings...big improvements will be noticed if you do that.

    Newt Gingrich is a secret democrat shill, he'll never win nothing (except maybe the Republo leadership) mostly because of his name. Imagine this if you will: "ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States of America...Newt Gingrich"..its never gonna happen.

    Mark Mardell didn't mention Ron Paul...and he should've done. Anyhows, a big improvement from yesterdays show..and the least said about that the better. We move on.

  • Comment number 19.

  • Comment number 20.

    KEIR STARMER MAKES ME UNEASY - WHENCE COMES SUCH POWER?

    Anybody?

  • Comment number 21.

    Merkozy do appear to be defining a roadmap for stabilising the eurozone.

    To deal with the short term, money will be conjured up from the various interested parties/institutions to purchase/roll-over bonds from the distressed eurozone countries.

    To assuage mainly German concerns, some sort of legal framework will be put into place, going forward, to ensure that eurozone countries obey the fiscal rules.

    Cameron and this country will, for the forseeable, remain on the outside looking in, with very little influence or goodwill flowing either way.

    Half-hearted membership of the club usually generates some disdain from the more committed membership.

  • Comment number 22.

    China has already bought EUR500 billion worth of European sovereign debt. To say they are not exposed is simply not true. The Chinese have about 3 trillion dollars in foreign reserve: around $1.15 trillion is spent on buying US treasuries; EUR0.5 trillion in Europe; in addition, they also need to retain 3 months' worth of balance of trade surplus for domestic reserve (i.e. Chinese companies need USD to import raw materials from abroad), which translates to another $0.6 trillion. Lastly the Chinese government runs extensive investment projects and political aid programs in many third world countries. If you sum everything up, it is not hard to see that China simply doesn't have the financial resource to lift more heavy weight in any bailout fund even if they'd like to.

    Linda Yueh touched on a very interesting point - how would the average Chinese feel about their government, when they see that their hard earned dollars are being squandered on buying sovereign debt in European peripheral countries (aka the PIIGS), which are frankly not worth the paper they are written on without any explicit guarantees from the ECB? How would they feel about President Hu signing another big cheque in G20, when Greece just a week earlier forced all lenders to accept a 50% voluntary write down on their debts? My mum once explained the term Export to me in this way: a person is only eating half full and sells the other half to another person in the hope that he/she can spend that money in the future. This is essentially China's growth model. Not engaging in another bail out effort in last month's G20 is perhaps as much a mathematical problem as it is a political problem.

    P.S. I'm a big fan of Aaron Sorkin's West Wing. My favourite characters (and couple) in the show are CJ and Danny Concannon.
    CJ: "When you flirt with me are you doing it to get a story?"
    Danny: "No."
    CJ: "Then why are you doing it?"
    Danny: "I'm doing it to flirt with you."

  • Comment number 23.

    ecolizzy wrote: "Mr Dog you make a good point about public bodies having to censor and private ones not, if it's in their interests!"

    I'm not sure I'm legally right here. I was thinking of the Race Relations Amendment Act when I posted. A lot of the earlier discrimination legislation was repealed and incorporated in new ways (some a bit daunting) in the Equality Act 2010 (not all of which is activated),.so please look into it.

    As I recall, Public Sector bodies (like the BBC) used to have a legal duty under the RRAA to be seen to be actively promoting good race relations. I'm not sure about Private Sector companies like newspapers.

    It's certainly all got very complicated with "perceived discrimination"
    and even the possibility of positive discrimination towards a someone with a "protected characteristic" when two job candidates otherwise have the "same" qualifications...

    It's an example of legislation which no doubt many saw as designed to do good, but which some will abuse no doubt. Still, there are clauses which are supposedly designed to deter malicious claims or privilege - but when has that stopped some?

    http://www.employmentlawwatch.com/2010/09/articles/employment-uk/the-uk-equality-act-your-questions-answered/

    You have my sympathies for what that's worth. I think a terrible mess has been made of Britain by trying to do what seemed right. Too many people think others are rational and fair-minded when they're not.

  • Comment number 24.

    Last night's studio somewhat theatrical "discussion" of the "let's do it by stealth, bullying and subterfuge but not say so" efforts to establish EU "Fiscal Union" (the suprarstate of Europe) was remarkable in that the two studio guests with minority "Protected Characteristics" (Sachs being an infamous anti-statist who, as one of the "Chicago Boyz" in the 90s was instrumental in the predatory managed Russian sell-off under the nose of a man who looked drunk most of the time, and the other clearly not a Chinese communist "rolling her eyes" off camera (according to
    Paxman) as the German Chief Whip explained that any solution would not include the ECB acting as a "lender of last resort" (presumably because this begs entire question of the suprastate (Supra-NUT) given that lenders of last resort are NATIONAL Central Bank which thereby control NATIONAL interest rates and inflation by controlling the money supply TO all other banks and thus the local economies and politics).all rather gave the game away, especially given the background talking/noise designed to reduce the value of what the "nazi-sounding" Chief Whip and Deputy Leader of the ruling German Party was saying which was off-message. The lead-in by David Grossman WAS good, and fair, credit to David and a logical analysis of Cameron's behaviour and agenda.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lender_of_last_resort

    So, sadly, it looks like the effort to establish a Libertarian EU suprastate IS being effectively (and technically illegally), engineered by a combination of stealth and Rating Agency/market bulling, as a Lisbon II Treaty, regardless of the wishes of the electorates of the EU electorates. Such Regime Change (and that's what it is) was effected more dramatically in Libya, and no doubt it will be tried in Syria and Iran etc if Russia and China allow it.

    Is this all in these electorates' better interests? Do those engineering this really know something which these electorates don't? It's possible, but it all makes politicians' talk of "openness and transparency" in governance highly dubious, as dubious as this with respect to the "independent" OBR:-:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/06/obr-attacked-mps-economic-forecasts

    "Jesse Norman, a Conservative MP on the committee, said many committee members "were worried about the whole illusion of technocratic expertise surrounding the OBR".

    He added: "We are in condition of such uncertainty at the moment there are very high levels of guesswork." The trouble is that there are certain planks of the forecast which are actually theoretically dubious ... There are so many different variables that might affect whether or not the thing exists or how large it is, that it is not just a question of how it is calculated but whether or not there is a genuine piece of economic thought here at all."

  • Comment number 25.

    What's wrong with Britain - too many things to list here and eqally, if not more, many good things.

    Big failing IMO in govt is failing to connect with Joe Public - its doesn't have 'a face'.

    So I'm going to recommend a new Quango - much to the consternation, no doubt, of JadedJean - to do what?

    To wear the face of govt - to write to us - to speak to us - and ask for our opinions, where we can help others, volunteers, shop benefit cheats & illegal immigrants, what skills & quals we have as not being used, if we have empty property to be repaired and re-let etc etc

    thousand s & thousands of things here - perhaps too many - as is why we need to be asked

    + online surveys - real hard fact surveys - not daily diatribe partial, meaningless surveys that BBC produces/procures on e.g. immigration

    - govt must also make the effort - we pay their wages & big fat pensions - we need to get them all off their big fat posteriors & helping us

    That is what is wrong disconnection , disengagement, inviting school kids to parliament etc.

    How many MP's vist their local schools/colleges/job centres regularly? ALL OF THEIR SCHOOLS?

    All MP's should have of their offices in local job centres

    Too much them & us!

  • Comment number 26.

    '17. At 23:30 6th Dec 2011, SimonUSA wrote:
    Can someone from the BBC explain why Ron Paul is not even mentioned in the piece on Iowa when he is consistently polling in 2nd place?'


    Maybe it's a question of being seen actively promoting what is legally 'right'? Or is it left? Oh dear, back to those 'isms again*:)

    '16. At 23:18 6th Dec 2011, ecolizzy - a lot remains hidden from view'

    One of the greatest, stealthiest, and hence most abused powers from any abusable edit suite, and comment filtering systems.

    *15. At 23:16 6th Dec 2011, ecolizzy - #6 Ah yes Sasha you are right

    Which is why absolutes can derail. I never saw, as did evidently others, what was posted, and hence was left guessing.

    And then, for every she said, there's a he said...

    This was interesting, if unsurprising...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/mar/21/telegraphcensorshipandtheb

    But especially the comments, and this one in particular:

    'neverblue
    24 March 2008 4:34PM
    [Comment deleted - moderator]'


    Closely followed by: 'Comments on this page are now closed'. An appeal of sorts, at least to one who appreciates irony.

    At least the modding was overt, if the reasons less so. But in the tit for tat world, worse can ensue...

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=337&cp=all

    Even on the BBC. I have had to ask on a few occasions where something has gone when its very existence has been erased. A recent Paul Mason blog's posts were obliterated, and if restored too late to matter.

    What the Telegraph or Graun choose to do is their affair, and they can live with their claims vs. observed or experienced reality accordingly. Which is why when others cite 'thoroughness' and 'integrity' when quoting the results proffered by such trusted 3rd parties I now crank an eyebrow, and wonder further at who assesses the assessors?

  • Comment number 27.

    JohnConstable wrote: "To assuage mainly German concerns, some sort of legal framework will be put into place, going forward, to ensure that eurozone countries obey the fiscal rules."

    I take it you do understand that those who control the "lender of last resort" effectively control the economy and politics of a population?
    This is because Central Banks regulate the money-supply and thus inflation. This is Chicago School economics. In Libertarian nations these Central Banks are independent of government and are in the Private Sector. In statist nations they are, as the Means of Exchange", nationalised, i.e in Public ownership.

    What German concerns" should be are not to reproduce what happened in the 1930s when they abandoned democracy in order to get rid of. what was effectively Privatisation of the economy by an oligarchy = plutocracy and the hyperinflation and anarchy which followed as most people lost all their assets to the self-selected chosen few.

  • Comment number 28.

    Barrie @19 I started watching, but I never got to Blair because Mr Volf was talking nonsense (especially about democracy) in an extremely long winded and uninspiring way.

    @20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#DPP He seems to be another "untouchable".

    JAP@ 13: From an inside view of teaching, about 1/3 are caring and dedicated, 1/2 are time-servers who just want a quiet life, and 1/6 are on some kind of power trip. Some of the latter are quite likely to have accelerated promotion, because they can blag interviews.

    I have known a few police officers in my time, and I suspect that similar proportions apply there too.

    Especially worrying is the tendency of some in both professions to regard, and even describe, a significant proportion of people under their guardianship as "rubbish".

    Now I accept that there are indeed some incorrigibly maladjusted individuals whose presence in this world is to be regretted. But they exist in all walks of life and in all strata of society. I also know, from experience, that many individuals whose prospects seem rather unpromising can, with a little help and encouragement, build useful and fulfilling lives for themselves.

    One prime, but barely acknowledged, purpose of schooling is to keep kids off the streets. In a way, those described as "educators" are sometimes more like part-time prison-warders. And the stress levels are immense, especially amongst those who care. To tackle the problems of the professions whilst keeping the services going would be very difficult indeed, and, from experience, I strongly distrust the motives and competence of those who claim that they would or could "sort things out".

    Sorry, but I don't have an answer.

  • Comment number 29.

    There was no timed UPDATE in the running order as there has been in the past, just a replacement. The original piece on the rise of "standard of living" and household income was dropped without a mention. Perhaps for a later date? It would have been useful to see if the programme DID celebrate females going out to work given the generally poorly acknowledged adverse consequences to the national birth-rate and national ability levels, as it might have highlighted a point which is all too rarely noticed let alone commented upon. This is the most likely culture killer, and it works slowly, stealthily.

    Such thoughts are unwelcome to many, so it's understandable that they get self-censored, but at what longer term cost? That this doesn't bear thinking about is perhaps why, throughout history, there's been a universal role division by sex. Those who collect and hoard resources (at one time nuts and berries) tend to be genetically designed to gather not hunt, but if it's hunters which lead productive economies and innovate, what's being promoted by populating the workforce with females these days, and paradoxically, at whose cost?.

    The insidious cost of brain/culture feminisation. Most won't see it, and don't WANT to see it. Most argue to defend their own status quo.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2011/12/monday_5_december_2011.html?postId=111095616#comment_111095616

  • Comment number 30.

    DEMOCRACY UNDER RULE OF LAW? (#25) NATIONAL FRAUD AUTHORITY PLEA

    My concern is fraud, deliberately configured to benefit - primarily - an ordinary citizen; vis: deception of the general public (numbered in thousands) to gain employment, and/or advancement of personal status and influence.

    The above-described, pertains when an erstwhile MP is returned to normal citizenship, at prorogation of Parliament, and stands for re-election using printed material, comprising unequivocal falsehoods, delivered to private homes, in an attempt to gain advantage.

    To date, ‘wider governance’ has (constructively?) hidden in ‘the fog of Election Law', to avoid addressing an unequivocal document of fraudulent claims, held by me. They (government officials, departments and individuals) leap to the convenient conclusion that, because the employment sought by the individual in question is: ‘Westminster MP’, and the fraudulent document originates from a political party, it is a ‘political matter’.

    I put it to you that the FUNDAMENTAL situation is one of personal (individual) advancement, knowingly enacted by fraudulent means (deception) and I look to you for interaction with me in the matter.

    Please DO NOT engage, if integrity is absent (silence speaks just as loudly) that is: if the intent is to disengage by stealth. I apologise if that seems rude, but I have had 18 months of such, from those self-termed ‘honourable’, and have drawn inevitable conclusions.

    Fortunately , I have 3.5 years more of this Parliament to ‘make my point stick’.

  • Comment number 31.

    RUSSIANS PROTEST - BRITONS JUST LET IT HAPPEN (#30)

    Someone posted recently: "What is wrong with Britain". I replied "It's US!" We have become effete.

    FOR EVIL TO PROSPER ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT GOOD MEN DO NOTHING.

  • Comment number 32.

    BLAIR ENCAPSULATES ALL THAT IS WRONG IN CONFUSED APEVILLE (#28)

    One more stamp - declaring himself divine - and he can swap the book for the 'Jesus Seat'. But NN, BBC, 'The World', plays "Emperor's New Clothes" when dancing around him. EXCEPT CHILCOT, who still has Blair's trousers; bless the man.

    Funny how like David Icke Tony is. If Icke had become PM - imagine the scene!

    I must lie down . . .

  • Comment number 33.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 34.

    ANGER MANAGEMENT - PMQ's TONY CAMERON

    "38% - almost half their salary."

    "We have cut the petrol tax."

    In passing: Nick was noticeable by his "absence" again. A more absent presence is hard to imagine.

    DISMANTLE WESTMINSTER - INSTALL INTEGRITY

  • Comment number 35.

    nautonier wrote: "What's wrong with Britain - too many things to list here and eqally, if not more, many good things.

    Big failing IMO in govt is failing to connect with Joe Public - its doesn't have 'a face'.

    So I'm going to recommend a new Quango"

    As these tend to be little more than sink-holes for frustration (rather like these blogs if the truth be told as Barrie Singleton often says), as public sentiment either goes straight in the Internet "bin" or is at best used to shape counter-argument by those manipulating "public expectations", or so it seems.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html

    What substantively matters at present is whether "well placed"
    incumbents across the EU-27 manage to contrive a "lender of last resort"
    (Central Bank) for Europe, as if they do, it's effectively game-over for Parliamentary Democracy (or what's left of it) as we IMAGINE it. We will end up like the USA, where NGOs and "Think Tanks" work in conjunction with Private Sector bank consortiums like the Federal Reserve and their market makers on Wall Street/Madison Avenue which effectively control the economy and politics in the interest of the powerful few by managing the money supply, interest rates and consumer expectations and purchasing power. All warfare is economic in the end.

    Still, if that's what most people want they deserve what they get.
    That's Libertarian democracy. Freedom.

  • Comment number 36.

    I've just watched a BBC report critical of the Russian state owned TV and how it has censored recent anti-Govt protests. The BBC report also critically highlighted the state owned Russian TV propagada.

    Can anyone spot the hypocrisy?
    There's a xmas hamper in it for you if you get it right.

  • Comment number 37.

    Sasha Clarkson wrote "..and 1/6 are on some kind of power trip. Some of the latter are quite likely to have accelerated promotion, because they can blag interviews."

    Especially New Labour's "Little Red Guards ("Future Leaders") promising to "revolutionise" Public Sector education with snake-oil. I don't know how they get away with it other than to suggest that our population has well passed its "tipping point". The consequence of this is that decent, level headed and honest/realistic experienced teachers are "perceived" to be lack-lustre and uninspiring etc and passed over :-(

    http://www.future-leaders.org.uk/

    Sadly, it's just another example of this and decades of bad higher education which sold nonsense not grounded in sound evidence.:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2070848/Strictly-Come-Dancing-2011-BBC-viewers-complain-stage-managed-cheering.html

    Now, anyone who says it as it is will be seen as depressing, depressed or too critical etc, and so will be booed. It is highly destructive, but that's where a feminised society based on appearance, cosmetics, make-overs and image-management inevitably goes. Down the pan.

  • Comment number 38.

    Sasha Clarkson wrote "Now I accept that there are indeed some incorrigibly maladjusted individuals whose presence in this world is to be regretted. But they exist in all walks of life and in all strata of society."

    Yes, and in all nations, but the critically important point (which is NOT obvious) to recognise here is that they are not EQUALLY distributed, and that one only ever accepts the NULL HYPOTHESIS as a starting position in order to test and reject it based on observed frequencies being at odds with prior expectations.

    That there ARE differences in prevalence rates is a function of gene-barriers having been at work for a long time, centuries. Some of these barriers were and still are geographic which facilitated unseen endogamy, some were religious, shaping endogamy. One example is the higher rate of sensory SEN disorders seen in South Asian Muslim families, another is the high rate of breast cancer due to BRCA1 and
    BRCA2 genes in the Ashkenazi and endogamy, another is the high rate of Prostate caner due to CAGn repeats in Black Caribbean males. The list goes on and on. What we call the higher disruptive behaviours (BESD) in some groups in our schools could be partly explained by non adaptability to the specific environment, e.g trying to encourage young Black Males to improve their verbal behaviour skills when these are essentially a universal FEMALE genetic disposition. Trying to make people do what they are not genetically designed to do just makes them angry, frustrated, upset and failures. Good behaviour management is all about sound assessment of what people can naturally do and then appositely placing them where they can do what they are best designed to do by their inheritance, not assuming that we all are equal and then deciding that those who aren't just don't "try" hard enough etc. A lot of people seem have made the mistake of believing that the Null Hypothesis is metaphysically true, and that is because they don't understand probability, statistics and the relationship to genetics and demography.

    Most of our education system is thus radically misguided if not subversive as a consequence. It wasn't so before the 60s. At one time it was much better informed by research, and then came Libertarian sociology and modern "psychology" which masqueraded as LEFTIST. Pointing this out today is very unpopular given that so many have invested so much in rhetoric to "get on" - cf Future Leaders etc.

  • Comment number 39.

    @33 Dear mods, the link has been posted many times before on this and other blogs over the last 18 months.

    Do not be afraid of the evil empire: it has bigger fish to fry! ;-)

  • Comment number 40.

    barriesingleton wrote: "My concern is fraud, deliberately configured to benefit - primarily - an ordinary citizen; vis: deception of the general public (numbered in thousands) to gain employment, and/or advancement of personal status and influence. "

    As pointed out before, the fact is that one can't assert that an act is an instance of fraud unless it has been legally judged to be so, and in the absence of that one can only make an ALLEGATION of fraud and then take it to court.

    In one of your postings on this matter (the LiIAR FLYER) you provided a response from an MP which, as I recall, effectively said that it wasn't fraud because we ended up with a COALITION Government so not all manifesto pledges COULD be honoured as neither party in the coalition had a mandate. You seemed to just disregard this, much as you disregard many other helpful suggestions which seem reasonable to others. Instead, you seem to want to have YOUR own way. Is that fair comment even if an unwelcome one? Or will you try not to comment as usual because that risks popping your bubble? This is not a defence of our current political system just of rationality and a criticism of an epidemic of self-centredness which logically can't be sound any more than independence can given that it is part of the solipsistic fallacy (see Wittgenstein, "Private Language Argument" and the history of modern logic, computing, automation etc). If one lets this go, one lets anarchism reign, one may even encourage poor mental health etc. It is helpful criticism, not malevolent.

  • Comment number 41.

    brown-dogg @ 27

    The ECB is notionally independent in much the same way that the BoE is independent. That means that if enough pressure is bought to bear by interested parties then these institutions will bend accordingly. Which is, IMHO, pretty much what is happening now.

    This blogger is insanely relaxed about the Germans effectively running things in the eurozone. Look, if the Poles are telling the Germans to show leadership then that is good enoiugh for me.

    Pretty soon a Panzerfaust (a much better bit of kit than a Bazooka, as demonstrated by the US 82nd who used captured Panzerfausts in preference to Bazookas at Arnhem) will be bought to bear on the markets and the long sought stability will hopefully begin to appear.

    Meanwhile, in todays Times, 'Dave' warbles on ineffectively about defending this, protecting that, not surrending the other.

    All bluster.

    The single market works best with the default single market currency, the Euro, which is why even during the current crisis, countries such as Poland are still planning to join the eurozone.

    We in England will rue the day that our politicians (actually we don't have any specific politicians batting for England, unlike Scotland and Wales - but we'll let that go for now) were so half-hearted (in public) about supporting our fellow Europeans in the Eurozone during this crisis.

  • Comment number 42.

    PS. On a lighter note, Austrian School, Chicago School?

    I'm with the Dolphin School - so long and thanks for all the fish.

  • Comment number 43.

    PPS. And the answer (above) is 42.

  • Comment number 44.

    Back in the dismal post credit CRUNCH economic world, does anyone know how much of this slump in sales is due to people no longer being able to buy luxury goods on credit because they can no longer get the easy terms loans which they did during the booms years (during which, presumably, a good proportion of these were sub-prime liars loans which were securitised, bundled up, and insured by Credit Default Swaps further up the retail banking feeding chain?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16065051

    If the answer is "a very high proportion", what are politicians doing in their drive to encourage consumer spending and the banks to lend other than inciting people to do the impossible and irresponsible? If they use money from Public Sector pension funds and sell off other state assets (which they are supposed to be trustees of) in order to directly or indirectly promote consumer spending,. what are they doing, does it even bear thinking about (i.e is it just going so upsetting that one just switches off and watches a game-show or sport instead for comfort?). Is not Libertarian wealth and success as illusory as reality TV and game shows?

  • Comment number 45.

    On Syria -it's worth reading this BBC article, asking what the USA and NATO wants other than regime change (which is illegal), as it seems that Asad is damned if he does exert authority and damned if he doesn't.

    Is this not why there's so much volatility and hostility brewing across the globe towards the USA, UK, and Europe? The population of Pakistan alone is three times our English population, and we're now alienating them too by association with NATO. India is already a BRIC member, Pakistan wants to join the SCO, and South America and the Caribbean have just formed a bloc which doesn't include the USA.

    "US State Department spokesman Mark Toner condemned the Syrian president's position.

    "I find it ludicrous that he is attempting to hide behind some sort of shell game [and] claim that he doesn't exercise authority in his own country," he said.

    "There's just no indication that he's doing anything other than cracking down in the most brutal fashion on a peaceful opposition movement."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16065131

    The truth is that If OUR criminal gangs had weapons and even threatened to fire them, our police would shoot them, just like the Syrians do.
    There can be no doubt that would happen here on a larger scale if criminals roved the streets with AK-47s etc, so why is Asad being painted the villain other than to pursue ILLEGAL regime-change? What's to stop aggrieved foreign powers fomenting the same behaviour here in Britain and the rest of Europe if this behaviour is seen to be encouraged abroad by our politicians?

    Is it any surprise that China and Russia issued a clear warning to NATO over Syria? The small election protests in Russia no doubt be described as Western inspired, which won't help matters. A small hours BBC programme on education in Syria recently had the staff referring to each other as 'comrade'. How did it ever come pass that systems which esteem working WITH each other rather than for one's own interests at the expense of others, became the bad guys which must be subjected to regime-change?

    This subversion will, however, no doubt increase stock-market volatility, which is probably very good for the Libertarian system and those well placed to benefit from market volatility (i.e those with lots of other people's money to gamble). For the innocent, non pathological rest, it's just a system which breeds misery, as there's no escaping the perpetrators it seems. :-(.

  • Comment number 46.

    kevseywevsey wrote: "I've just watched a BBC report critical of the Russian state owned TV and how it has censored recent anti-Govt protests. The BBC report also critically highlighted the state owned Russian TV propagada.

    Can anyone spot the hypocrisy?"

    Glad you said that, I'd read t he same and it inspired me to look into the history of the OSCE.

    Does any of this sound at all familiar? It's all a bit "tiring"...

    “These elections were like a game in which only some players are allowed on the pitch, and then the field is tilted in favour of one of the players. Although the choice was limited and the competition lacked fairness, voters were able to come out and have their voices heard,”

    http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/85753

    What CHOICE do any of US have here?

  • Comment number 47.

    36. At 13:32 7th Dec 2011, kevseywevsey
    Can anyone spot the hypocrisy?


    Often it's more like proving a negative, but in this case what has been spun up in the edit suite is evident for all to see, if still hard to compare with what often doesn't make it to our screens.

    In this case, it must be the right sort of propaganda.

    Otherwise, it can all be sorted in post. Plus getting the necessary guests in pronto.

    As they say each week on Newswatch, 'We think we are getting it about right'.

  • Comment number 48.

    35. At 13:22 7th Dec 2011, brown-dog wrote:

    "As these tend to be little more than sink-holes for frustration"
    ++

    How can that be as what I am suggesting has never been tried?

    i.e. an accessible & helpful face to govt - a couple of times I've tried to see my local MP & each time was met by their 'researcher' with apologies from the MP concerned

    IMO & IME - There is not & has never been an accessible, friendly conversational 'face' to/of 'govt' - at least one that isn't patronising or based on particular services - receptionists saying 'hello' & commenting on the weather do not count.

    This is important as can make the big society work - the glue that can hold it togther and make a somewhat 'airy fairy notion' very effective & beneficial.

    BTW, Do you actually read all of what other people write before posting yourself?

  • Comment number 49.

    JohnConstable wrote: "The ECB is notionally independent in much the same way that the BoE is independent. That means that if enough pressure is bought to bear by interested parties then these institutions will bend accordingly. Which is, IMHO, pretty much what is happening now."

    "Bend" - you mean like Madoff "bent"? Just when is it not OK to "bend"
    the law? how the SEC and FSA "bent"?

    The point you appear to be constantly missing (on purpose?) is that the Bank of ENGLAND is the BRITISH Central Bank and is independent of an elected BRITISH Government (WHICH IS HALF THE PROBLEM). Each nation state has its NATIONAL Central Bank which controls its money supply,

    BUT THERE IS NO EUROPEAN NATION STATE NOR SHOULD THERE BE UNDER A LIBERTARIAN SYSTEM

    This is what was REJECTED in 2005, and it is not allowed by Lisbon Treaty either.

    If the ECB could issue Eurobonds etc it would effectively be able to control the economies and politics of all the member states, establishing de facto political union via fiscal union.

    This is what this is all about, and playing with words "talking about "£bending the rules" is how corrupt politicians, lawyers and criminals behave. It makes rule of law a joke. The ECB has no democratic mandate.
    To do what you say would be an ipso facto coup..

    The risk is to repeat the hyperinflation we saw in Germany in the 1920s, which was the way some venal people bought up assets at rock bottom. The rest is history. If you watched Irwin Stelzer on Newsnight a while back you would have heard him say that push come to shove they would just PRINT MORE MONEY.

    Some don't understand the difference between plausible people who have the gift of urbanely sounding sane whilst not, and those who actually talk like engineers and know how the world actually is, what can be done, and what must not be done. To create an ECB would be to create something with twice the size of the Federal Reserve and look at the mess that that got the USA into.. The advantage of many banks is fault tolerance however inconvenient that may seem.

  • Comment number 50.

    nautonier wrote: "How can that be as what I am suggesting has never been tried?"

    Because it has been "tried" and when these "consultations" have been done and go contrary to what the Government wants they are just ignored.
    I'm not just talking about "petitions", I'm talking about major changes in Government where "stakeholders" are allegedly consulted. In one instance over 90% were opposed and it went ahead anyway.

    There is a ratio of about 100,000 in terms of MPs to population. Even if you express it as a proportion of working age it is 1:50,000. The way REPRESENTATIVE democracy works is you vote every 5 years and you give them a mandate to do pretty much what THEY want within the law.

    "i.e. an accessible & helpful face to govt - a couple of times I've tried to see my local MP & each time was met by their 'researcher' with apologies from the MP concerned"

    This is like parents who go to schools and DEMAND that the entire school does what they want for THEIR child when the child is one of a 1000. It is also how people lower down the line-management structure DEMAND their senior managers have time for them when the ratio makes it impossible to everywhere at once.

    Yes I do read other people's posts, but I am making an important point about what CAN be done in the real world, not what can be done in the la-la land of mentalism.

    What one can imagine is unlimited. Hollywood exploits this to great gain. So do politicians. Most of what these people say to the public is just PR.

    You may not see why, and you may not like being told this, but most people are very SELF-centred like kids. They say they don't see this, they say they can't see why that is so etc, but they never seem to listen to the explanations given, as they just want what they want, regardless of anyone else or what is possible..

    Saying this does not mean that I approve of it, it is just how life is.
    You keep missing that point because you don't discriminate between personal opinion and matters of fact. Some people refer to how the world is, even though they don't like it. Some just talk about what they like or would like. They really are like kids. higher Education USED TO tend to knock the kid out of one. It used to be no fun. Today it is something else.

  • Comment number 51.

    brown-dog @ 49

    Establishing de facto political union via fiscal union in the eurozone is precisely what Merkozy are about, although in Jack Straws infamous words 'they need time to shape their public' and time is a rather short commodity just now.

    Nevertheless, as the alternative is total chaos, both within and without the eurozone, then it will be done and hopefuly the EU Parliament and its MEP's will correspondingly grow some sharp teeth.

    Binary logic, black or white, lawful or unlawful, is not actually very helpful for politics in the real world, where there are almost infinite shades of grey.

    Bernie made off with the money and the job of the eurozone politicians (Merkozy et al) and ECB policymakers is to ensure that the PIIGS are never again allowed to do likewise.

  • Comment number 52.

    50.
    At 16:40 7th Dec 2011, brown-dog wrote:


    nautonier wrote: "How can that be as what I am suggesting has never been tried?"

    Because it has been "tried" and when these "consultations" have been done and go contrary to what the Government wants they are just ignored.

    ++

    No it hasn't been tried - you're completely on the wrong track - what I am suggesting is something 'new' & not fudged partial consultations - I'm talking about something entirely different

  • Comment number 53.

    JohnConstable wrote: "Establishing de facto political union via fiscal union in the eurozone is precisely what Merkozy are about, although in Jack Straws infamous words 'they need time to shape their public' and time is a rather short commodity just now."

    It may be what they are "all about" as agents of some in the USA. in this development of the Marshall Plan but what does that justify? In the future some of these states may be better off joining the CIS or SCO as they were before.

    "Nevertheless, as the alternative is total chaos, both within and without the eurozone, then it will be done and hopefuly the EU Parliament and its MEP's will correspondingly grow some sharp teeth."

    Then tell us why there was not "TOTAL CHAOS" in Europe before 1999 when all of these countries had their own currencies and there was no EURO?.

    Might your talk of TOTAL CHAOS just be propaganda to try to get your own way? A bit like a parent saying........unless you eat your greens.

    People need to wake up to this. It is obvious fear-mongering. It is an effort to create a superstate through the back-door, and through BULLYING.

    ASK THIS:- IF THESE PEOPLE WILL DO THIS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT, WHAT ELSE WILL THEY DO ONCE THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT?

    Laws don't matter to such people - it's classic Axis II Cluster B. Allow this and it's the thin edge of the wedge. These types flock to this type of work and other opportunities to perform. What you need to fear are those pulling the strings or the system within which they pull the strings which is even more insidious, as they are just part of a machine which really has no soul/conscience.

    Take this very seriously. Most people don't get this as it's THE SYSTEM not the people.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INu7AH8dJ0o.

  • Comment number 54.

    JohnConstable wrote ""Binary logic, black or white, lawful or unlawful, is not actually very helpful for politics in the real world, where there are almost infinite shades of grey"

    An example of how people write nonsense with non shame. Try telling that to any competent engineer (electronic, mechanical, civil) - doctor, airline pilots, train driver, or anyone else who really DOES have to work in the "real world" and do so accountably (even accountants and bankers) instead of the PR spinners and other "creative "types that we call "politicians" etc.

    YOU ARE WRONG. It's people who talk, and behave, as you describe, who create nearly all the problems for everyone else in our society, as for them, no rules apply. They change as, and whenever it suits, just to get what they want. That is WHY we are in this mess. Madoff and others did what they did because Greenspan, following Ayn Rand, along with Ruben, Summers (why all the same extended family?) and many others, de-regulated in pursuit of Libertarian, Chicago/Austrian School "economic" philosophy. The problem is they all sound good, like Hollywood scripts do. They appeal, but they are long-term unworkable given human genetic diversity. The make assumptions which are empirically false and you don't see that. In fact, you appear to have been taught to value what LOOKS good, not what works. It has been part of the "entitlement culture" of getting on - and it is everywhere.

    Unless that is changed, we will very probably end up like Germany did in the 1920s. Today, as I understand it, Germany is pretty much constitutionally bound to behave as Wall Street and Washington dictates, so much that we see from Merkel and Sarkozy etc is probably just seductive theatrics to "Nudge" people down "The Primrose Path" (look those two Behavioural Economics terms up).

  • Comment number 55.

    nautonier wrote: "No it hasn't been tried - you're completely on the wrong track - what I am suggesting is something 'new' & not fudged partial consultations - I'm talking about something entirely different"

    It may not be what you "had in mind", but does that make what I wrote "wrong" (empirically false). It is not false because it does not match what you believe would work.

    This is all part of the more general point about the "Hollywood myth"
    which has been peddled in the Libertarian world, i.e where psychological reality takes precedence over physical reality. Where it is said that "perception is reality". It most certainly is not. Most perceptions are in error because they are not based on enough evidence (many visual illusions are 2D and break down if you can move about and see more). The myths are PR propaganda and are the stuff of movies and madness. These last two are linked. Watch some movies to se how. Dealing with the people who peddle Hollywood myths is a bit like dealing wit the psychotic. I's just that the Hollywood type shave sustainable jobs and get paid well. There is a place for all. The media attracts performers (professional "liars" - deceivers). Lots of them really do have psychiatric problems, as a little burrowing will persuade you if you aren't already.

  • Comment number 56.

    brown-dog @ 53,54

    A sense of perspective is useful i.e. this is an obscure blog forum for a tiny minority of the viewers of a late night BBC programme, therefore pretty much anything we write on this forum is going to have zero impact - we are almost politically useless and it is also a bit silly of you to suggest that I am attempting to bully anybody on this forum.

    Anyway, total chaos if the eurozone unravels is not my exculsive insight, many professional commentators have said as much and it is not very realistic to compare the pre-euro situation, where there was an amazingly successful transition into the euro from the previous national currencies with an uncontrollable breakup of the eurozone.

    I suggested that there were many shades of grey in politics and I did not say that that applied to any other fields.

    A black day for brown-dog?

 

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.