Log in with Username:
    kong@yahoo.com
Password:
    Kong@1

www.bugmenot.com is a handy resource to try and find logins.

No account needed, just close the window that opens asking you to.

The Royals have got years of experience of controlling the press, they could have pushed back but seemed to leave them to the wolves.

Anyway, for something completely different - a long complicated article, but a very interesting one on artificial hearts....

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/08/how-to-build-an-artificial-heart?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Meghan interview.

I know we're going to fall into different camps about this and that's fine, I love it when people put their view forward without it having to be an argument. (Well I know it is technically an argument but not a biting and gouging one)

These are the questions that occur to me.

If the Sussex's are so concerned about their privacy, why would they choose to air their dirty washing on a talk show?

If someone in the royal family asked how dark the baby's skin might be, why would she tell us that and then not name the person? That way she accuses everyone and robs everyone of the right to defend themselves at the same time. If she is such a committed black-rights activist, why leave this vile racist un-outed?

Has anyone considered the possibility that she might not be telling the truth?

Surely they are degrees of racism, and this is just some casual racism and not worthy of really outing?  I think Piers accused them of calling the Royal Family White Supremacists or similar nonsense this morning.  They didn't at all.  Then again he keeps writing that they were talking whilst Prince Philip is in hospital when he knows it was pre recorded, so guess the truth isn't his main concern. 

Interesting that you and Piers are still having a go at just Meghan, when Harry was the witness and I read he verified it was true later in the interview.  I'd be pretty surprised if the two of them hadn't agreed on the line on this one knowing that Meghan would mention it.  Surely the responsibility for the revelation, and the perceived lie, is at least on both of them?   I am not expecting you and Piers to have agreed a line on this.

The privacy thing is a delicate balance, just because we all are willing to speak in public doesn't mean we are happy with the press using long lenses to capture pictures of us in our undercracks for the front page.   Nor does it give the press the right to flat out just make things up about our thoughts and intentions.

I hate the phrase, "You and Piers. Lol.

I think she is a scheming narcissist and Harry is mentally damaged and easily led. I think he is totally in the wrong too, but not as culpable as her because he's not that bright.

She was obsessed with Princess Di, so I'm not believing she didn't know what she was getting her self into.

Very harsh Red. Don't get me wrong, I'd abolish the whole institution and try to ignore them where I can, but it's pretty clear the press haven't left them alone since they left. At some point you've got to try and get your side out. Diana tried but had very little backing Harry's had the sense to find a different establishment to go to since he's decided to take a stand against this one. 

The whole "bullying allegations" suddenly being investigated, the public 'sacking' etc shows they're in a fight now. They have a choice, step back and hope it blows over (which it's never looked like doing) or fight back.

Personally for me the bigger story is that the Queen was alleged to have lobbied to block laws that would make her revel the extent of her shareholdings. A sudden 'war' with Harry and Megan fairly helps take focus away from her interfering in the governance of the country. Laws were passed to stop Charles' interference being found through freedom of information requests as well.

I quite liked this twitter comment on the questioning of Nicola Sturgeon today. A lot of mud being thrown hoping something sticks...

"My impression from this morning's session is that Sturgeon is being accused of being too quick and too slow, intervened too much and too little, was indifferent but also overzealous, and tried to hush the story up, as well as leaked stories about it.

Does this roughly cover it?"

Ooer!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56259056

What we've come to expect from opposition in Scotland, and the BBC.

Aside from declaring someone guilty before they've even taken the stand, the 'crime' is a self-reported potential breach of ministerial code, which has Douglas Ross demanding resignation when the Cabinet of his party is full of worse offences up to and including breaking laws without even an apology, and a national broadcaster who are intent on ignoring the crimes of one Government and magnifying and lyingthem on the other.

It's very clear that the SNP are in line to win a majority in May (something very difficult to do with the D'Hondt system of election) and every dirty trick is being played to try and stop it.

Douglas Ross btw was the delightful specimen who, when asked what he'd do if Prime Minister for the day, replied 'I would like to see tougher enforcement against Gypsy travellers'.

Hi Rod.  

All that has happened here is that the SNP/Scottish Government/civil service might not have followed the correct process.  Salmond is likely not entirely innocent, but to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar.  And he seems to have been involved in some shady behaviour in trying to name victims of his alleged behaviour.  The people of Scotland seem to be mostly taking Sturgeon over Salmond on this one.

Is that a fair summary?

Alex Salmond seems to be coming out of this richer in cash terms, but maybe not so rich in the reputation department.  

Pretty fair, although I'm not sure he's tried to name victims/accusers, some of the redacted stuff was the location of an office etc which could have been used to work out the person.

The Unionists are taking the chance to make the most of every claim Salmond has made before Sturgeon gets her say. Trying to build up a groundswell of belief in case the committee finds she didn't do much wrong.  She did mislead parliament but claims it was a mistake & that she has a lot of meetings to remember.

Alex Salmond is finished, those backing him now (apart from a fairly small conservative (small c) group in the party) are those who were desperate for him to have been found guilty when he was the accused. They'll drop him like a stone whatever the result.

I'm not convinced he'll even be richer. I genuinely think he's trying to bring everyone down with him for vanity reasons.

Ooer!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56259056

What we've come to expect from opposition in Scotland, and the BBC.

Aside from declaring someone guilty before they've even taken the stand, the 'crime' is a self-reported potential breach of ministerial code, which has Douglas Ross demanding resignation when the Cabinet of his party is full of worse offences up to and including breaking laws without even an apology, and a national broadcaster who are intent on ignoring the crimes of one Government and magnifying and lyingthem on the other.

It's very clear that the SNP are in line to win a majority in May (something very difficult to do with the D'Hondt system of election) and every dirty trick is being played to try and stop it.

Douglas Ross btw was the delightful specimen who, when asked what he'd do if Prime Minister for the day, replied 'I would like to see tougher enforcement against Gypsy travellers'.

I used to strip starter-motors for the copper content, I've done thousands of them. Bit this bloke re-wiring one with primitive tools has blown me away.



https://youtu.be/57M_c6M1c0o

That was impressive.

My mate's a mechanic & was talking about it with him this morning & he wishes more modern cars could be worked on in a similar way. I've one of diagnostic machines home to try and do a software update for him because even simple jobs are needing computer interfaces now.

Thanks Rod.

I was going to say I've always loved law but when I stop to think about it the law is often stupid. I think what I really love is the way people interpret the law and how they manipulate the English (or Scottish) language to do so.

I do love court cases though.

I think I'm even starting to love politics, I just wish they would just conduct things in a less childsh fashion.

Will there be another Scottish independence referendum and could an independent Scotland work?


I do have a vested interest BTW, this is John McCready, my great great grandfather on my father's side.

Click to see full-size image.

i feel it's inevitable - the only age group with a majority against it is the over 65's. I think it's really close when I see the furore over the Salmond/Sturgeon thing. Compared to recent faux pas from Westminster with actual law breaking being pretty much ignored, the attention to an inquiry into lying speaks of dirty tricks. The stream of 'One Party State' and too poor, too wee news and comment which is rising again makes me think it might be closer than I'd hoped.

I have no doubt there would be some teething troubles but Scotland would manage fine independently we're a rich nation resource wise, just not good at keeping the income in our hands, that would need to change if we had control of our own policy.

For those of you what likes listening to fings, you can hear some interesting coverage of Alex Salmon's trial and get some help with the peculiarities of Scottish law here.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p0864016

Be careful of trusting the BBC on this. Their Scotland Editor Sarah Smith (daughter of Labour leader John Smith) is already under fire for completely misrepresenting (lying about) what Salmond said. She's previous for this, tell lies on the TV apologise through Twitter.

The whole of Alex Salmond's evidence to the committee is available on BBC iPlayer.  (Search Alex Salmond)

I'll tell you what, he's bloody good.

He's good, a talented orator, but it's a bit of a tell that he insisted on his evidence being published as part of the case before he'd agree to appear in front of the committee, giving him parliamentary privilege and not running the risk of a defamation  of character suit....

I'm struggling to understand why evidence that is in the public domain has been redacted.

My understanding is the evidence could have been used to identify one or more of the women who accused him of varying degrees of sexual assault. Under the law their identities are to be protected (indeed there's one man in jail & another trying to avoid the same for contempt of court because they have published names). Since this hearing is a committee not a court the court rules have precedence. If it was  a court hearing of course the redacted evidence would be held in camera.

I find a resemblance in this with the famous (in Scotland at least) case of Tommy Sheridan, another brilliant orator, who seemed to expect party loyalty to be personal loyalty, and hit back trying to take them all down with him, when others refused to tell lies or cover up for them.

They should maybe change the saying to Hell hath no fury like an ageing prima-donna politician scorned. I think we'll see further evidence of that with Trump, and I'd put money on it happening with Boris de Pfeffel Johnson when he eventually takes it too far.


Tommy Sheridan:

Oor Tommy was jailed for protesting the Poll Tax & took the Scottish Socialist Party from the far fringes of politics to actually contesting seats.

The News of the World did a hatchet piece about Tommy shagging all over the place. Tommy took them to court for defamation (the same as suing for libel in England) and won £200,000.

Then the NotW got evidence that Tommy had told lies during the case. Tommy, being unpopular with the establishment, was soon facing a perjury trial. Found guilty and banged up again for 3 years of which he was inside for 1.

The NotW then came under investigation for planting bugs (starting with a bug identified in Tommy's car), phone hacking and perjury. Andy Coulson the Editor was charged with perjury but later acquitted.

Finally, the NotW appealed the damages awarded to Tommy, but lost.

I've chatted about the case with Colin Fox (current co-convenor of the SSP) and it knocked the party into a real tailspin, and Sheridan's actions in court were devastating to some of the colleagues he attacked.





 

What a complex man you are Rod, and I mean that as a compliment.

Rarely have I seen one individual with such a broad range of knowledge, interests and opinions.

I always enjoy your input.

Thanks Red, I usually describe it as a head full of useless shite .

In all seriousness I read  a lot, going by my kindle records I'm on about 250-300 books a year, then add in magazines, googling rabbit holes, this forum, other forums. I then manage to retain just enough to be able to make a decent guess which helps narrow down a google search.

Vickers K, the end is a flash suppressor. It doesn't look like it would be too effective but the Vickers was a repurposed aircraft machine gun, so the flash suppression stopping anything burning the plane it was designed to be shot out of could explain it.

The far away gun is a Browning .50 Aircraft Pattern - another aircraft gun repurposed for the LRDG/SAS - one of those on a jeep was considered capable of taking on a light tank due to the half inch wide bullets and the manoeuvrability of the jeep.

I would be wanting the jerry cans in front to be water at least - bugger driving into battle with fuel cans on the bonnet and no windscreen.....

The whole of Alex Salmond's evidence to the committee is available on BBC iPlayer.  (Search Alex Salmond)

I'll tell you what, he's bloody good.

He's good, a talented orator, but it's a bit of a tell that he insisted on his evidence being published as part of the case before he'd agree to appear in front of the committee, giving him parliamentary privilege and not running the risk of a defamation  of character suit....

Now I understand.

You've started me down a rabbit hole now though. The Glenfinnan Viaduct (of Harry Potter film fame) doesn't have the blocks sticking out... how did they build it then?

Click to see full-size image.