"The Iraq War is part of a Zionist plan which targets the establishment of the Greater State of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates"
― Dom Passantino, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:05 (eighteen years ago)
I always felt the same way, Jamie, when I was very vaguely involved in such things. But perhaps others who are still practically, politically involved now feel differently.
xpost
Ed is correct (to imply) that it ought to be OK for Tories, liberals, whoever to be part of a stop-the-war movement, without any other agenda being part of the deal. Such a movement, I think, needs to be single-issue in some strong sense.
I admit this is all a big digression.
― the pinefox, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:05 (eighteen years ago)
I agree, and the SWP did their best to drive people away.
― Ed, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:09 (eighteen years ago)
I'm renowned on these pages for my "lefty-bashing"
― Tom D., Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:09 (eighteen years ago)
I've seen you at it, behind the pub ;-)
― Ed, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:12 (eighteen years ago)
quite hard to hit the back of your own head though.
I'm a Self-Hating Non-Jew
― Tom D., Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:13 (eighteen years ago)
amen
― banriquit, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:13 (eighteen years ago)
caek, the page you link to contains this sentence:
"Respect 'Coalition', which is the electoral front for the Socialist Workers' Party, and the BNP"
makes me kind of question everything else there
― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:15 (eighteen years ago)
I don't really have an opinion on that page, as I don't know what I'm talking about (heard of the Left List this morning), but I suspect the comma between SWP and BNP is crucial.
The guy is very easy to disagree with and has a particularly objectionable tone (think a Blairite Simon Heffer), but he's often on telly and I'd be staggered if he thought the BNP and SWP were connected in some organizational way.
― caek, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 17:51 (eighteen years ago)
lol at me saying "he is often on telly" as though that makes him intelligent. Excuse me.
the quotes from the musician guy are legit so far as i can tell (citing wiki lol).
― banriquit, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 17:58 (eighteen years ago)
i remember that Harry's Place thing had some beef with that gilad atzmon guy mentioned in the link
― DG, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 17:58 (eighteen years ago)
Personally, I hate the vulgar multi-cultured metropolis which Ken has helped to create
― James Mitchell, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 08:37 (eighteen years ago)
I think he might be giving Ken a bit too much credit there.
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 08:40 (eighteen years ago)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/30/pressandpublishing.london08
^^ interesting, though naturally decca aitkenhead is fathoms out of her depth.
― banriquit, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 08:48 (eighteen years ago)
i've come around to the idea of voting to ken, because having ken as mayor under a cameron government will be wtflol to the max.
― banriquit, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 08:50 (eighteen years ago)
"A lot of people say you can't support a Tory because you're a progressive," he says. "Well, actually, in some respects the Tories are more progressive than Labour now. It comes down to this idea of what's progressive. Under New Labour, the Labour party has forfeited progressiveness. It's doing things like starting wars and imposing ID cards and locking people up for six weeks without trial."
YEAH BECAUSE THEY HAD NO SUPPORT FROM THE TORIES FOR THOSE THINGS YOU DICKMUNCH
― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 08:55 (eighteen years ago)
having ken as mayor under a cameron government will be wtflol to the max.
However having Boris as mayor under a Cameron government:
http://www.mimifroufrou.com/scentedsalamander/i/Anschluss_tears.jpg
― Tom D., Wednesday, 30 April 2008 08:58 (eighteen years ago)
I've just read Decca A's interview with Gilligan. I don't respect her much, normally, but I don't see much wrong with the job she's done here.
I think that piece is quite shocking. Perhaps one should not be shocked by anything nowadays, or by the conduct of the Standard. But I think it is the brazen openness with which the most prominent and influential (?) journalist in this campaign admits that, in reporting (not merely 'Comment'), he is following a personal agenda of grievance and hatred. If a Guardian journalist (nb I mean someone who seeks out facts, not a columnist / pundit -- some of them do still exist) admitted to that in relation to anyone (BJ, Cameron, Brown, McCain, Clinton, whoever), there would be a furore - this would not be regarded as proper journalism. A newspaper should not be the platform for a reporter to play out his personal grudges and grievances. For this to be so openly admitted really ... well, it really surprises me. Am I going to be alone in this country in feeling this way?
― the pinefox, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:21 (eighteen years ago)
you're certainly quite naive.
― banriquit, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:30 (eighteen years ago)
when the guardian was pursuing jonathan aitken, how was that not openly partisan?
Aitken = a criminal. Ken isn't.
― Tom D., Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:33 (eighteen years ago)
It's hardly the same thing! (xpost)
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:34 (eighteen years ago)
You are not alone, but it may be just the two of us. Gilligan is a odious cunt. xpost
hmm, Jonathon Aitken turned out to be a criminal.
― Ed, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:35 (eighteen years ago)
In what way is Andrew Gilligan a "lefty"? Because of the David Kelly thing? I thought he was seriously being considered as a Tory candidate for something or other?
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:37 (eighteen years ago)
I agree that the piece is shocking. I don't know wether the guy is a hateful cunt, or a pathetic patsy, probably a bit of both I suppose. The guy is openly admitting that he's running a smear campaign against Livingstone, in any sane world he'd be sacked on the spot for this. This story should be bigger news than it is.
― Pashmina, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:40 (eighteen years ago)
I'm sure Gilligan's still very happy about building a nice little career for himself on the back of a man he helped kill.
― Dingbod Kesterson, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:40 (eighteen years ago)
Why on earth would he be sacked?!
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:41 (eighteen years ago)
I mean, he is essentially gleefully going about doing his paymaster's bidding.
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:42 (eighteen years ago)
i'm not talking about the nature of the offence -- assuming handing out public funds to your friends isn't a criminal offence -- but the nature of the press campaign. when have newspapers ever been nonpartisan? well into the last century a large number of them were directly party-controlled, or, like the times, as near as damn it.
i think gilligan is somewhat -- a shitload -- less culpable for kelly's death than campbell and blair. i don't think he's a great guy, but the idea that what he did = opposition to labour = toryism, can fuck right off.
― banriquit, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:43 (eighteen years ago)
We're talking about what's he's doing NOW = Toryism, Enrique.
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:44 (eighteen years ago)
I mean in what universe did anyone claim opposition to the war = Toryism?
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:45 (eighteen years ago)
Lot of Countryside Alliance dudes on the original anti-War marches, Matt.
― Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:46 (eighteen years ago)
Alan Clark RIP and "we should just have left the Germans to get on with it" to thread.
― Dingbod Kesterson, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:46 (eighteen years ago)
Aggrieved at waste of ammunition better used on foxes, badgers, dogs, escaped coypu etc.
― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:47 (eighteen years ago)
Dom, fair enough, but no one here ever claimed that opposition to the war, or opposition to the case for going to war, was de facto a Tory thing.
Meanwhile this bit is hilarious.
"My relationship with Boris is not that close, I promise. I've never been to his house, I've never had a non-professional relationship with him. In journalism you know lots of people whom you never see outside of work. And that's basically how it is with Bozza."
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:47 (eighteen years ago)
yeah that's one thing, but decca aitkenhead links the two, and i think that's indefensible.
-- Matt DC, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:45 AM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Link
aitkenhead goes there:
For a journalist who swears by the impartiality of his investigations, it is interesting that he finds himself once again locked in mortal combat with a senior Labour politician. "This is just me, doing my job," he insists.
Is he sure it has nothing to do with revenge, I wonder? "What would I take revenge on Ken Livingstone for?" he says, and I'm not sure why he looks baffled. As he says himself, he considers the mayoral election a "surrogate" for national politics - and after Hutton, he would have good reason to feel vengeful towards the party that cost him so much. "That's not," he says, "the reason." For the only time during the interview, he looks properly annoyed.
― banriquit, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:47 (eighteen years ago)
It wasn't only the Guardian who went after Aitken, it was World In Action too, it wasn't a one-on-one thing like ES vs. KL. Also there was no concerted campaign by the Guardian against Aitken lasting years and years, they reported one story that Aitken objected to, not dozens of them.
― Tom D., Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:48 (eighteen years ago)
pointless poll
― Ed, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:50 (eighteen years ago)
lol rickroll
― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:51 (eighteen years ago)
raefroll morelike
― Dingbod Kesterson, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:52 (eighteen years ago)
Of course Gilligan's campaign is pro-Boris and pro-Tory, I don't see Brian Paddick getting much in the way of positive coverage in the Standard. He's either being disingenuous or flat-out lying to claim otherwise.
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:56 (eighteen years ago)
Ed's link points to a world of words I don't care for...
London midmorning: Footsie lacks direction
London's leading index is lacking any real direction as falling miners weigh against results-driven gains.
Falling miners?
― Ned Trifle II, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:56 (eighteen years ago)
Perhaps, in the interests of all things anti-Ken being equal, the Standard could provide a photo-opportunity plus puff piece for Sian Berry as well?
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:57 (eighteen years ago)
Barnbrook centrespread in today's edition I'm reliably told.
― Dingbod Kesterson, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:58 (eighteen years ago)
That is a shitty trick Aiktenhead pulls at the end though.
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:59 (eighteen years ago)
It might have been nice if Aitkenhead had done some research before the interview and actually confronted Gilligan with some of these facts, rather than pulling a bitchmove and doing it afterwards.
― Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 10:01 (eighteen years ago)
If Ken wins I'm going to send Gilligan a big bunch of flowers saying 'fuck you baldy'.
― Pete W, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 10:03 (eighteen years ago)
Pashmina + Ed: thank you - glad to know I am not alone on this.
― the pinefox, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 10:06 (eighteen years ago)