Heartofice Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: And a moron. Don't forget that bit about Jones. People like Jones serve a function in holding the center leftish parties to account and move them into the right direction (the left). But those preacher of orthodox purity are bad at politics and horrible politicians. His political hero, Jeremy Corbyn, was an utter disaster as Labour leader. Instead of basically admitting that very obvious and pretty undeniable truth, he is one of those guys who double down and that's how you end up with those but he won the argument nonsense. I mean, there's a pretty harsh reality check there. You win the political argument, by convincing a majority. How do we determine that in a democracy? By an election. If you return with the lowest numbers of MPs after an election, then you didn't win the argument. Starmer (whie utterly uninspiring) is winning the argument (by default). But in Jones world, he is winning the soul of the Labour party by quitting. Jones is nothing more than an attention seeker and a grifter. He doesn’t actually care about Labour winning or losing, it’s whatever gives him the opportunity to get some spotlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 10 hours ago, mormont said: The thing about conspiracy theories is that they're inherently unlikely to be true because people are people. If a member of the Royal Family were dead or at death's door, it would not be possible to keep that secret this long, because people love to tell secrets. You can keep some people quiet forever and some for a while but you can't keep everyone quiet for weeks. Whatever is going on, it's probably quite mundane. But the memes are hilarious. My general take is that conspiracies only work if you have a tiny number of people involved in them. The more people you add, the chances of exposure exponentially grow until exposure becomes inevitable. Successful, actual conspiracies achieve their goals by either the people involved being very low in number, very highly trained in keeping secrets (so government spy agencies, for example), or the people who get wind of what they're up to being fucking incompetent and not stopping them. I think the cut-off I saw quoted once was less than 50 people. Even the 20-ish people involved in 9/11 pretty much exposed themselves and put them on the FBI and CIA radar, but because the agencies were in a pissing contest, they didn't put the pieces together to stop them. It's also why the "9/11 was inside job" theories are self-inherently bullshit as you'd need many hundreds and probably a couple of thousand people involved in the conspiracy and the chances of that staying secret is zero. Keeping Kate or Charles dying/being dead secret might be possible briefly whilst a small number of people knew about it, but more than, nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 8 hours ago, BigFatCoward said: He's right about a lot, he's just insufferable Better than being wrong about everything and insufferable. And there are plenty of those folks making a career on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conflicting Thought Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 hour ago, Werthead said: My general take is that conspiracies only work if you have a tiny number of people involved in them. The more people you add, the chances of exposure exponentially grow until exposure becomes inevitable. Successful, actual conspiracies achieve their goals by either the people involved being very low in number, very highly trained in keeping secrets (so government spy agencies, for example), or the people who get wind of what they're up to being fucking incompetent and not stopping them. I think the cut-off I saw quoted once was less than 50 people. Even the 20-ish people involved in 9/11 pretty much exposed themselves and put them on the FBI and CIA radar, but because the agencies were in a pissing contest, they didn't put the pieces together to stop them. It's also why the "9/11 was inside job" theories are self-inherently bullshit as you'd need many hundreds and probably a couple of thousand people involved in the conspiracy and the chances of that staying secret is zero. Keeping Kate or Charles dying/being dead secret might be possible briefly whilst a small number of people knew about it, but more than, nope. How many people where involved in the manhattan project? They had a fricking town build. Having said that, i do think that was an oultier, but maybe there have been other projects like that. Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) State of the BBC Newsroom. The first 20 minutes of their flagship news program is spent hectoring a young, working class woman about a few thousand pounds of tax which may or may not have been owed when she sold her small terraced house when working as a home care worker. Where's the fucking Michelle Mone special? Or how about the Bozo and Lebedev Treason Special? Michael Gove's Covid-Corruption Bonanza, so big they did a Monday to Friday takeover? Get a grip, BBC. Fucking embarrassing. Edited March 22 by Spockydog Prince of the North and Tears of Lys 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 6 hours ago, Spockydog said: Where's the fucking Michelle Mone special? I must be hallucinating the long interview they did with Mone and Barrowman they did only recently plus a 90 minute investigation into Barrowman? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001vgqn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Angela Rayner is a prominent public figure. Also she’s 44. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 hour ago, Heartofice said: I must be hallucinating the long interview they did with Mone and Barrowman they did only recently plus a 90 minute investigation into Barrowman? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001vgqn on the scale of how egregious each of their offences was, do you think maybe Rayner should have got about 5 mins, and Mone a 10 season, 22 episode Netflix special? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: on the scale of how egregious each of their offences was, do you think maybe Rayner should have got about 5 mins, and Mone a 10 season, 22 episode Netflix special? Yeah I think the Rayner thing is a heap of nothing, but she is probably going to be in the next government and she should have to defend herself against accusations and be seen to be doing so. Seems really daft to think the BBC should just overlook it. On the other hand, the accusation the BBC has ignored the Mone thing is wildly inaccurate, I don’t know what planet Spocky is living on for him to think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Why the f'ck is Starmer weighing in on the St George cross on the back of the England shirt debacle? The people who care are never going to vote for him anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 It's a debacle only as relates to the performative hyperventilating by people who don't actually care, but want everyone to know how very very patriotic they are. The actual design is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 21 minutes ago, mormont said: It's a debacle only as relates to the performative hyperventilating by people who don't actually care, but want everyone to know how very very patriotic they are. The actual design is fine. I am incredibly unpatriotic, and don't even give a shit if the flag is on the strip or not, I'd actually prefer it wasn't. if was given a choice between England winning the world cup and Newcastle winning their next premier league game I'd choose Newcastle every time. But surely the main design point of a flag is that it is the actual colours of the flag? Otherwise its not actually that flag. This feels very much like they have tried to stir up controversy to generate free publicity, everyone saw how that worked out for Bud Light. Edited March 22 by BigFatCoward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Starmer just needs to cover his back to show on these issues really, to show that he's not an Anti British Commie like Corbyn. It is a bit of a silly idea by Nike anyway, I guess the outrage is based on the idea that it's totally fine to 'playfully update' the St George's cross, but they probably wouldn't do it with other flags. Would they make the Scottish flag pink? Either way, I don't think it's a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Just now, BigFatCoward said: Newcastle every time. Owned by a Theocratic Petrostate.. good priorities there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Owned by a Theocratic Petrostate.. good priorities there. Coming from someone with some of your political views, that's a bit rich. One is my team, one isn't. Also, i didn't vote for them. Edited March 22 by BigFatCoward A Horse Named Stranger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said: i didn't vote for them. But you voted for against Southgate and the FA? I am just confused by this statement of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: But you voted for against Southgate and the FA? I am just confused by this statement of yours. The Holy Grail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 Ok, that fixed quote makes more sense, and I can sorta get aboard with. Altho, selling out to Saudi Arabia would've been an absolute dealbreaker to me. But we've had this discussion over at the football thread at the time, thus no need for a rehash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 14 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: Coming from someone with some of your political views, that's a bit rich. Lol! What are my political views!? I mean if you want to continue to support Saudi Arabia FC, that is totally on you, you absolutely have to power to not support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 13 minutes ago, Heartofice said: I mean if you want to continue to support Saudi Arabia FC, that is totally on you, you absolutely have to power to not support them. I support the team, the players and like to bond with my friends and family over Newcastle (and also Amanda with her weird Kyrten face), the Saudi regime can fuck off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts