* Posts by sed gawk

785 posts • joined 1 May 2008


Cooler heads needed in heated E2EE debate, says think tank

sed gawk

Re: Misdirection about E2EE -- again!!! Please read the literature!!!

Not saying suck it up, I'm saying go direct to the source - Schneier is fantastic, as is Scott.

I'm saying Micheal Scott et al, wrote that code, and specifically wrote high quality code that you can use in various languages. There are AEAD implementations and it will run on bare metal.

There are multiple test vectors, and the specific code was provided to Apache Foundation.

It's not the fastest code, but it was written by an actual reputable cryptographer relatively recently.

So use that code if you need it, cross check the outputs from multiple different language implementations .

YMMV but in any case best wishes

sed gawk

Re: Misdirection about E2EE -- again!!! Please read the literature!!!

Sadly this is not true.

While Applied is indeed a great read, and so is Practical - by the same author.

The level of knowledge required to implement side channel resistant construction of the standard algorithms is well beyond the average reader.

Applied predates ECC and doesn't discuss equal cost branching, it's a great book, but don't roll your own crypto.

Use the peer reviewed code base from the Dublin Professor of Cryptography.

Here is his publications list - https://dblp.org/pid/s/MichaelScott.html

Here are opensource implementations in multiple languages, https://github.com/apache/incubator-milagro

if you really must roll your own, use the output of an actual cryptographer, and don't just type code out of Applied/Practical.

Ukraine asks ICANN to delete all Russian domains

sed gawk

Germany lost WW1 because the US was brought into WW1.

After 1916 Asquith is prepared to sue for peace but instead was deposed and replaced with Lloyd George and Balfour, who issued the Balfour declaration.

It is suggested the Balfour declaration was payment for bringing the US into WW1.


The War bonds that financed the allies went through a single US agent, the House of Morgan, which is now JP Morgan - Also the weapons went through them.

So when it looked like the allies would lose, a lot of effort went into making that private debt now the federal reserve problem. Morgan was an agent of the Rothschilds and other Rich people, so it was private cash that was at risk

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds-role-during-wwi It's notable that the Balfour declaration is addressed to the Rothschilds in the UK.

Under these circumstances, it became impossible for Morgan to find new buyers for the Allied war bonds, neither for fresh funding nor to replenish the old bonds which were coming due and facing default. This was serious on several counts. If bond sales came to a halt, there would be no money to continue purchasing war materials. Commissions would be lost at both ends. Furthermore, if the previously sold bonds were to go into default, as they certainly would if Britain and France were forced to accept peace on Germany's terms, the investors would sustain gigantic losses. Something had to be done. But what? Robert Ferrell hints at the answer:

In the mid thirties a Senate committee headed by Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota investigated the pre-1917 munitions trade and raised a possibility that the Wilson administration went to war because American bankers needed to protect their Allied loans.


Finally there was a ship sunk while Americans were aboard, this ship was essentially delivering arms supplied to an embargoed waters, There is some dispute about the details, but that was enough to get congress over the line.

The fact that the Lusitania was a passenger ship is misleading. Although she was built as a luxury liner, her construction specifications were drawn up by the British Admiralty so that she could be converted, if necessary, into a ship of war. Everything from the horsepower of her engines and the shape of her hull to the placement of ammunition storage areas were, in fact, military designs. She was built specifically to carry twelve six-inch guns. The construction costs for these features were paid for by the British government. Even in times of peace, it was required that her crew include officers and seamen from the Royal Navy Reserve.

In May of 1913, she was brought back into dry dock and outfitted with extra armor, revolving gun rings on her decks, and shell racks in the hold for ammunition. Handling elevators to lift the shells to the guns were also installed. Twelve high-explosive cannons were delivered to the dry dock. All this is a matter of public record at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, England, but whether the guns were actually installed at that time is still hotly debated. There is no evidence that they were. In any event, on September 17, the Lusitania returned to sea ready for the rigors of war, and she was entered into the Admiralty fleet register, not as a passenger liner, but an armed auxiliary cruiser! From then on, she was listed in Jane's Fighting Ships as an auxiliary cruiser and in the British publication, The Naval Annual, as an armed merchant man.1

The suggestion is that Churchill had it sunk on purpose

One of the officers present in the high-command map room on that fateful day was Commander Joseph Kenworthy, who pre-

viously had been called upon by Churchill to submit a paper on what would be the political results of an ocean liner being sunk with American passengers aboard. He left the room in disgust at the cynicism of his superiors. In 1927, in his book, The Freedom of the Seas, he wrote without further comment: "The Lusitania was sent at considerably reduced speed into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting and with her escorts withdrawn."

The US President at the time Wilson is selected and controlled by a guy called House.

Lloyd George, Mark Sykes, Balfour in the UK are avowed Zionists and have dealings with a guy called Weizmann - Louis Brandeis is Weizmann's US counterpart who also has Wilson's ear.


Brandeis also brought his influence to bear on the Wilson administration in the negotiations leading up to the Balfour Declaration and the Paris Peace Conference. In July 1919 he visited Palestine.

Later in 1919 Brandeis broke with Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the European Zionism.


So the working evidence seems to support the idea that a confluence of interests made it possible for rich men to push the US into war to avoid losing their investment, and the go between got Palestine for their trouble.


Has a nice time line

The Balfour-Weizmann agreement of October 1916 was and remains entirely secret.

The Sykes meeting served as a sort of decoy.

In the few months between these two events, the following had taken place:

The civilian head of codebreaking “Room 40” in London had been replaced by the director of Naval Intelligence.

Von Jagow, who had served since 1913, was replaced by Zimmermann as German foreign secretary.

Asquith, who had served as British prime minister since 1908, was removed from power, and a new War Cabinet was formed, in which Lloyd George was prime minister and Balfour foreign minister—both friends of Zionism since 1903.

The key to German code 7500 was betrayed to Room 40.

A draft of the ZT was concocted in London and presented to Zimmermann by one of his subordinates in Berlin.

The ZT was transmitted by cable from Berlin to Washington on Jan. 16, 1917. It was copied by Room 40 and promptly de-coded. Note that this is incompatible with Tuchman’s story but entirely consistent with Dugdale’s account.

Thus, by the time of the Sykes-Zionist meeting of Feb. 7, 1917, the Zionist part of the bargain had been accomplished, and America was as good as at war. All that remained was for the British to find the best time and method for revealing the contents of the ZT to President Wilson and for him to convince Congress and the American people to go to war.

Brandeis gets lots of blame, but it seems a lot of work was done to pull it off https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/category/zionism-2/louis-brandeis/

Hauliers report problems with post-Brexit customs system but HMRC insists it is 'online and working as planned'

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

Frankly, this has revealed you as deluded as to the meaning of the word racist.

Unable to engage on a single issue of substance, and reduced rather pitifully to insults, and whole cloth false flag race paranoia. It really casts you in a poor light, and frankly let's you down rather.

You offer no answer to the substantive points:

1) Fairness - it is manifestly undemocratic to impose by fiat major changes.

2) A vote to Leave, was as much a vote against Cameron as it was for any concrete expressed goal.

I'll leave you to your foaming.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

I suspect the Lib Dems would sue you for that.

LibDem 2019 vote was a vote for a racist party, led by a racist leader, who "wholeheartedly agrees" with the current situation in Israel, i.e. apartheid as defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, HRW has a detailed report [11]

LD ran anti-BDS ticket[1], pro apartheid[2], racist[3] state built[5] on the massacre[6] and ongoing violent dispossession[7] of indigenous people[8] by deranged settlers.[9] See it for yourself, it's frankly shocking, an interview with the perpertators, who are utterly proud of their depravity [8]

It's an utterly racist proposition to not support equal rights for all people between the river and the sea, to demand an end to the brutalization and racist treatment of colonized, occupied subjugated people. To vote for a party supporting that is contemptible., to cast it as anti-racist stance, demeaning to the very word.

As a statement by more than forty progressive Jewish organisations says, ‘dangerously [conflating] anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid ... undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law.’

President Cyril Ramaphosa, a trade union leader who led the ANC’s negotiations with the white regime, said the forced removal of Palestinians to make way for Israeli settlers and the destruction of homes in Gaza “brings back very terrible memories of our own history and apartheid”. “This, for us, is very close to our own suffering under apartheid. When we see those images, we can’t but help to side with the Palestinians,” he said.

I understand that it is not the top line issue for you, but support for violent racist ethnostates is itself racist.

BDS the minium non-racist people should do in solidarity with the oppressed occupied people of Palestine. Anti-BDS is a racist position.


[1] https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/lib-dem-leader-jo-swinson-attacks-bds-and-reaffirms-support-for-two-state-solution-1.488866

[2] https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid

[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/3/11/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-is-a-state-only-of-the-jewish-


[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/israel-apartheid-boycotts-sanctions-south-africa

[5] https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/41048

[6] https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/israeli-commander-deir-yassin-massacre-dies-age-94

[7] https://imemc.org/article/palestinian-american-death-underscores-rampant-israeli-violence/

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiLt5awzmyIe

[9] https://www.yesh-din.org/en/a-life-exposed-military-invasions-of-palestinian-homes-in-the-west-bank/

[10] https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2019/september/the-right-to-boycott

[11] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

So you prefer the huge delta between EU and CU to the tiny delta between EU and EEA? I'd prefer EU, not EEA. I don't see why you'd pick EEA when you can keep EU.

I'm tired of this conversation and the lack of humanity on display, when LibDem's support for Apartheid[2] is what makes them Racist, not their view on the EU.

And I only brand those that wanted to take away rights as racists.(You know, the ones whom you support getting their way.) Racist has a meaning, wanting to take rights away from all UK people is not Racist, it's just fucking stupid. The travel provisions are less applicable to UK/EU duel nationals, but otherwise it affects all people in the country, without the variation according to group membership that is the hallmark of racist policy. Interesting that supporting the violent dispossession of people like the LibDems, the Tories, and Starmer's Labour do, doesn't count as racist in your book, noted.

[2] https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

And your support for taking away their rights undermines you claims.

I support *asking people in a ref with remain/rejoin*, and *would vote for remain/rejoin*. You want to preclude an outcome you see as being damaging, I agree it's damaging, so is Tory rule, yet I wouldn't support banning tories standing for election.

You are trying to make it democratic to not let people vote on issues with long term consequences, except in a way where a yes/no answer is impossible - yeah, seems fair.

Lots of pronouncements and stating of unproven assertions as settled conclusions, but little of substance, and no engagement with any questions posed.

You've decided "Racists" quite without even making a case, and you wish to impose a diminution to peoples rights(EEA), as you think the plebs too foolish to reject any diminution of their rights(Full Membership).

The one that takes away rights. of people. Hmmm. Curious. Either you totally fail to understand the nature of the way the UK worked, or there's some other reason.

Your position is incoherent, "they are racist, so ignore their votes, but they voted so we have to brexit, but their votes become non-racist in a General Election". Either people should vote on issues that affect them, or not.

You want to ditch the CU, you haven't articulated a reason, other than EEA is better than leaving SM, by why one should want EEA rather than EU is still a mystery - also unacknowledged or engaged with is the ERG's desired to avoid SM, or why supporting people's right to choose is undemocratic.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

"I, and Corbyn, amongst others thought they should. HMG and the ERG thought not, so we didn't."

No you didn't you thought they should have a vote on a new relationship that had already been rejected. .

This is bizarre: your position if I understand is that, because a referendum was held in 2016, no other public consultation may be sought, our general election vote will be held as the only engagement with the issue allowed.

You really have a flexible version of democracy don't you?

In a world where FPTP is our electoral system, and a minority percentage was sufficient to win a general election, where people voted in the majority for pro second ref parties[1], yet got Johnson - and Brexit.

And if they won, why would a referendum be needed? FPTP is undemocratic, and not useful for single issue votes, people's voting in referendum are a blunt instrument but the correct tool in this case.

You do know a government is not bound by the promises of a previous government?

I know that heads they win, and tails we lose.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-result-boris-johnson-pro-brexit-referendum-voters-conservatives-a9245866.html

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

I don't support racists. You voted for them mate not me.

I do think they are small enough percentage of the population in a fair democratic vote, they are more noise than signal.

I don't agree with the division people into "human" and "non-human" or "worthy of rights" and "unworth of rights", you know, like racists do.

As a Tory voter, you have been voting for racists for a long time, it didn't seem to be an issue before.

I suspect that the motivations of the gammon, are not really your issue.

You don't like their choice, and have decided this will make it okay to ignore these "non-humans".

You cannot brand every Brexit voter as racist, not can you divorce the fact that Racism is distasteful, disgusting, and dishonorable, from the fact it is not illegal.

It doesn't matter what you are, it matters about right and wrong. I can see why you dislike Corbyn now, the idea of morals or principles, even for those you despise is lost on you.

Shallow advantage - EEA doesn't damage you, but sod everyone who loses out in the delta between EU membership. Damage the concept that change comes through the ballot box, so you can correct the votes of the subclass.

Tory, defining selfish contempt for reason or their fellows.

TL;DR. You don't care for the principle, you just want to carry on ignoring the plebs.

Racist people are racist mostly because it makes it easier to control them.

It's not an accident and often is accompanied by state funded propoganda - Orban and Soros comes to mind. Regev and Palestinians. Idi Amin and the Ugandan Asians etc.

It's often something that can be addressed with education, few people are truly beyond redemption, of which tiny few. I expect not many vote.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

You persist in trying to make this about fine detail, when it's really broad brush.

1) should people get to vote on the terms agreed when leaving the EU?

I, and Corbyn, amongst others thought they should. HMG and the ERG thought not, so we didn't.

2) Should we change our relationship with the EU on the say so of a bunch of Grifters?

No, clearly not.

3) You are unable to articulate why someone should desire to leave the EU, but remain in the EEA, when the motivation was about leaving the Single Market. Nor are you addressing that you seem to have voted for the Yellow Tories, who promised to split the pro-EU vote to head off the threat to neoliberalism. They rightly got spanked, as it's undemocratic to cancel it, regardless of the sodding manifesto.

Your insults aside, you don't meet the burden of proof.

Being in EEA is worse than being in the EU. You can't even explain why you want it, or should be taken remotely seriously. "You spoke to someone who attended a meeting, grow up"

What is covered by the EEA Agreement?

All relevant Internal Market legislation is integrated into the EEA Agreement so that it applies throughout the whole of the EEA. The core of these rules relates to the free movement of goods, capital, services and persons throughout the 30* EEA States. In addition, the EEA Agreement covers horizontal areas such as social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law, statistics, tourism and culture. In order to ensure equal conditions of competition throughout the EEA, the EEA Agreement mirrors the competition and state aid rules of the EU treaties. It also provides for participation in EU programmes such as those for research and education.

What is not covered by the EEA Agreement?

The EEA Agreement does not cover EU common agriculture and fisheries policies, although it contains provisions on trade in agricultural and fish products. It does not entail a customs union, nor does it include a common trade policy, common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs, harmonised taxation or the economic and monetary union.

Schengen is not a part of the EEA Agreement. However, all of the four EFTA States participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements. They all apply the provisions of the relevant Acquis.


So coming out of EU, yet remaining in EEA is worse than Remaining in the EU. QED.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

"So your basis to suggest Corbyn lacks integrity, is his principled refusal to support a flagrant stitch up of the public."

So rejecting the part of brexit that delivers xenophobia and at least 60% of the long term damage a no deal brexit would is a stitch up?

No, refusing to confirm the desired arrangements with the public regardless of the arrangements, is a "stitch up". That's prefectly clear from what I wrote, including the clearly expressed position that democracy required a vote to bless/avert Brexit in it's final legal form.

Well that puts your position in perspective.
Why, yes it does. Brexit bad, must resolved democratically not by fiat, even if the fiat agrees with my personal preference. It's supporting the principle of democracy and the rule of law, I understand as a Tory voter, it's hard to recognize principles.

For example, "Pandering to Racists", they vote, they are subjects and deserve democratic representation. Because I utterly condemn someone's motivation and my reading of their rationale, doesn't mean I can ignore their vote without doing some grievous harm to democracy.

Why do you get to ignore their vote because they hold views you presumably hold contemptible.

Somebody said it far better than I could, so allow me to share

“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

"Why did May needed Labour votes to pass her deal, when as you will of course recall, the Confidence and Supply arrangement gave her a working majority? She couldn't pass the deal because her party didn't want us in the Single Market."

May's deal did not keep us in The Single Market. (Only for goods via a customs union,and the UK is a services economy. It was the precise opposite of what the UK needed for a "successful" Brexit, )

You avoided the question, her negotiation was not with the EU but with the ERG, something which is fundamental to this debate. May couldn't offer SM to the ERG, who wanted an end to FoM. They eventually got their aim, and utterly the correct thing for Corbyn to not support a deal to worsen our situation without explicit public consent, the democratic instinct being strong in the man, even when inconvenient, because the man has integrity unlike, racist hypocrite May.

"So you like me would have voted to remain rather than that deal." Of course, but I voted for the party that gave remain as its manifesto rather than offer that choice. But leavers would be voting for the party that offered the deal they wanted (or thought they did, because few of them actually bother to check what being like Canada actually meant).

So you admit, Corbyn was the only person who proposed to give you a vote, where remaining in the EU as full member was offered. Leavers voted for a bundle of different fantasy, The only concrete thing that seems to be agreed was ending of FoM, based on the flagrant anti-immigrant, anti-people of colour, anti-european rhetoric employed during the Leave campaign.

The manifesto is all well and good, but honestly it's the people. Either you can trust them to be competent and honourable or you can't. Large numbers vote tribally, myself included, but I won't vote for Starmer (Voted only once for Blair. did vote Brown/Red Ed). Don't Trust Reeves, Lammy, and host of others, so I won't vote for them, as I don't trust them to tell the truth.

Manifestos are not binding as has been established, so it's mainly about spending priorities.

So other than the expert view, https://ifs.org.uk/publications/9218 I think it's fairly well held view that without the OBR costing them all, they are not worth the paper they are written on and certainly of more interest to the media than the electorate.

"which is why I'd put Hard Brexit as an option" Corbyn's target was a hard brexit. Ending free movement is a hard brexit. You speak like one of those gaslighted into thinking any deal is a soft brexit. It isn't.
Hard Brexit is a spectrum from leaving SM to WTO. It starts with ending FoM. In my view this is a "Hard Brexit" but you are moving goal posts, the context was in a putative second ref. A choice to end FoM should be offered, alongside a choice to accept the proffered deal, or a choice to remain in the EU with current terms/opt-outs.

There should have been a preferential referendum between Remain in the EU, Remain in the Single Market and become a 3rd country. A deal that does 2/3 the damage of no deal is no choice.

You can't have it both ways, either do the undemocratic sensible thing, and just remain.

Or do the democratic stupid thing, and offer a real choice to properly fuck the country over.

"The man tried and failed"

It is quite clear he tried and succeed. He got the hard brexit he desired, and left the blame with the Tories. But he didn't do it with integrity, he used the same lies all the other brexiteers did.

Bollocks, he did the only decent thing and campaigned to offer people a democratic climbdown. He wasn't in office, and had no Say. He's not in the ERG - who you don't blame once, or the literal Government either Cameron/May/Johnson - no it's all magic grandpa's fault.

You are deluded - the people who fucked us are the Tories, they are still in power.

Your hatred for Corbyn - still unexplained, is making you irrational.

You demand he ignore lots of people votes ,support May without lettings people vote, and excluded any choice you personally don't want. Your problem is with democracy not Corbyn.

Yes, idiots get to vote. You don't get to disenfranchise people just because we disagree, I disagree with you, but I would defend your right to vote against my interests. See the quote above for rationale.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

You are obtuse and incoherent. You cling to the manifesto, pretending that most people make decisions on the manifesto - a flagrant lie if ever on was typed.

1) We were members, changing that was because of a vote. You've decided that, you get to recast that vote as EEA. Which wasn't on the paper - leave was.

And what you state is now the situation if we want to export to our biggest market, or have you missed the news over the last 12 months or so?
Yes, Brexit is a bad idea. Even your EEA fantasy which not even you pretend to have voted for. ERG wanted out of Single Market. Face facts. this is a Tory shitshow - if you want to blame someone, blame the selfish idiots voting Tory.

That it finally bit you in the Arse because you are too dense but to advocate EEA as being better than remain. EEA is good, according to you, as we retain Single Market membership. Remaining allows us to retain SM membership and possess a Veto, which we've employed vary sparingly.

As to what happens in the meetings, it's a meeting, with an agenda, which is livestreamed on the EU website. If you want to "attend" its easy - https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/ Your attitude is unsupportable, you don't seen willing to get it. EEA is fantasy - no form of FoM was acceptable to ERG, who ran HMG.

I'm well aware of the current situation, which is why I support Remain.

In point of fact, I didn't vote, as I had a bet that "The country at large would vote Remain, as we were far too smart to fall for the grift", I lost that bet.

2) HMG never once offered the public a vote on any deal, the ERG and HMG, figures absent from your utterly evidence free insults and anti-corbyn drivel.

You obviously have never spoken to anyone who attends such meets and have no clue of the actual relationship
This is weak mate, come on, try harder. I don't have to vote to understand that losing the right to vote involves a diminution of rights.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

A Jobs first brexit would have kept us in the single market. Corbyn was committed to leaving that, so any claims of that, lack any integrity whatsoever.
So your basis to suggest Corbyn lacks integrity, is his principled refusal to support a flagrant stitch up of the public.

Why did May needed Labour votes to pass her deal, when as you will of course recall, the Confidence and Supply arrangement gave her a working majority? She couldn't pass the deal because her party didn't want us in the Single Market.

And for those who actually believed in and wanted the let's be like Norway option, it would be like throwing out the Baby and keeping the bathwater.
The same people in Tory party that Major had labeled "The Bastards" and their protegees in the ERG finally deposed May, Installed Johnson, and got out of the Single Market, as planned. That was the plan all along, Hard Brexit, to hand over to the backers in the US, Biden threw a spanner into the works, as he won't let HMG fuck the Irish, hence the cobbled together deal which keeps Biden happy and fucks the rest of the UK, but not NI.

This shit show is not on Corbyn, he tried to do the decent thing, and support a democratic vote, which would have left the baby and bathwater in situ. Today if you had a vote to unwind the vote to leave, you'd win in a landslide. Corbyn understood that, and honestly while he's a flawed politician, the man has a moral compass, and integrity.

The only sensible position outside the EU is remaining in the EEA. Anything else causes massive damage.

I agree, so the voters should have the chance to avert this coup, manifestly against our interests, allowed to express explicit acceptance of negotiated terms.

No he didn't. He chose an option that was thoroughly rejected and caused the downfall of one PM
He said, "the public get a vote on the deal", we'll try to get the best deal possible and give you a say, along with an option to remain.

That outraged everybody from ultra-remain who thought the "Illiberal and Undemocratic" policy of my own devising of "Bog off, we're cancelling it" was fine despite the utter contempt for the electorate on display. Gammon, who'd refused anything less than eating gruel in an Anderson shelter on WTO terms as craven capitulation, and you who want to make the best of bad situation.

His Brexit was ridiculous. Give up the prosperity of the Single Market for services. Do not get the ability to make free trade deals independently. The only winners would be the racists

So you like me would have voted to remain rather than that deal. The gammon would find themselves the 5-15% crucially been offered end to FoM, we'd have called the whole mess off, as most people would have vote Remain. The Gammon would cry foul, which is why I'd put Hard Brexit as an option as I think that would be much less popular than vocally supported.

I think we should have had "Deal, No Deal, Remain" personally but Corbyn was I think unwilling to risk that amount of damage to the country and so never supported it.

It was the right thing, try to fix the problem honest, transparently and democratically, so he was doomed. But still it's the only democratic method on offer. The LibDems got rightly monstered for "lets call it off without a vote" explaining "Brexit is stupid" got "Project Fear" repeated unto the point of tedium.

The man tried and failed, but he tried to do it the right way, and that's important even if you lose.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

The ERG and the Backers of the Tory party are to blame for Brexit.

EEA is worse than remain, why should he advocate for it?

I don't want EEA, I want remain. I also don't see why he should support the Tories when the issue is result of May's flagrant contempt for the country, and the lack of backbone to make use of the manifest contempt for democracy expressed on every other occasion by herself and her party, and just not brexit, given she campaigned against it.

I support him in *not supporting* anything other than expressed price for that support.

The public gets to vote on the deal, with remain option, or Labour won't support you. She refused as again, nobody thinks the public will go for this given a second change to avert the mess, so Labour carried on making the case for 2nd ref.

I would agree ultimately Labour's attempt to balance democracy and sanity failed, and they were unable to retain ultra-remainers - or hard core gammon.

As a committed champion of the oppressed, Corbyn is well respected by people, and demonized by others. Again and again, I've heard Thatcher held up as a person of integrity, Blair held up as a person of integrity. In other words, "public & media opinion" matters less than objective truth. Getting as far as he did in the face of overwhelming attack, is an outstanding achievement. Starmer by contrast will do much worse, as the Tories will change the face de jure and the grift will continue.

But 2nd ref was the only democratic way to stop Brexit, and supporting anything less than a chance to remain is an utter betrayal of the voters, including the likes of me.

EEA seems like we become subject to rules we can't set. Decided at meetings we don't attend.

Why would a democrat like Corbyn think that was a good idea?

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

"His preferred deal" a phrase I imagine as typed with much venom. What plan do you refer, "Jobs First Brexit" or what ever rubbish was used to paper over the fact, half the voters seems to have joined the ranks of the foolish.

The is no good way to tell people they are idiots, hence the fudge until you get a second ref, or hopefully the entire stupid idea would disappear somehow.

I personally favour saying "No, it's a stupid idea, we're not doing it" but I'm not a democrat in the extreme.

You seem to be outraged that a politician tried to get a bunch of conflicting positions to coexist when the only sensible thing to do is flagrantly undemocratic.

You can't just ignore people's votes because they are idiots. Or ignore that it's plainly stupid to hand control to HMG and remove all access to supranational courts and the ability to leave.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

You are obtuse sir.

The EU is not the obstacle, the issue is HMG didn't want to remain in the Single Market.

That is why HMG didn't offer the public the choice of remaining in the Single Market.

Corbyn was not in HMG, hence had zero accountablity or influence for HMG, not allowing the public to remain in the Single Market.

May's Lancaster House speech makes this quite clear.

It's backed up by the choice of negotiators.

The ERG and the backers, didn't want the UK to be in the Single Market.

It's a sickness to hate some old geezer so much that you can't comprehend the plain truth, the man was not in office, and not to blame for the actions of HMG.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

My ignorance of EU details, which I readily admit, <dummy>"Brexit bad"</dummy> as it was obviously bad for my business, my rights, and my country. It was transparently a coup, fronted by dishonest racist grifters, if you happened to possess an above room temperature IQ. these are reliable indicators that something is a little off, perhaps, these known racist grifters, are maybe, maybe, engaged in a dishonest grift. The great thing about the EU, is I never had to give a F, about the EU.

It just went on stopping bigger companies shitting on my tiny company, I was fine with that.

It meant when my kid got ill, I could get on the first flight to see her, instead of some visa nonsense. It's the longest flight of my life.

As for Corbyn

The plain fact is, the man was not in office, and said "if you want this damn fool thing, at least vote on it intentionally. I don't really care", that's a reasonable position to hold, and frankly one that got him much flack. He wasn't in office.

The EU is not the be all and end all, and as he happened to be a local MP in my part of London, I happen to know who he is, which informs my support for him, where as you seem to be annoyed but unable to quite articulate why you find the man objectionable. Frankly given the choice on offer, you should have voted for a carrot rather than Johnson. You are free to prefer a carrot over Corbyn, but again, why?

What's your beef with Magic Grandpa ? He focus grouped some compromise position to keep as many of the gammon on side as possible, trusting quite rightly, if ever the public got a second vote on this, this rubbish would be killed stone dead, so didn't matter what the puff was.

People largely wanted "Brexit"[1] or Remain. For you. you've got fantasy, with well fleshed out details about the route you've outlined. I accepted you have a detailed understanding of the situation. I'll go further, as say that conceptually your fantasy was/is possible. But didn't work.

[1] TBD.

I suggest the ignorant one is the person gulled into voting to enable racist grifters.

I and others blessed by our ignorance of the EU, spotted the problem. Why couldn't you?

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

I think Corbyn a decent chap. A better bet than Johnson, if that makes me a fanboy so be it.

I think there is fundamentally a refusal to accept "Brexit is a coup", which is the frame needed to understand our difference of opinion.

If you accept that, than the concept that we were never going to get to stay in the single market is easier to agree.

I also personally think that our Electoral System is more a problem than our EU membership.

I think that Corbyn understands this, hence viewed Brexit as a distraction.

The vote on whatever deal was negotiated is in line with Corbyn democratic instinct, and the only honorable way of stopping Brexit.

Personally, I'd have gone sod off, we're not doing it, it's a stupid idea.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

Corbyn wasn't in government.

Corbyn campaigned on giving people a vote on any eventual deal, and said he voted for remain.

As a "fanboy", I think it's a mature decent, and fucking stupid position to back neutrality in second ref[1]

Jeremy Corbyn has defended his pledge to stay “neutral” in the event of a second Brexit referendum after his position was criticised as indecisive.

The Labour leader revealed during a Question Time leaders’ special on Friday that he would not back either side, putting him at odds with senior party figures including John McDonnell, Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry, who have all said they would back remain.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/23/jeremy-corbyn-defends-his-pledge-to-stay-neutral-in-second-referendum

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

But when you said they want to leave the Single market, you are correct. However "they" includes Corbyn, which is why I see him as no different from any far right or far left brexiteer.

This is daft, he was perceptive enough to understand a fact you refuse to accept.

The people behind Brexit wanted out of the Single Market, and got their aim.

Remaining in the Single market was quite possible. And leaving the Single Market with a deal still does the majority of the damage that leaving with no deal would do

I agree, but we were never offered that chance, and were never going to be offered that chance, and the only person who offered the public a say on the final deal was Corbyn.

Quite aside from everything else, that is a commitment to democracy - do you still want this hand now the cards are face up?

How you can be critical of that is beyond me.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

EFTA/EEA - the point being you think Brexit while being in Single Market possible, because of us remaining in EFTA, or EEA - I bow to which ever one is correct as being Single Market but without the say. I don't quibble about it being EEA or EFTA as I don't much care, happy to accept some mechanism exists.

My view and my reading of Corbyn's view is that the people behind Brexit didn't want to be in the Single Market, so the theoretical existence of an EEA or EFTA route to remaining in the Single Market, or more precisely retaining the Four Freedoms, was never going to happen, given it contradicts the purpose of the Brexit people. That view accords with the facts, and look we are not in Single Market, and still it wasn't Corbyn negotiating.

My view is Corbyn didn't care overly much about the EU since our problems are here.

The Backstop - relates to Northern Ireland and really should be divorced from discussion.

We have a border, GFA dictated the fudge or reunification

Remaining in the Single Market was not the point of Brexit, it was a coup, by the people who are making protest illegal. I concede the point of that the existence of a route to remain in Single Market, but firmly rebut any suggestion that it was on offer.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

You seem to confuse the deal negotiated and revealed to the British public after the elections of 2017/19.

That date for the hard of thinking you are channeling is the first time "The Deal" was available to be voted on. [1] Corbyn said you should have a vote on if you wanted to accept it.

Given you've failed to meet that, I'll accept your capitulation, and ignore your increasingly foamy responses.

Corbyn didn't want to leave, pointed out *impossible to remain in single market, and was proved right", which clearly offends you as a foamer.

The rest of your foaming is tedious, and I wish you well, but you are mistaken and rude.

[1] https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-boris-johnson-says-trade-deal-is-his-christmas-present-for-the-country-12172450

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

You are not making any sense.

Firstly, May's speech at Lancaster house laid out the "Red Lines" [1] where "No Deal is better".

Corbyn was always explicitly anti "No-Deal". These are different. You have provided no evidence to support your attempt to blame Corbyn for the behaviour of May/Johnson/Frost. It's unclear how you've arrived at such a conclusion from advocating a vote on "the agreement made by HMG" or remain.

"EFTA is the Norway model, and all other EFTA members have said they don't want us."

No, it isn't EEA is the Norway model. Switzerland is in EFTA, but does not have the same model as Norway.

Look you think Brexit with Single Market was possible, in EEA not EFTA. (I'll not quibble about the terms) It was never going to happen as they wanted to leave the single market.

You dont seem willing to take from that expressed opinion, and that it's what happened that Corbyn was right.

If we brexit, we'll be out of single market. We did and we are. He's not wrong.

[1] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-the-lancaster-house-speech/

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

You really don't have a clue, do you? given it's your opening statement, seems unreasonable

You fail to understand the massive difference between leaving the EU and leaving the EEA.

Is it that we were taken out by crooks who wanted the hardest possible severing to facilate the disaster capitalism described in the book authored by one of the protagonists fathers - Or you think that leaving is possible with the correct knowledge of minutia to be rendered not foolish.

[1] His deal was one rejected by everyone else.

[2] So why would anyone vote for him for a fair referendum?

[3] As a remainer, I prefer no deal or Johnson's deal to Corbyn's stated plans.

[4] Almost no leavers supported his model either, so how would they be getting a fair choice?

[5] A deal they rejected vs remain?

[6] It's almost as if he wanted to lose, so Johnson got forced into his hard Brexit, then he could build his socialist utopia on the ashes of the UK.

So amongst the many lies, and outright lies they are.

[1] when did people get to vote on Corbyn's deal - link or retract your lie.

[2] A vote on leaving on the terms struck and not leaving is a choice between two truths, which you describe as "unfair", just retract- that's an embarrassment.

[3] As a remainer - sure mate, no deal is better than "retaining as much of single market as was possible to protect jobs"

[4] Again - recap of [2] Truth is fair, but evidence that "leavers" opposed the idea.

[5] Do you want this, which you are getting or the old deal you had - seems fair.

[6] Johnson and BlueKip wanted brexit so thy could dump shit in the sea, sell off the NHS, and outlaw protest.

It's a fascist coup enabled by idiots and racists, and racist idiots to enrich people who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

If you voted for it, you are an idiot, if you still support it you are a fool.

It would have worked if X is self-deluding - X is reality and it's not even started to bite, yet!

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

I stand corrected it does exist [1], thank you very much for drawing it to my attention.

Looks like I owe Mr Anon an apology, I thought he was the Capital of Venezuela[2]

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods_en

[2] https://lmgtfy.app/?qtype=search&q=Capital%20of%20Venezuela

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

Remaining in the single market means keeping FoM, May's red lines precluded FoM. So we left Single Market. and ? Corbyn is not May so he's not on the hook for her Red Lines of removing FoM.

Also "please evidence your claims" with links that support your argument.

The people who said you could "brexit" and stay in the single market lied to you. Corbyn didn't.

EFTA is the Norway model, and all other EFTA members have said they don't want us.

So show me some evidence because you're just way off into the long grass.

We have been fleeced by people too lazy to concoct credible claims.

Post some links, do some research.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

If you have a legit argument, post proof, as I don't think you are making sense, or I don't understand your point. Lets assume it's me, please evidence your claims.

The options for second ref as advanced by corbyn and linked up thread (from channel 4) were:

With Deal being what was actually negotiated between UK and EU.

"Vote Remain for no Brexit"

"Vote on Deal for Brexit"

You can argue, he should have offered "No Deal Brexit" as third choice, but otherwise that's what was possible and what he advocated.

The GFA is subject to separate agreements, but without Irish Reunification makes Brexit difficult.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

The Single Market is a Market for Services and People, Capital and Goods.

There are specific treaty obligations which define what members of the single market agree are standard terms for services, goods, capital, and people (qualifications and licensing is most obvious example).

Turkey use EU standards to sell into the "Turkey/EU Customs Union"[1] it's not a member of the "Single Market for Goods" (SMfG) as that doesn't exist.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/turkey/index_en.htm

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

1. From A position of being a full member, to Norway is not in truth, leaving feasibility aside, in not removing "freedom of movement of people" it's not Brexit which was about using removal of FoM (e.g. Turkey) to get through the real prize of screwing our country over to buy up the ruins on the cheap.


We can't join EFTA over the heads of the members, and the "Jobs First Brexit" you rightly sneer at, is essentially what "support a standalone arrangement" means. Only the EU agreed with Corbyn who bothered to speak to them rather than the UK press. [1]

[1] https://euobserver.com/brexit/144119

The sort of crap can you site something - for example do you oppose social care, nhs pay rise?

Can you specific about why you think a principled anti-racist with a plan to fix housing, social care, nhs, should be slurred by mentioned in the same breath as Johnson, who is bad enough that even the tories voters are *starting* to notice.



sed gawk

Re: Hmm

Brexit was a coup by people looking to smash the state[1], it was always going to be a shitshow, and that has nothing to do with Corbyn, who voted remain[5], campaigned for remain[4], and predicted we'd be taken out of the Single Market due to May, a weak, racist [2] appeaser, with "Red Lines" [3]

Corbyn is consistent - "no deal is shit. The public should get a vote on the reality of an agreement, but shouldn't be offered the chance to vote for no-deal, and the EU is rubbish but we're better off in"

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/22/britannia-unchained-rise-of-new-tory-right

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/07/17/trumps-racist-tweets-remind-brits-when-go-home-vans-drove-through-london/

[3] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-theresa-may-s-red-lines-risk-ripping-britain-apart-1.3761971

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36430606

[5] https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyns-changing-brexit-stance

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

The single market refers to the four freedoms enjoyed by members of the EU.

Corbyn is correct, you can't play on the green without being in the club.

"When people" *who are incorrect about the usage of the term single market* talk about the single market, and ignore that Turkey is not in the "single market" which is why Turkey's potential *joining* of the single market was used to such great effect in the 2016 Brexit Vote.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

1 is not leaving -

2 is accepting that 1 is not possible so try to limit the damage by replicating it, he said

“As he said in his letter back to Ian Blackford, the summit rests on the falsehood that the single market is a membership organisation which you can join, which it is not. Our approach for a jobs-first Brexit, which involves retaining the benefits of the single market, is through negotiation with the EU.”

That seems like make the best of the lunacy of leaving to me.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

Actually re-reading your comment, you suggest he is dishonestly suggesting it's impossible.

Using the link that I found to say, he says "we'll end up outside".

I don't see that saying "we can't do it" as the same as "it's not possible for anyone else to do it".

I accept you might see that as being a weaselly politician difference, but I don't think that calls integrity into question.

It's not the same as support for apartheid {Johnson,Blair, Thatcher, Starmer} or utter contempt for human life, epic scale dishonesty, or conspiring with a foreign government to damage your countries interests.

Now we actually have taken out of the single market, so his opinion has been vindicated by the facts.

So you suggest that means he lacks integrity.

I don't think that is correct, nor do I think he was incorrect, perhaps you could expand on your point.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

i don't recall him making this claim can you cite it please.

I do remember him saying he rated EU membership 7/10 and voted to remain[1]

I also remember him saying we wouldn't be able to remain in the single market after brexit [2]

[1] https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/745886722987294720?lang=en

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/08/jeremy-corbyn-eu-single-market-after-brexit

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

People aren't perfect, Major seems to have some integrity.

He served with Thatcher and was on the other side of many issues to me.

He seems to be doing his best but essentially based on reason not prejudice.

All people have 'inalienable right to freedom from oppression'. Only someone lacking integrity would deny another that right.

Brown likewise, seemed an essentially principled person with a moral code.

Corbyn has integrity and has been elected by the public since the 1980s every time he's put himself up for election. Unelectable is a strange phrase.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

Blair made some dreadful mistakes - but don't forget, he couldn't go to war by himself. He had to get it through Parliament. So what, he's not a good person - that's basically the point here, and parliament is not germane to that. For example - [1] Tony = Racist, Bad dude with no integrity.

Starmer has hardly had a chance - you can't do much except pontificate when you're in opposition. And he's not a fool - he knows that if he says "Labour will reverse Brexit" he has as much chance of winning the next election as I do. So his integrity prevents him from telling the truth, because he's a genuine belief it would be best for the country if he won.

Starmer is accused of expelling Jewish members of the labour party at a higher rate than any other leader[2]. Again he's a supporter of Zionist Terror, and lacks the integrity to admit the truth on Palestine anymore than on Brexit.

Starmer saying Israel "made the desert bloom" is like saying Columbus "discovered" America. He's doing what philosemites (antisemites who've found a political use for Jews) have always done: conscript Jews into the colonial project.

She's referring to this [4] and his condemning non violent resistance[12] so human rights, but not for all humans.

He is funded by private healthcare lobbyist [5] and even now has Streeting doing the rounds on why we need to let private money in to sort out the waiting lists [6], nothing on the 80 Billion extracted from our NHS by the tories since 2010.[7] Oh and [8] Integrity[9], unfit to be a socialist lawyer. [10]

Starmer has a failure to remove Mandelson pending a full accounting of his historical links to “Questions about Maxwell’s relationship with Epstein" is scandalous and an indictment of his judgement and probity. [11]

His accepting of funding from BICOM and Medical lobbyists [14] accord with his policy positions, which looks like I donate to your campaign and you okay the hiring of a person[15] who served in the recipient intelligence agencies[16]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/06/how-tony-blair-advised-former-kazakh-ruler-after-2011-uprising

[2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-antisemitism-accused-purging-jews-over-claims

[3] https://twitter.com/RivkahBrown/status/1461018168999223304

[4] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-starmer-israel-palestine-slammed-colonial-speech-bds

[5] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-hedge-fund-manager-and-ex-lib-dem-peer-among-donors-to-anticorbyn-labour-fund-a7193556.html

[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59910107

[7] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/pcph/seminars/howtodismantlethenhsin10easystepsquickpresentation.pdf

[8] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10248915/Sir-Keir-Starmer-hints-BAN-private-healthcare-PM.html

[9] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1252807371077726209.html

[10] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/legal-comrades-show-starmer-the-red-card/5107377.article

[11] https://dorseteye.com/the-labour-party-must-now-suspend-peter-mandelson/

[12] https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-israel-keir-starmer-palestine-b1960105.html

[13] https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/doc-reveals-ghislaine-maxwells-daddy-issues-with-jeffrey-epstein/

[14] https://www.businessinsider.com/keir-starmer-linked-labour-group-fined-14k-failure-declare-donations-2021-9

[15] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/02/lawyers-complain-to-labour-over-hiring-of-ex-israeli-intelligence-officer

[16] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7761169/Jeffrey-Epstein-book-claims-Ghislaine-Maxwell-Mossad-spies.html

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

I couldn't stand Margaret Thatcher and her governments, but again, they had integrity - they truly believed that what they did was the best thing for the country.

Thatcher was again a racist support of Zionist Terror, an enthusiastic supporter of apartheid south africa, who's contempt for "the inalienable rights of colonised people to seek liberation from foreign domination", i.e. "the rule of law" was legendary.

You seem to misunderstand selling off our assets and being racist as fuck, at the same time as cosplaying in a tank, doesn't make one have integrity.

She was sincere about her hatred of poor people, black people, Palestinian people. Fuck the old dead arsonist. She thought it was going to "swamp" the country if brown people where allowed to immigrate to Britain. She held a genuine belief if would be better if we all went "back" as it would improve the country in her Genuine and Sincere Belief.

Try A definiton of integrity which doesn't paint support for a racist monster as being okay.

Genuine intent is less than worthless. Thatcher a grubbly little racist blew up the anchor stopping house price inflation, forbidding the borrowing to replace the social stock.

Her hair was fixed in place strongly, but the utter contempt for human life, even when that life is brown or black is a red card, soz.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

There is a difference between getting your flat done up for presumably some sort of corrupt advantage favour and having lots of dead brown brown people killed in an illegal war so that oil was not sold in Euros thereby exposing the us dollar to the cruel winds of currency fluctuation.

It's about the intrinsic value of human life, vs the reality that the tories are as bent as a nine bob note.

It's sort of "their thing" or as they might say "our thing".

There is still a fundamental difference between a PM who is doing what they believe to be best for the country (no matter how much you don't like what they did), and someone who is a PM who is doing the job entirely for his own gratification.

You mistake Boris for a less sincere grifter, he inhabits the part, and is doing what he believe to be best for the country (no matter how much you don't like what he did), for the country, with a heavy heart does saint Boris of the rumpled brow, align the interests of the governed with his own.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

Major is rather underrated in my view. He seemed to embody the sort you could disagree with but still drink with·

Lamont, well.. he had a point about ERM.

sed gawk

Re: Boris is sadly the most honest of the bunch

Boris swears on a stack of bibles that he is as honest as the day is long.

Starmer and Blair both portray themselves as upright people, people of seriousness.

Boris portrays himself as pretending to be an essentially petty and greedy, randy, spoilt, boorish racist lazy dishonest arsehole without a comb.

Pretending to lack personal grooming equipment just isn't that big a deal in my book.

sed gawk

Re: Hmm

Don't confuse being better at the "tradecraft", with integrity.

Blair's body count exceeds Boris thus far.

Starmer has never met a "pledge" he could keep.

Boris just doesn't care enough to lie, he knows we can't/won't do anything but "tut" and smear the opposition.

Leaving was Lunacy and will remain Lunacy. Starmer lacks the "integrity" to say so, shouting Schrödinger's slogan "Make Brexit work" instead.

Blair's vision of the country was PFI, Our people harmed in Illegal wars, Our funds used to prop up terror around the globe from Yemen to Hebron. Starmer "supports the government" but not the NHS worker buckling under the strain, and in *need* of a 15% pay rise.

These men have no integrity, They are simply better at hiding their contempt for you and me.

Every decent thing 1997-2010 came from Brown's economic policy - who was a decent man at his core, as was Major for that matter - the GFE is Major/Mowlam's Achievement.


Starmer, Johnson, and Blair. Three racist, morality vacuums, who should never be/been allowed power.

Boris is the best of the bunch, as the naked contempt is cutting through, people for some reason care that he had a piss up, rather more than he's happy to deprive British Jewish(and other) people of citizenship without notice having explicitly passed legislation to that effect in Nationality and Borders Bill . https://www.bod.org.uk/bod-news/jewish-organisations-release-joint-statement-in-response-to-nationality-and-borders-bill/ And wasn't this the reason we couldn't have a real man of integrity in Magic Grandpa, we've have social care, free broadband and someone who could point to Northern Ireland on a Map.

Boris is "doing his best" to educate the population to not vote for Tories in {Red, Blue, Yellow} ties.

Integrity and Blair, how many more dead brown babies does it take for him to be considered a "bad guy"? How many more of these type articles https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/manchester-bomber-probably-fought-libya-inquiry-hears

Boris is sadly the most honest of the bunch, he just wants the money and to get his end away.

Privacy is for paedophiles, UK government seems to be saying while spending £500k demonising online chat encryption

sed gawk

Re: Nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide....

This Tells a Story -Tory MP Christian Wakeford defected to Labour, voted for the Policing Bill, privatization of the NHS, cut in Universal Credit, cap on benefits, end of triple-lock; hike in tax & national insurance

Jeremy Corbyn opposed all of the above - Labour whip withdrawn.


sed gawk

Re: Nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide....

you can forget an improvement from Stamer's Labour - in the words of the newest MP

Elected on a Conservative manifesto, Wakeford has voted consistently with the government and declared yesterday: “I was elected a moderate and a centrist, and I’m still a moderate and a centrist, I just wear a different rosette.”

[1] https://inews.co.uk/opinion/christian-wakeford-defect-election-tory-labour-bury-south-1412892

Big shock: Guy who fled political violence and became rich in tech now struggles to care about political violence

sed gawk

Re: Too true

As am I mate, it's difficult to do much more than recirculate the odd petition.

I can't do it through the Ballot box, I wish there was something concrete to help them and the other oppressed peoples of the world.

I buy over priced oil on the basis that someone will plant a tree, in the back of my mind, the cynical voice suggests I'm a mug. It's good oil, tastes just like the one at a tenth of the price.

I don't really know what else to do, I argue with people on the Internet, and that's a productive use of everyone's time if ever one existed.

Maybe feeling guilty is a step up from not giving a shit at all, but unless you suddenly have gained great geopolitical influence, wtaf can we do?

Spruce up your CV or just bin it? Survey finds recruiters are considering alternatives

sed gawk

Re: My interview process.

I take the CV as they come, yes I've spent a lot of dead time on the phone.

I've also hired people from sitting next to them on planes, listening to their dad bitching about the kid

who stayed on the computer all day. ( He got a proper interview and smashed it.)

sed gawk

I feel like I've been in that meeting.

The guy wasn't juggling with balls, it was a rectangular cloth thing filled with beads.

sed gawk

My interview process.

Screening call, just a quick chat to talk through current gig, and previous + any thing on cv - light tech filter.

In person, set a couple of basic problems, leave you in peace to work on them.

Some people just don't get that being good at being interviewed is separate from being good at delivering quality work.

Pair programming is about the banter, once you are locked in, I find it effortless, with a good pair.

But you need to have the right setup, I'm on my machine, you are on yours and we are both dialed into a shared screen, so you don't inflict your editor on me, and I can use Vim.

American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

sed gawk

Re: All I want for xmas

There is no legitimate use of drive by exploitation.

Perhaps they should be free to sell these tools, but lets not pretend this is not a tool for authoritarian control.

The appropriate analogy for this technology are shackles. *You* might only use them on "bad" people, but they are a tool of repression not liberation or defense.

Labour Party supplier ransomware attack: Who holds ex-members' data and on what legal basis?

sed gawk

Re: Didn't Labour recently recruit a former Israeli Spy



The evidence of apartheid directed at a civilian population, and the direct involvement of this person make them unsuitable for a position in a democratic political party.

The abhorrent behavior rising to crimes against humanity is well documented. People find it unacceptable in Palestine, as in South Africa.

sed gawk

Re: Didn't Labour recently recruit a former Israeli Spy

8200 are SIGINT not SPY, he's an analyst processing raw intel into something usable to hand over to someone else.



Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022