Jump to content
tanknet.org

Because The United Kingdom?


Recommended Posts

Well in truth, they always DID escape the consequences. The Spycatcher book relates there was even a Royal Mail room in the old MI5 headquarters with banks of steaming kettles to steam letters open. And nobody was found accountable for the Zinoviev letter, even when they investigated it some 80 years later. So why they feel the need to make their illegality legal to me I find difficult to understand. They have done fine without it for 100 years, why start now?

 

One more film of the Tallboy explosion, looks a bit bigger from ground level.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well in truth, they always DID escape the consequences. ... So why they feel the need to make their illegality legal to me I find difficult to understand. They have done fine without it for 100 years, why start now?

Either some staffer weenie got his panties in a knot about the remote possibility to be held accountable for stupid decisions, or more worryingly, they just want to massively ramp up their transgressions and apply for immunity first. Or some giant manure heap is on immediate collision course with an air impeller.

Either way, if this makes it through parliament you will see a massive growth of scandals in a few years down the line. It usually takes a while to make it into the news but eventually, it will. Even in Britain where the Government still has the power to censor newspaper stories. Which in itself is baffling to outsiders other than North Korea, Russia, Iran.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It nearly illustrates the difference between Britain and Europe. Britain as a regime can draw a line from the Tudors to the present day. Anyone that has studied the naughty tricks that were employed by England's first spymasters under Queen Elizabeth cant really be surprised that the same kind of mindset of being able to sidestep the states laws probably still exists on some level (it certainly did as far as rendition was concerned)

Its a difference in culture from Germany, when there has been several different regimes since that period, and much self examination and discussion since. You naturally mistrust Government organizations that go off and break the law. We are just like the Americans or the Russian's, its just one more layer on top of ancient regimes, doing such things is water off a ducks back.

Im more sanguine about it, I actually trust the security services to do the right thing. I think they need more oversight, but looking at the history of the cold war, they haven't done a bad job, and didnt really go in for the kind of state altering policies the left insist .

That isnt to say MI5 didnt consider bringing down Harold Wilson of course, but ultimately they didnt.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's potential for abuse, it happens. It's only a matter of when, and how much of it. Of course, if it happens rarely enough and the transgressions aren't very bad no sane person supporting a strong society would object to it.

But how sure can you be when most of it is kept under wraps and whatever spills over, the government can put a gag order on the press? How effective will oversight be, suppose it gets strengthened, when breaking the law will no longer be illegal for them? How effective will be the oversight if there isn't a free press breathing fire into the necks of the top executives?

Just look at the travesty that the FISA courts have become in the US where the FBI can submit false evidence and lie to the court about the quality of its source, leak selected info from the same source to the press to create additional "independent sources", the administration can then wiretap domestic political opposition, throw people wrongfully into jail, and get away with it with nary a slap on their wrists?

Do you design your society and procedures to depend almost exclusively on the good will and moral integrity of your government, or would you rather have it with checks and balances that make it a lot more difficult to repurpose the secret police into a tool of oppression, or a mob, as it happened with the FSB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, im not saying you are wrong, far from it, there is a lot in what you are saying. Im basically saying, this is the kind of thing that happens when you have Version 3.0 of Medieval Society. You wont understand this, but as a Brit, I find it strangely comforting, not frightening, that what we have is a development of an ancient society, rather than a complete rethink. Which perhaps goes some way to explain some of the basic incompatablity of Britain with the EU.

 

The Americans are the similar. They have this fantasy of a militia holding off enemies of the Republic, or even the Republic if it goes bad. The logic of that way of thinking has long since departed, but they remain wedded to it. Its a core principle. Because its the same society that laid down those principles.

I dont think there is anyone else in Europe who perhaps understands this way of thinking, other than perhaps Sweden, or maybe Poland. Everyone else has a major rethink every 50-70 years. We by and large do not.

Could MI6 or MI5 end up an analogue of the FSB? I dont think so. Yes, on one level there are absolutely no safeguards to that end. I think the mindset of the British upper middle class, compared to the Russian Oligarch class is very different, and that counts for something. British society was never brutalized in the way Russian society was. There are still rules here, even if they are opaque and sound bizarrely like Harry Potter World to outsides.

Is it still enough? I guess we will find out.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see an imminent danger. But consider forther radicalization in British domestic politics - after, say, a hard Brexit combined with less than stellar handling of a pandemic crashes the British economy. Mass lay-offs might combine with some unaccounted factor (a collpsing bubble in the house market maybe) that sends banks into a death spiral. Now, at some point some politicians will take advantage of such a development. That's just in their nature. And then you get, say, a hard left populist who manages to find some highly talented but otherwise completely amoral propagandist inventing some viral campaign, maybe involving dangerously attractive slogans painted on red buses or whatever. Such a populist movement might then further erode the power structure. Queen Elizabeth eventually turns out to be mortal, some additional scandals put the firm under more stress and who knows, maybe at some point monarchy may no longer find popular support. And then you have an apparatus with very few built-in resistance to be instrumentalized for a repressive role. Just to get rid of the toxic regressive reactionaries that hold Britain back from moving on to a new golden age, of course.

 

Not saying that this will happen, that it's inevitable, or anything. But the assumption that Britain would be completely immune to such change is one I find less convincing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Could MI6 or MI5 end up an analogue of the FSB? I dont think so. Yes, on one level there are absolutely no safeguards to that end. I think the mindset of the British upper middle class, compared to the Russian Oligarch class is very different, and that counts for something. British society was never brutalized in the way Russian society was. There are still rules here, even if they are opaque and sound bizarrely like Harry Potter World to outsides.

 

 

Aren't you always citing the use of the military to brutalize coal workers as an example of how things just aren't a certain way in the UK?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats whats known as cognitive dissonance. You know, the kind of thing you fellas do when you cheer Trump for giving you Socialist messaging (Bring the jobs back home, Tarrifs, no part of any alliance). :)

I quite agree my views on the UK are contradictory, absolutely. I dont like elites, I dont like unfairness, I dont like closed cliques of the privilaged. I loathe massive income inequality. And yet I can see the point of the Royal Family, largely because it means we avoid a Presidency. I dont defend it, Its just the two hemispheres of my brain that can reconcile wanting to the keep the UK as it is, whilst also wanting massive change. I loathe the idea of Brexit, at the same time as I delight in it annoying the French.

Its the same part of me that can hold Labour views like legislation to defend the poor, and believe like a true blue Tory we should be armed to the teeth like the Argentinians are still coming. I dont defend it. Its just the way my mind works.

There is something Oscar Wilde once said ive always been quite taken with. 'That is my position, take it or leave it, and if you dont like it I have others'.  :D

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Thats whats known as cognitive dissonance. You know, the kind of thing you fellas do when you cheer Trump for giving you Socialist messaging (Bring the jobs back home, Tarrifs, no part of any alliance). :)


 

Tariffs and bringing jobs back domestically are socialist messaging? Not being part of alliances is socialist messaging? WOT? 

Do you think ANYTHING the government does is socialist? Well, that's just wrong. 

Not getting involved in foreign conflicts is isolationist, technically it's the Jefferson school of foreign policy. 

Tariffs are just tax policy. Period. How do you think the US paid for much of it's federal budget before income tax? 

Domestic job encouragement, well, tht's just good old sticking up for you own country or depending on how you go about it, mercantilism. Is it protectionist, then probably mercantilism. 

None of that is socialist. Socialist is state ownership of the means of production. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rmgill said:

Tariffs and bringing jobs back domestically are socialist messaging? Not being part of alliances is socialist messaging? WOT? 

Do you think ANYTHING the government does is socialist? Well, that's just wrong. 

Not getting involved in foreign conflicts is isolationist, technically it's the Jefferson school of foreign policy. 

Tariffs are just tax policy. Period. How do you think the US paid for much of it's federal budget before income tax? 

Domestic job encouragement, well, tht's just good old sticking up for you own country or depending on how you go about it, mercantilism. Is it protectionist, then probably mercantilism. 

None of that is socialist. Socialist is state ownership of the means of production. 

 

Tell you what, lets look into the 1983 British election, and the manifesto of Labour. it includes,

Investment in national infrastructure, including transport.

Reducing unemployment. Bring the jobs back home.

Tariffs on imports to help industry.

Improved relations with Russia.

The disbandment of NATO.

Ending of unfair trade practices with other nations. (leaving the EEC)

 

http://labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1983/1983-labour-manifesto.shtml

Who was the man who came up with this manifesto? Michael Foot, lifelong Socialist, and sometime agent of the KGB.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

 

You have to face it Ryan, the Orange Emperor is a fellow traveller. :D

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/murderer-who-tackled-london-bridge-attacker-with-narwhal-tusk-pardoned/ar-BB1a8l7O?ocid=msedgdhp

The Queen has granted a pardon to murderer and London Bridge terror attack “hero” Steven Gallant.

Gallant, who was praised for risking his life to stop London Bridge terrorist Usman Khan with a ­narwhal tusk, has been granted the royal prerogative of mercy, an extremely rare case of absolution for a convicted murderer.

 

Gallant, 42, will see the 17-year sentence he received in 2005 reduced by 10 months, and could apply for parole next June, the Daily Mirror reported.

The Ministry of Justice said the Queen was advised to grant this pardon as a result of Gallant’s “exceptionally brave actions […] which helped save people’s lives despite the tremendous risk to his own”.

In an extraordinary turn of events, the family of firefighter Barrie Jackson, whom Gallant killed outside a pub in Hull, backed the decision to free the murderer early.

Jackson’s student son Jack, 21, said: “I have mixed emotions – but what happened at London Bridge goes to show the reality that people can change,” adding that he would not rule out meeting his father’s killer one day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Tell you what, lets look into the 1983 British election, and the manifesto of Labour. it includes,

Investment in national infrastructure, including transport.

Reducing unemployment. Bring the jobs back home.

Tariffs on imports to help industry.

Improved relations with Russia.

The disbandment of NATO.

Ending of unfair trade practices with other nations. (leaving the EEC)

 

http://labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1983/1983-labour-manifesto.shtml

As noted on the Trump thread, anti-globalism was a left-wing thing before it was a right-wing thing, and as such it is weirdly contradictory in both camps. The term didn't of course even exist in 1983 - after all proper globalization only occurred after the fall of the Cold War's bi-polar word order - but the contradiction in leftist ideology already occurs in the anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism that were its forerunners: protesting the outsourcing of jobs and production to low-wage third/developing world countries on one hand, and exploitation of the latter on the other.

Now a good leftist would tell you it's really the same, and workers in the third world should enjoy the same material and social benefits as those at home. Economic liberals would agree in principle, but say the only way to achieve that is building up the former's economies, including by having them produce for the West, create a middle class, etc., and poverty would be even worse without that. A proper Marxist would rather solve the problem by world revolution; but for the union camp representing the traditional worker class within the Left, in practice international solidarity tends to stop when jobs go overseas, and they would rather not have new (near-)peer competitors.

I still remember a cartoon from the protests against the 1999 Seattle WTO summit depicting burly union worker types and the younger ATTAC generation of hooded capitalism critics looking at each other thinking "we are with them?". At that time both protested "neo-liberalism" embodied in the WTO - something that had been born out of lengthy international free trade negotiations 1986-94, largely in the Reagan/Bush, Thatcher, Kohl etc. period. Since then, a lot of the traditional working class in the West (what's left of it, anyway) has been swept up by the New Right. Trump won in part based upon votes from the American Rust Belt. The German Social Democrats have lost considerable voters to the AfD, and local unions are freaking about new AfD-affiliated groups emerging on works councils of car plants. And so on.

Even in Europe, much more so in the US, people tend to forget that Euro-scepticism still is not just on the Right, but also on the Left. The EU has always been attacked by the latter as a neo-liberal, war-mongering system used by the capitalists to reduce worker's protections in the name of common standards, privatize public utilities in the name of deregulation, etc. As in other fields, the rethoric of both camps is sometimes indistinguishable. The German Left Party has long been wrestling with a split on the issue, which became obvious in last year's national convention where a line calling the EU "neo-liberal, undemocratic and militaristic" was eventually deleted from the lead motion after much controversy. Still, one speaker outright called the EU "the enemy" in the debate.

French leftist leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon has called for leaving the EU if the European treaties cannot be completely renegotiated and the Stability and Growth Pact governing fiscal compliance in the Eurozone abolished. The Swedish Communist only quietly dropped anti-EU positions from their platform after pro-European sentiment surged after the Brexit referendum. And of course Jeremy Corbyn couldn't be kicked to state a clear position on Brexit throughout his reign of Labour - probably because he and a sizeable chunk of Labour voters were all for it, which was inconvenient for attacking the government over its all-too similar policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BansheeOne said:

As noted on the Trump thread, anti-globalism was a left-wing thing before it was a right-wing thing, and as such it is weirdly contradictory in both camps. The term didn't of course even exist in 1983 - after all proper globalization only occurred after the fall of the Cold War's bi-polar word order - but the contradiction in leftist ideology already occurs in the anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism that were its forerunners: protesting the outsourcing of jobs and production to low-wage third/developing world countries on one hand, and exploitation of the latter on the other.

Now a good leftist would tell you it's really the same, and workers in the third world should enjoy the same material and social benefits as those at home. Economic liberals would agree in principle, but say the only way to achieve that is building up the former's economies, including by having them produce for the West, create a middle class, etc., and poverty would be even worse without that. A proper Marxist would rather solve the problem by world revolution; but for the union camp representing the traditional worker class within the Left, in practice international solidarity tends to stop when jobs go overseas, and they would rather not have new (near-)peer competitors.

I still remember a cartoon from the protests against the 1999 Seattle WTO summit depicting burly union worker types and the younger ATTAC generation of hooded capitalism critics looking at each other thinking "we are with them?". At that time both protested "neo-liberalism" embodied in the WTO - something that had been born out of lengthy international free trade negotiations 1986-94, largely in the Reagan/Bush, Thatcher, Kohl etc. period. Since then, a lot of the traditional working class in the West (what's left of it, anyway) has been swept up by the New Right. Trump won in part based upon votes from the American Rust Belt. The German Social Democrats have lost considerable voters to the AfD, and local unions are freaking about new AfD-affiliated groups emerging on works councils of car plants. And so on.

Even in Europe, much more so in the US, people tend to forget that Euro-scepticism still is not just on the Right, but also on the Left. The EU has always been attacked by the latter as a neo-liberal, war-mongering system used by the capitalists to reduce worker's protections in the name of common standards, privatize public utilities in the name of deregulation, etc. As in other fields, the rethoric of both camps is sometimes indistinguishable. The German Left Party has long been wrestling with a split on the issue, which became obvious in last year's national convention where a line calling the EU "neo-liberal, undemocratic and militaristic" was eventually deleted from the lead motion after much controversy. Still, one speaker outright called the EU "the enemy" in the debate.

French leftist leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon has called for leaving the EU if the European treaties cannot be completely renegotiated and the Stability and Growth Pact governing fiscal compliance in the Eurozone abolished. The Swedish Communist only quietly dropped anti-EU positions from their platform after pro-European sentiment surged after the Brexit referendum. And of course Jeremy Corbyn couldn't be kicked to state a clear position on Brexit throughout his reign of Labour - probably because he and a sizeable chunk of Labour voters were all for it, which was inconvenient for attacking the government over its all-too similar policy.

Absolutely. When the 'Shall we enter the EEC?' campaign was being launched in the early 70's, the 'No!' campaign included such unlikely bedfellows as Conservative MP Enoch Powell (Rivers of Blood) and Labour MP Tony Benn (Who was more of a leftist contrarian than Jeremy Corbyn).

Corbyn was pro Brexit. He obviously wouldnt say that because he would have had a split in his party over it, but he was entirely from the Tony Benn Camp. If you look at the 2017 labour manifesto, its reads like he went back and took most of the stuff out of the 1983 manifesto and incorporated it.

There is a wonderful scene in the movie 'Thread' (If you are interested in the Cold War, you really must get that) where there is Trade Unionist protesting against the impending war on the Streets of Sheffield, and he is met by protesters shouting 'Traitor!' And he responds by pointing out that if he was a traitor, why had he spent years trying to get Britain out the EEC.  :D So yes, the far left and the far right in the UK have near identical views on the EU. Which perhaps explains why UKIP were hoovering up Labour votes far more than Conservative ones in some places.

There are even some similarities to Trump in immigration policies. OK, so Corbyn would happily open the door and allow anyone in, but there was this bill from the 1970's that illustrates that Labour has not wholeheartedly embraced open immigration as much as has latterly claimed.

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

'Callaghan was also responsible for the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, a controversial piece of legislation prompted by Conservative assertions that an influx of Kenyan Asians would soon inundate the country. It passed through the Commons in a week and placed entry controls on holders of British passports who had "no substantial connection" with Britain by setting up a new system. In his memoirs Time and Chance, Callaghan wrote that introducing the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill had been an unwelcome task but that he did not regret it. He said the Asians had "discovered a loophole" and he told a BBC interviewer: "Public opinion in this country was extremely agitated, and the consideration that was in my mind was how we could preserve a proper sense of order in this country and, at the same time, do justice to these people—I had to balance both considerations". An opponent of the Act, Conservative MP Ian Gilmour, said that it was "brought in to keep the blacks out. If it had been the case that it was 5,000 white settlers who were coming in, the newspapers and politicians, Callaghan included, who were making all the fuss would have been quite pleased".'

Its not quite building a war, but its the legislative equivalent perhaps.

 

There you see DB, im not the only one who does ultra long posts!  :D

 

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leo Niehorster said:

Stuart Galbraith wrote:

"There you see DB, im not the only one who does ultra long posts!  :D"

Should I be offended or flattered to be mistaken for DB?

--

Leo

Well, he is younger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2020 at 3:09 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Tell you what, lets look into the 1983 British election, and the manifesto of Labour. it includes,

Investment in national infrastructure, including transport.

Reducing unemployment. Bring the jobs back home.

Tariffs on imports to help industry.

Improved relations with Russia USSR.

The disbandment of NATO.

Ending of unfair trade practices with other nations. (leaving the EEC)

Sounds like the '83 Labour Party had some measure of clues as to their own national interests vs what the current labour party has. One could also argue they were cribbing from TR's Bull Moose party. Was the '80s labour really just the Bull Moose party? :P

Now look at Labour. they wanted to cling to the EU like it was the end of the world if they didn't. Why is that? Why the shift?  Focking madboys those current ones. 

Also, couple of details. Trump's points were matters of negotiation. Tariffs IF the trade wasn't sorted out. Disbanding NATO IF the rest of NATO doesn't start pulling their weight. Haven't you ever haggled before? 
 

 

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wendist said:

I believe there is a place in Canada, right on the border to the US, where they have a similar problem. 

Let me guess, across from Buffalo? Or Detroit? Shouldn't be much humming in Detroit now. 

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rmgill said:

Sounds like the '83 Labour Party had some measure of clues as to their own national interests vs what the current labour party has. One could also argue they were cribbing from TR's Bull Moose party. Was the '80s labour really just the Bull Moose party? :P

Now look at Labour. they wanted to cling to the EU like it was the end of the world if they didn't. Why is that? Why the shift?  Focking madboys those current ones. 

Also, couple of details. Trump's points were matters of negotiation. Tariffs IF the trade wasn't sorted out. Disbanding NATO IF the rest of NATO doesn't start pulling their weight. Haven't you ever haggled before? 
 

 

Im sorry, as related earlier, that simply isnt accurate. Labour did have a large chunk of MP's who wanted to remain in the EU, thats perfectly true. There were also some to wanted to leave, who were even seen campaigning with Boris Johnson and UKIP. What was also incredibly apparent is that few of the major unions backed remain, and Jeremy Corbyn was almost wholly absent on the remain campaign trail, to the point when it became self evident he was a leaver, but didnt have the balls to come right out and say it. In all major principles, he was still wedded to that 1983 manifesto. Heck, go and read the 2017 manifesto. Its practically the same thing.

No, Trumps campaign cry was that NATO was past it and ought to be got rid of. I was paying attention. Latterly he modified that to 'well lets make them pay their way' to 'We made them pay there way, we can stay in it now'. Which is a codified turn through 180 degrees, largely because there were vaguely sane people in the Trump cabinet who talked him out of it. That and the withdrawal from Korea which was also on the cards. It was pointed out they really rather needed the radar stations in South Korea to let NORAD know an inbound missile was on the way.

You can dance anyway you like on this Ryan, but Trump, other than nationalization's, which are a key difference I admit, ran on a 1980's socialist manifesto. That he clearly changed his mind on key parts when he got in office does not change the fact, that was his rallying cry. Parts of it still are. Basically all these years I thought my father was a Socialist, and he was actually a Republican. Which would make Margaret Thatcher a Commie I guess. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2020 at 9:12 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

I was inspired by your post, but I was actually responding to DB's continual dissatisfaction with my long posts. Envious of my sometimes accurate touch typing capability I suspect.

You're fishing for something, I know not what.

I like Banshee's posts, primarily because they are exactly as long as they need to be to make a point, but also because he does not repeat the same arguments every second post whilst quoting vast screeds that already say what is bring repeated.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...