BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail

Subject: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:30 AM

Take heed!

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

and

NOT FIT FOR FACTS: 20 TIMES THE DAILY MAIL WROTE RUBBISH IN THE PAST YEAR

I am never sure of Wiki 'facts' anyway but at least they seem better at checking sources and making corrections than some of our gutter press.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:49 AM

Interesting to read the link, which is from The Guardian:
Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group "generally unreliable".

The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.
I think that last sentence is intended to mean "Wikipedia's editors have raised concerns about quoting from both Russia Today and Fox news" I'm fairly sure that it is not Russia Today, or Fox News, which have raised the concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:06 AM

I would guess so too, Nigel. Hopefully they will come next, closely followed by the Stun.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:12 AM

Can't wait for the guardian to be put on the list as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM

What has the Guardian misreported then, Iains? Do you have any recent examples?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:39 AM

The Grauniad presumably has committed crimes against spelling (historic).

There has to be some oversight. I have had source references refused because of copyright reasons.
And for a blanket ban, consensus is the way. The Wikipedia way.
Another way would be a Snopes quotient.

All Newspapers print falsehoods. Some, occasionally by mistake, some regularly by policy. We call the latter comics.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:40 AM

He's scared that Wiki will end up being edited only by soft-centred inky-pinky sandal-wearing bearded guilt-ridden liberal apologists, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM

A blanket ban is the start of a slippery slope. Who polices the policemen?
Does it mean Hansard should be banned because frequently politicians put a vicious spin on their responses in Parliament? Should it include any newspaper that is partisan?
Where does it end?
I regard it as a very dangerous development, and further censoring of the internet.
According to some sources the daily mail is the most widely read english language newspaper in the world. I have no way of verifying that, but if true, it makes banning it as a source even more dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:00 AM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:02 AM

Who polices the policemen? We do, you certainly do.

But put your truncheon away, you might hit yourself on the backswing. Dearie.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM

:-) was for Steve.

As to where does it all end. Well, I think the answer to that lies in common sense. If a source is regularly wrong in its reporting then it should be doubted and double checked at all times. The editors of Wikipedia have a job to do and if they spend a large proportion of their time checking the Daily Mail sources, which should have been checked by the paper in the first place, then it makes sense for them to stop using it and save themselves a lot of work.

Hansard is false equivalence. They report what the MP says. Whether the MP is right or wrong is a matter for people to make up their own mind about but the fact remains that the MP said it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:11 AM

Well mr patronising red, if the vetting process we can all participate in works so well there is no need for a blanket ban now is there?

https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/09/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail/
maybe it is more to do with the munnee.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: DaveRo
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:12 AM

Iains wrote: According to some sources the daily mail is the most widely read english language newspaper in the world. I have no way of verifying that, but if true, it makes banning it as a source even more dangerous.

I agree about the un-wisdom of a blanket ban, but why does the fact that a newspaper is widely read make a ban 'more dangerous'? Just curious.

Seems likely to me that there is a correlation between circulation and inaccuracy - which may make the Mail an unauthorative source, and therefore deprecated - though not banned.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:16 AM

Dave Ro. Dangerous purely on the basis that it disseminates news(of a sort) to the greatest number.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:24 AM

D the G I disagree that Hansard is a false equivalence. You can read coverage of the same event in say the guardian or russia today. Two very different perspectives giving two very different accounts. It is very hard for any news source to have true independence. Someone some where pays the wages and generally they have an agenda that they will promote whenever possible. Truth is a very elusive beast and requires sifting and sorting of sources to come close to finding it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:30 AM

Well as I think I may have mentioned before, I occasionally pick up a free copy of the Daily Mail with my Waitrose card (I could get the Guardian, but I already get that, or the Times or Telegraph, but I already have enough bog paper). Yesterday's front page was about the soldier who murdered an injured insurgent in cold blood in Afghanistan. By the time you've read the first two tabloid-length paragraphs of the "report" it's crystal clear that the paper is solidly on the side of the convicted murderer. When I want the news I want the news, not the news mixed up with someone's opinion of it. I want to see that only in separate, clearly-defined opinion columns. Of course, the Mail isn't unique in employing that dishonest approach, and it's why it and its fellow tabloids can't be trusted. So if Wiki wants to exclude the Mail, that's fine by me. I wouldn't expect Wiki to glean aspects of education policy from the Bash Street Kids in the Beano either.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM

Hansard is not a newspaper. It is the official report of goings on on both houses of parliament. What it reports is always accurate. It has no bias or spin in itself and only gives verbatim copy of what was said.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:40 AM

Daily mail
It had an average daily circulation of 1,510,824 copies in November 2016. Between July and December 2013 it had an average daily readership of approximately 3.951 million, of whom approximately 2.503 million were in the ABC1 demographic and 1.448 million in the C2DE demographic.

That Mr Shaw is a lot of people in the ABC1mdemographic that do not share your opinion. and unlike you they buy Andrex.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:10 AM

So what? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Senoufou
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:24 AM

Well, I buy it Monday to Friday. I never read a word. I only extract the double page of puzzles, crosswords and Sudoku, which keeps me quiet for an hour (and gives my husband a bit of peace) The rest of the thing goes under the cat litter tray, (probably the best place for it!) and is also used for wrapping up food leftovers before putting in the bin.
I couldn't even tell you what the articles are about, who their columnists are or what so-called News it purports to convey.

So please don't have me executed... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:13 AM

D the G.
"Hansard is not a newspaper. It is the official report of goings on on both houses of parliament. What it reports is always accurate. It has no bias or spin in itself and only gives verbatim copy of what was said."

Very true but I am sure reams were written on Parliamentary reports of weapons of mass destruction used as an excuse to take us to war in Iraq, and later shown to be a massaged pack of lies. These conversations/debates were based on a false premise. Parliament was mislead and dodgy dossiers were used as a basis for the voting.
In reality that was a far greater crime than the daily wail getting things wrong on occasions.
Anyway if in search of quality reporting there exist other papers.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:35 AM

I am sure reams were written on Parliamentary reports of weapons of mass destruction used as an excuse to take us to war in Iraq

I am sure they were Iains but that does not alter the fact that Hansard only reports what actually happens in parliament. Hansard does not try to lead peoples opinions as the newspapers do.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:11 AM

I can't for the life of me think why Hansard has been invoked in this discussion. It is not a newspaper with an editor who decides what goes where, if at all, and how many column inches each item gets, and it contains no editorial opinion. Apart from redundancies and repetitions and occasional correcting of mistakes, it is, in effect, a comprehensive transcript of debates. It is an exceptionally reliable source of what is said. In complete contrast, the Mail's reporting routinely includes elements of campaigning for one side of an argument, with a tendentious style that, in effect, mixes news and comment. If plain facts are what you want, that approach is in danger of misleading. The soldier who murdered the Afghan insurgent isn't just involved in an appeal against his conviction (the neutral fact of the matter), he has "hopes for justice," the clear implication being that he has so far been denied justice. That is the paper's view, mixed together with the news report. The same reporter has another item in the paper which clearly implies that the conditions at the military camp in Afghanistan contributed to the state of mind that made him do the murder. The whole is intended to get us to side with him. There's no mention of the fact that all this was going on in the insurgent's own region or that their family had lost a son. Of course, that would have been tendentious the opposite way. But it might at least have provided balance. CP Scott said that comment is free but facts are sacred. Had he been around today he might have campaigned for full, not deliberately partial, facts, and that no-one should be in the slightest doubt as to whether it's fact or comment they're reading. Because the Mail can't seem to dispel such doubt, it has been correctly branded unreliable. And there are others.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM

Yes, sorry all. It was introduced thus by Iains -

Does it mean Hansard should be banned because frequently politicians put a vicious spin on their responses in Parliament?

And I tried to point out that was false equivalence for all the reasons stated before. It was a side track and we should now forget it.

What is interesting though is that the question I had asked as to why the Guardian should be included in the ban was never answered. I gather from that there is little or no evidence of them purposely misreporting for political gain?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:34 AM

Because mr shaw Hansard reports faithfully what was said. It does not differentiate between statement of fact and stated opinion. Newspapers have always mixed and matched between the 2.
Like a newspaper may claim, Hansard reports the facts. It does not follow that what it states is the truth.
Like a newspaper, the content of Hansard cannot always be trusted when
quoting opinions verbatim

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:52 AM

Pot and kettle?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:56 AM

Had to laugh at this from someone who admits he gets his news from the Guianard:

"When I want the news I want the news, not the news mixed up with someone's opinion of it."

That wipes out anything ever written by Seumas Milne, George Monbiot or Tariq Ali and a host of others then Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:59 AM

I really don't understand what you're getting at, Iains.

The Hansard reporters take down, word for word, what is said in Parliament. They don't put a spin on it, alter it, comment on it, or misreport it. Hansard is not a newspaper - it is a transcript of the day in Parliament. Now, what is said may be anything - pearls of wisdom or absolute bollocks - but the reporters have NO choice in changing it. That is what makes it different from a conventional newspaper.

In short, you may disagree with the opinions of the speakers whose words are taken down in Hansard - that depends on whether you trust the individual MPs or not - but you cannot say that they said something else entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM

That has always been known, Howard. Wikipedia is not and never has been a definitive source on anything which is why there are links to sources on anything it reports as factual. So you can look them up yourselves. Unlike the Daily Mail which puts forward opinion mixed with reporting as the true picture. The fact that some people do not check their sources is the whole point of removing the Daily Mail as a source. If the source cannot be relied on, neither can the fact. The linked Daily Mail article is just someone spitting their dummy out.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:31 AM

Will Fly. I said: "Hansard reports faithfully what was said. It does not differentiate between statement of fact and stated opinion."
Can I make that any clearer?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:49 AM

Dthe g, as you press the point:-

The guardian:
    An article about a conservation project to return mountain chicken frogs to Montserrat said that the endangered frog was the national dish of the island. Montserrat's national dish is goat water, a stew; mountain chicken is the national dish of nearby Dominica.

or
    The paper's editor, Philippe Remarque, called it a "stupid mistake", and apologised to Cruyff, the former Ajax and Holland forward and manager of Barcelona.

    "On behalf of Volkskrant I offer my apologies to Johan Cruyff and anyone who has been upset by this," he said. "The app was tested this morning with fake stories, and a technician came up with this as a way of testing a major breaking news story. By mistake it appeared with this headline."

or
A report on page 3 in Thursday's paper about the opening day of a case at the high court involving Nick and Christian Candy said incorrectly that they attended the hearing accompanied by bodyguards.
plenty more if you insist on boring everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:50 AM

Yes but that is not what you said originaly, Iains. The first mention of Hansard was by you and said

Does it mean Hansard should be banned because frequently politicians put a vicious spin on their responses in Parliament?

I took that to mean that Hansard was reporting the spin. Will obviously though the same. Maybe you should consider clarifying what you mean in a more friendly manner before you start to patronise others.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:53 AM

Anything that they have not apologised for or acknowledged as a mistake would do, Iains. Preferably something that affects peoples lives and world economies.

Please feel free to continue boring whoever you want.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:57 AM

Have you been having lessons off Teribus in being belligerent BTW? You have a long way to go yet but you are getting there.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:58 AM

Will Fly: The Hansard reporters take down, word for word, what is said in Parliament. They don't put a spin on it, alter it, comment on it, or misreport it. Hansard is not a newspaper - it is a transcript of the day in Parliament. Now, what is said may be anything - pearls of wisdom or absolute bollocks - but the reporters have NO choice in changing it. That is what makes it different from a conventional newspaper.

Will, what's supposed to happen is (from the Terms of Reference of Hansard as defined by a Commons Select Committee): "...which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes (including grammatical mistakes) corrected, but which, on the other hand, leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument."

That's what's supposed to happen. In fact Hansard doesn't always report accurately what's been said. There have been several instances in the years since proceedings have been recorded when the official Hansard record has indeed been proved to have been edited in ways HAVE left out things "which have added to the meaning of the speech".

Also, if an MP does say something which is later proved to be inaccurate, then the "copy of record" of Hansard kept in the Commons library is amended to reflect this.

You're substantially correct, but there's a bit more to it!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 10:53 AM

D the G. the thread was about the Daily mail being unreliable as a source of news:
"The general themes of the support votes centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."
You look hard enough and many newspapers could be tarred with the same brush, either wholly or in part.
My reason for comparing newspapers with Hansard is that accurate reporting of dialogue from a reputable source does not guarantee the veracity of the recorded content. It is merely a transcript of the proceedings. If those proceedings contain lies, spin, bullsh*t, then that is accurately recorded. Just like certain newspaper articles truth is relegated to the back row. All sources can be suspect and need consideration even Hansard. That is why I used it as an example as far away from the mainstream media as it is possible to get.

Also Wikipedia can come up with some howlers when first posted, although I will concede they are generally corrected quite quickly.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Stu
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:00 AM

"My reason for comparing newspapers with Hansard is that accurate reporting of dialogue from a reputable source does not guarantee the veracity of the recorded content."

I'm beginning to think you're not getting this at all. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:03 AM

D the G. the thread was about the Daily mail being unreliable as a source of news:

It still is.

You look hard enough and many newspapers could be tarred with the same brush, either wholly or in part.

It's that 'wholly or in part' that is significant. Comparing chicken frogs in Montserrat to stirring up hate against migrants or Muslims is comparing apples to blue nosed baboons.. The editorial team of Wikipedia seem to agree. You do not. Ne'er the twain and all that.

Hansard was brought up by you. You have explained your comment. It is now a non issue.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:22 AM

That wipes out anything ever written by Seumas Milne, George Monbiot or Tariq Ali and a host of others then

I don't understand, Teribus. Steve said he wanted news clearly separated from opinion and comment. The people you identified (and quite possibly the host of others) write in sections clearly identified as comment, not news, when they use their name. Now, for all I know, they also write anonymous articles in the news section, and if they mixed news and comment in that I am sure Steve would object to the mixing there.

It is virtually impossible to write any news article without some degree of bias. Even selecting which articles appear and which do not has an angle. However, the point about the Daily Mail is that, *in the opinion of Wikipedia* it does not try hard enough to eliminate the biases.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:34 AM

There is a difference between confusing the national dishes of two neighbouring Caribbean islands, reporting accurately things which are said which may be inaccurate, and making stuff up to blacken the reputation of an entire segment of society. The Mail of course has form from the 30s, when it was a different segment. It is true that other newspapers, notably the Sun and the Express, are guilty of fabrication, and if I were wikipedia or anything to do with it I would not use those as a source either.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:37 AM

Had to laugh at this from someone who admits he gets his news from the Guianard:

"When I want the news I want the news, not the news mixed up with someone's opinion of it."

That wipes out anything ever written by Seumas Milne, George Monbiot or Tariq Ali and a host of others then Shaw.

Those three are not news reporters, Teribus old son. They write comment columns that are clearly distinct from news reports and which are always on separate pages. Next time, engage your brain before you type and do try to follow what's going in.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:57 AM

Thanks, DMcG. We actually cross-posted in spite of the 15-minute time lag between us. I got interrupted half way through!

There are lots of hidden biases even in the best papers. Someone has decided how much prominence to give a news report, what page it goes on, how long it should be and whether it goes in the paper at all. The same applies to news bulletins on the telly. News is produced and presented to us by human beings. I can excuse factual mistakes that are made by accident with no attached agenda. I want to think that they are doing their best to present news to me in order to increase my knowledge and inform my opinion, not make my opinion for me. I won't read papers that I suspect are trying to do that. In my experience, that precludes every tabloid in this country except for the "i," and it also precludes the Daily Telegraph. As I've said before, it pays to get information from several carefully-chosen sources, not just one. If only everyone had done that before that confounded referendum, and before the US election, we wouldn't be in this bloody mess now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 12:29 PM

That is a very bizarre stance you take mr shaw. You imply all those that voted for Trump and Brexit did so from ignorance. Many would dispute your assumption. What infallible source did you use to arrive at such a sweeping delusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 12:33 PM

A deal of defensive hysteria going on here
It is inaccurate to claim that The Mail has been "banned" - Wiki has said they are ceasing to use it as a source of information because of its record of inaccuracies - fair enough
As an information provider, Wiki is duty bound to ascertain that their information sources don't fall below a certain level - they have judged that The Mail has fallen below that standard.
Wili isn't particularly biased in one direction or the other, in my experience, so it can hardly be accused of embarking on a "slippery slope"
The comparisons with Mansard are ludicrous - if it didn't include all opinions, right or wrong, it would be in neglect of its duty and embarking on censorship.
Rational Wikki describes THe Mail as a "Fascist Rag" - not far from the mark, in my opinion, given its history with "Herr Hitler" and 'British Union of Fascists' and its more recent manipulation of the truth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Peter the Squeezer
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 12:46 PM

Some years ago, I set a pub quiz.

One of the questions was "What is the name of the official journal of (UK) Parliament?

One team answered "Tribune".



Oh - if only!!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim McLean
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 12:50 PM

Just before the Scottish Indy referendum, the Scottish Daily Mail's headline was Cameron saying "Don't tear our family apart". On the same day, the English version's headline was "Why don't we tell the Scots to shove off".

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM

Jim the introduction of a pitched roof into the thread has me confused. Can you enlighten me?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:29 PM

You imply all those that voted for Trump and Brexit did so from ignorance. Many would dispute your assumption. What infallible source did you use to arrive at such a sweeping delusion?

And what infallible source do YOU use to REFUTE such a "sweeping delusion"[sic], pray?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:31 PM

A reference to a Mansard roof I presume Iains which, considering it is pretty obvious what Jim was on about and was a simple typo, is neither clever nor witty. Another trait of your role model that you have picked up I'm afraid.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:47 PM

"That is a very bizarre stance you take mr shaw. You imply all those that voted for Trump and Brexit did so from ignorance. Many would dispute your assumption. What infallible source did you use to arrive at such a sweeping delusion?"

Well let me put it to you this way. No rational person, with all the information to hand about Trump's history, attitudes and pig-ignorance, would have voted for him. "Rational" is quite important in that context. So yes indeed. If you voted for Trump you voted out of irrationality and/or out of a deficit of information. Which is a polite way of saying ignorance. Likewise, any rational person who had a good idea of the history and workings of the EU would have been extremely worried about the tissues of lies which were the modus operandi of both sides of the argument and either refrained from voting or voted for the safety of the status quo. To vote to leave into a completely unknown and danger-ridden future was a decision based on ignorance which fuelled vulnerability to specious and dishonest arguments. If it's any consolation to you, I imagine that millions of people who were well short of being fully-informed also voted Clinton or remain. Incidentally, I read last week of a study that demonstrated a good correlation between good education and voting remain. Bet that'll get you going. And if you call me deluded one more time I'll give you grief about the deficiencies of your posts every time you post. The fact that it will be a very major operation won't put me off.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:50 PM

"Jim the introduction of a pitched roof into the thread has me confused."
I suggest you read your own postings Iain, and then read what others have said.
"A blanket ban is the start of a slippery slope. Who polices the policemen?"
Surely you're not going to pick up on a typo - so soon after complaining about others doing it
That bereft of argument already!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 02:05 PM

Talking of Iains and his typos (I'm being kind here and assuming that they are just that and not an indication of a literacy shortfall), get this:

"That is a very bizarre stance you take mr shaw. You imply all those that voted for Trump..."

Not fair! How come Trump gets a capital letter but I don't!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 02:35 PM

because in the greater scheme of things the President is way more important than you steve. This may come as a surprise to you but there you go.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 02:45 PM

"the President is way more important than you steve."
So us underlings don't merit capital letters to our names?
How big does our bank balance have to be before we do?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 02:51 PM

Anyway, he isn't more important than me.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 02:58 PM

And, in addition, Hump is aconfirmed asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:23 PM

Jim the introduction of a pitched roof into the thread has me confused. Can you enlighten me?

He could try, I have no doubt, but ...........

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:11 PM

Why be bashful Mr Red. The rest of the pack seem to be in fine form.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:29 PM

There's no pack. It's your snowflakey persecution complex combined with your thoroughly justified inferiority complex.

Damn. I promised myself never to call anyone a snowflake. What have you done to me, Iains?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:20 PM

"The rest of the pack seem to be in fine form."
You really do deal in insults rather than argument, dont oyu
Learn from your mate's failures - those who think themselves superior usually end up proving that they are at the bottom of the heap
Leave him to stew in his own superiority Steve - a new ego-triper on the block is the last thing we need
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:41 PM

Well you know me, Jim. I only pick people up on their typos when they get all hoity bloody toity about other people's. But on this occasion I must congratulate you on the finest, most appropriate typo of all, viz:

"Leave him to stew in his own superiority Steve - a new ego-triper on the block...". He's got the ego all right, and he peddles tripe! Genius, Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:53 PM

Typo - what typo?
Oh ye of little faith!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:08 PM

I knew it, yer bugger - you did it on purpose! "Ego-triper" - please tell me you haven't copyrighted it, leaving me free to use it here. There are going to be so many opportunities!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 03:16 AM

As I said, the pack is in fine form. You have just admirably confirmed it. I presume you have to cluster together as you are incapable of acting in isolation, and have run out of anything sensible to say.
How sad that your fixation on monopolising every thread means you have to resort to drivelling when the idea box is empty.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 03:28 AM

"the pack is in fine form. "
Now you are just trolling with insults Iains
It didn't take long
Please don't - people have responded to your insulting aggression with a degree of restraint - nobody wants another slanging match - there have been far too man already
Leave it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 04:36 AM

So, we have had patronisation, insults, accusations of pack bullying and picking up on typos. All we need now is "I have better things to do" and "get a life" for the full set. Always a good fallback in the event of having nothing sensible to add. Well done Iains.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:01 AM

Just wait 'til he really tells you what he thinks, Dave. He'll ironically call you a snowflake. Anyway, I'm just off to buy the Saturday Guardian in order to spend half a day embroiled in scepticism. The first thing I do is turn to Blind Date in the mag, look at the pic of the couple, exercise as much prejudice as I can muster from that image alone, then read the text to find out how wrong I can be. That copy of the Mail I got on Thursday is currently polluting my paper recycling bag.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 10:13 AM

All we need now is "I have better things to do" and "get a life" for the full set.

Not quite - you forgot to include "You Lose!"

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 10:26 AM

What about baseless accusations and spittle-flecked rants?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 12:08 PM

Looking at these latest offerings it is easy to see why the Labour party is facing an extinction event very shortly. Can't happen soon enough I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 12:42 PM

Interesting view point Iains, no alternative party ...........

Dictatorship beckons ..............

Is that what you really want ............?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 01:01 PM

Probably, Raggy, probably. It's the only way these people have any hope of winning an argument :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 01:27 PM

Raggytash. No one in their right mind would want a one party state. There are plenty of examples from recent history to amply illustrate the resultant dangers.
But you must admit the Tories do not have a viable opposition. They are a joke and become more pitiful by the day.

dtheg you are presumtuous . I can articulate my own thoughts
quite easily thank you. You have not the slightest idea of what my thoughts on dictatorship may be, although your arrogance may lead you to think that you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 01:38 PM

I did say probably in case you did not notice. Glad it annoyed you enough to respond though ;-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 02:04 PM

"I can articulate my own thoughts quite easily thank you."

Then:

"But you must admit the Tories do not have a viable opposition. They are a joke and become more pitiful by the day."

Who are? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 02:30 PM

"There are plenty of examples from recent history to amply illustrate the resultant dangers."
There are indeed - Mrs T described Pinochet's one party state that was achieved my mass murder, rape and torture as her kind of democracy and its architect as "a hero of democracy"
Britin has being selling arms to one party states throughout my lifetime and a year or so ago sent it's Prime Minister to one of them while a journalist was being administered 1000 LASHES .
It seems to depend on which party constitutes a one party system to some people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 04:47 PM

You decide stevie. I deliberately phrased it for you to exhibit your "skills".

Jim. quoted from the Independent about 5 months back:-Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world, official government figures show – with most of the weapons fuelling deadly conflicts in the Middle East.

Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked "not free" on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government's own human rights watch list.

A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West.
Read more

    British arms companies ramp up bomb sales to Saudi Arabia by 100 times despite air strikes on civilians
    MPs to investigate evidence of illegal weapons sales at London's DSEI arms fair
    British government dismisses concerns about selling arms to Saudi Arabia

Meanwhile statistics collated by UK Trade and Investment, a government body that promotes British exports abroad, show the UK has sold more arms than Russia, China, or France on average over the last 10 years. Only the United States is a bigger exporter.

"The UK is one of the world's most successful defence exporters, averaging second place in the global rankings on a rolling ten-year basis, making it Europe's leading defence exporter in the period," the body boasted in a report released this summer.

However these sales were signed off by both Labour and Conservative governments. Also to add a little balance Labour can hardly be regarded as saints.

"Labour is the only Party in the history of the United Kingdom to have single-handedly wrecked the economy. Twice. And started illegal war. Twice.
Elected into power in a landslide election in 1997, lead by Tony Blair, and then quickly set about laying waste to manufacturing. Went to war in 2001, the War on Terror (the first ever war to be waged upon an abstract noun), later followed by the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
Pursued pseudo-Conservative policies interspersed with fantastical socialism, both of which usually end up failing.
Famed for woeful management of the country, and the economy. Work on the pretences of capitalist-friendliness, while overtaxing and regulating the private sector, and generally receiving dollops of hatred from business leaders.
Leaders have connections to Marxism (Alistair Darling) and Communism (Peter Mandelson), both of which condescending lectured the right wing press and business leaders on how to run the country.
Hell bent on achieving equality, even though to achieve such a thing would mean an end to aspiration and result in the ultimate downfall of the British economy.
Fighting the General Election of 2010 on the principles of fairness:- so long as you consider fairness to be a wrecked economy, no aspiration and authoritarian surveillance, social breakdown and short-sighted political gain. Have an irrational hatred of Conservatives and the rich

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:14 PM

What sources are you quoting? Or are you quoting yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:56 PM

Well whatever he was quoting, the second essential speech marks were missing. And it was drivel in any case. Iains has a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:51 AM

"What sources are you quoting?"
He is quoting 'The Urban Dictionary', "which is a crowdsourced online dictionary of slang words" assembled by blogged definitions contributed by ..... whoever!
A blogger's "dictionary"
It has no authoritative grounding, no history of research, no credibility - nothing in the way of a reputation - if you are looking for an off-the cuff quote on anything, from politics - to stand-up-comedy - to the most satisfying porn channel - it's in U.D.
The level of reliability of the dictionary can be found in the last line of that particular definition, which is entitled entitled "Labour", from the contributor
"You stupid Labourite! Go munch some lentils, ya hippie.
by TGPEG April 18, 2010"
The "Independant' doesn't stand a chance next to such erudition, does it!!!
My first encounter with Ians was when he called me naive for believing everything I read - unfortunately, he failed to introduce me to The Urban Dictionary - it would have saved me making all the mistakes I have!!
Within a week of the start of the Arab Spring protests, David Cameron lauunched a massive ARMS FAIR in London aimed at such 'Democracies' as Saudi Arania and Bahrain
Britain supplied sniper ammunition to Syria which was possibly used to train the snipers who cut down the citizens of Homs and riot control equipment (tear gas, batons, body armour and armoured cars) which allowed the protesters to be rounded up and herded into Assad's prisons where they were tortured in their many thousands, and later 'disappeared'
Five days ago The Daily Telegraph reported that 13,000 people were executed in just one of Assad's prisons in Damascus over the last five years.
Britain was condemned internationally during the period when the Assad regime was using chemical weapons on its own people, when it was revealed that we had sold chemicals to Syria which were capable of being used in the manufacture of those weapons.
The rise of Isis can be traced back directly to the failure of the UN to act on the Homs massacres and the support given by Western countries to regimes such as Assad's
Wonder if The Urban Dictionary carried any of that information!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:51 AM

"What sources are you quoting?"
He is quoting 'The Urban Dictionary', "which is a crowdsourced online dictionary of slang words" assembled by blogged definitions contributed by ..... whoever!
A blogger's "dictionary"
It has no authoritative grounding, no history of research, no credibility - nothing in the way of a reputation - if you are looking for an off-the cuff quote on anything, from politics - to stand-up-comedy - to the most satisfying porn channel - it's in U.D.
The level of reliability of the dictionary can be found in the last line of that particular definition, which is entitled entitled "Labour", from the contributor
"You stupid Labourite! Go munch some lentils, ya hippie.
by TGPEG April 18, 2010"
The "Independant' doesn't stand a chance next to such erudition, does it!!!
My first encounter with Ians was when he called me naive for believing everything I read - unfortunately, he failed to introduce me to The Urban Dictionary - it would have saved me making all the mistakes I have!!
Within a week of the start of the Arab Spring protests, David Cameron lauunched a massive ARMS FAIR in London aimed at such 'Democracies' as Saudi Arania and Bahrain
Britain supplied sniper ammunition to Syria which was possibly used to train the snipers who cut down the citizens of Homs and riot control equipment (tear gas, batons, body armour and armoured cars) which allowed the protesters to be rounded up and herded into Assad's prisons where they were tortured in their many thousands, and later 'disappeared'
Five days ago The Daily Telegraph reported that 13,000 people were executed in just one of Assad's prisons in Damascus over the last five years.
Britain was condemned internationally during the period when the Assad regime was using chemical weapons on its own people, when it was revealed that we had sold chemicals to Syria which were capable of being used in the manufacture of those weapons.
The rise of Isis can be traced back directly to the failure of the UN to act on the Homs massacres and the support given by Western countries to regimes such as Assad's
Wonder if The Urban Dictionary carried any of that information!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:15 AM

I thought the urban dictionary gave a fairly apt description of labour.
Actually quite mild compared to the pack savaging the esteemed Mrs Thatcher( a heroine to any discriminating person)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM

"I thought the urban dictionary gave a fairly apt description of labour."
You would, wouldn't you
Thatcher
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/tories-have-forgotten-that-thatcher-wasnt-just-a-terrorist-sympathiser-but-close-friends-with-one-10507850.html
From the Independent - (can't blue clickie)
Are you going to persist with this infantile "the pack" - shall we add your name to "The Fanatical Foursome"
I don't know how old you are, but for the sake of a rational discussion, please make an effort to grow up"
At present you are coming over as a somewhat truckulent schoolchild
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM

"I thought the urban dictionary gave a fairly apt description of labour."
You would, wouldn't you
Thatcher
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/tories-have-forgotten-that-thatcher-wasnt-just-a-terrorist-sympathiser-but-close-friends-with-one-10507850.html
From the Independent - (can't blue clickie)
Are you going to persist with this infantile "the pack" - shall we add your name to "The Fanatical Foursome"
I don't know how old you are, but for the sake of a rational discussion, please make an effort to grow up"
At present you are coming over as a somewhat truckulent schoolchild
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:28 AM

About as accurate as the Daily Mail as well I would say. From the article -

Went to war in 2001, the War on Terror (the first ever war to be waged upon an abstract noun)

From Wikipedia

The War on Drugs" is an American term usually applied to the United States government's campaign of prohibition of drugs, military aid, and military intervention, with the stated aim being to reduce the illegal drug trade. This initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971

Does that not make the war on terror phrase some 30 years later that the war on drugs?

Makes you wonder what their sources are and what other drivel is being quoted as fact.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:42 AM

Jim you should read your sources more closely:
"The Syrian regime has executed up to 13,000 people in secret mass hangings carried out in the basement of a military prison near Damascus, according to Amnesty International.

A new report by the human rights group alleges that Bashar al-Assad's security forces carried out "a calculated campaign of mass hangings and extermination" at Saydnaya, a military prison outside the capital."

You carefully omit the word alleges. No proof, just an unsubstantiated allegation.

You are yet another peddling FALSE NEWS.
Where is your proof to support your quoted facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM

A bit like the false statement that the war on terror was "the first ever war to be waged upon an abstract noun"?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:01 AM

dtheg A rather good phrase I thought. As good a reason for going to war as the one we were given.

Jim Another view of Amnesty:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-internationals-kangaroo-report-on-human-rights-in-syria/5574195

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:05 AM

It is not the phrase that is in question. It is that your article says 'the first ever' etc. when that is completely untrue.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM

dtheg if you do not like the author's attempt at levity. How about this:
Speaker to Prime Minister:"I am not Happy"
David Cameron to Bercrow:"Which one are you then?"

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:13 AM

Are you really claiming that the information Syria is false?
I suggest that you read through your newspapers
The terrorist natiour of Syria is an established fact - it was only prevented from being tried for war Crimes in the International Court by vetoes from Russia and China
Jeeze - an you call me naive
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:19 AM

Ahhh. Got it now. Lying is levity More alt-truth?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:31 AM

Ah the "Homs Massacres", wasn't the source of Jom's British Arms sales claims the "Daily Mail"?

Funny it seemed to be reputable enough, authoritative and credible enough for him then.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM

Jim you are floundering. Allegations need verification. Simples!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:56 AM

"wasn't the source of Jom's British Arms sales claims the "Daily Mail"?"
No it wasn't - it was from an official document published in The Daily Express and covered by numerous newspapers
It's validity has never been questioned other than by you and Keith
"Jom's"
Can't break with your imbecilic display of insecurity, I see, despite havign humiliated yourself publicly
Comforting that my arguments are still hitting Home, as you once said about someone else
"Jim you are floundering. Allegations need verification."
No they do not - you have had them
Do your really not recall that the British Parliament voted on whether to send troops into Syria and decided not to become involved
VOTE of SHAME
What on earth are you on Iains?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 06:23 AM

You do realise you are totally on your own hre Iaians?
The best your sad mate could ever offer was the Britain couldn't possibly have known that Assad was a murderous torturer because "they didn't have a crystal ball"
Even he wasn't stupid enough to deny what was happening in Syria
BRITISH LICENSES TO SYRIA
Syria        2,676,460        30,000        1        Small arms ammunition
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 06:40 AM

dtheg if you do not like the author's attempt at levity. How about this:
Speaker to Prime Minister:"I am not Happy"
David Cameron to Bercrow:"Which one are you then?"

Well as you like to regale others about their false news, let me correct you. It was junior health minister Simon Burns who is reputed to have made that wisecrack to Bercow after Burns' driver had reversed into Bercow's car. Ever thought of reporting for a tabloid?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 07:56 AM

Personally, I like the story of thatcher taking oher cabinet out for a meal
She ordered steak, very rare.
The waiter asked, "and the vegetables"
She replied, "They'll have the same".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Stu
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:22 AM

That was Spitting Image. Margaret Thatcher cabinet of vegetables

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:37 AM

100! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:50 AM

Yet another piece of Mail nastiness. Reported in the i which will of course now come under fire from our alt-right team...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 09:29 AM

Yep, that was the copy of the Mail I picked up for free on Thursday. It was a foul and vituperative article but I suppose the Mail has an army of lawyers advising them as to where the red line is. Disgusting, and an attack on freedom of speech by raising unrelated issues to do with his private life in order to vilify him for expressing views that the Mail doesn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 09:45 AM

I get The Times (for Codeword) and I've noticed how it has become more and more vituperlatively right-wing in the tender hands of Murdoch and his ilk - his recent marriage hasn't done him much good.
His crude hate campaign against Corbyn - nearly a year solid now - is enough to convince me I've chosen the right side
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 01:11 PM

"Do your really not recall that the British Parliament voted on whether to send troops into Syria and decided not to become involved" - Jim Carroll

I do not think that the British Parliament EVER held a debate or vote on sending troops into Syria, such a move would have guaranteed the censure of the UN Security Council. The vote and the debate in the Autumn of 2012 was on whether or not we should set up a "No-Fly Zone" over Syria that would prevent Assad's air force from bombing civilians. There was never any question of putting boots on the ground in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 01:39 PM

WRONG AGAIN
The debate was whether to take military action against Syria
Nitpick if you like - it was a decision not to intervene militarily
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 01:42 PM

You know this anyway
Both you and your running mate described it as the invasion of another country and called me a "fascist" for supporting it - see Homs Horror
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM

Jim the link is by someone not trying to grab headlines and not selling newspapesr and I find him a more credible source than you are quoting.
I am assuming your acid test for veracity is that it made a newspaper article. Does the same apply to stories in the Dandy and Beano?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-internationals-kangaroo-report-on-human-rights-in-syria/5574195

you are also very quiet about arms sales by your labour buddies. bit embassing for you perhaps.

and never a mention of saudi bombing the yemen back to the stone age.
One cruise missile probably surpasses the GDP of the country.
   Using bold, red ink and capitals may be a bullying technique, but it does nothing to provide evidence.
You could also take issue with the situation in certain North Afican
countries where munitions are sold. You could also make an issue of Britain training the military of various unsavoury governments.
   or you could make an issue of the school of the Americas at Fort Benning, the biggest terrorist training school in the world. Instead of closing it because its output was becoming too public, they simply renamed it.
   Assad may not be an angel but generally he is supported in Syria because the alternative is an even more regressive and medieval than Saudi.
    But no, the world according to Jim has only one baddie that you appear tio have a fixation on.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:01 PM

You haven't been here long, have you? 😅

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: mayomick
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:04 PM

"What has the Guardian misreported then, Iains? Do you have any recent examples?" .......DtG
"Russia to launch 'large-scale' airstrikes on Syria as Americans vote"
The above Guardian headline , written by the British newspaper's World affairs editor Julian Borger featured prominently on the Google News aggregator site on US election day ,November 8 .The article's opening paragraphs predicted massive Russian airstrikes on Aleppo within 24 hours............."according to reports".
These "reports " - supposedly emanating from Moscow - claimed that: "Russia has threatened to launch "large-scale" cruise missile and airstrikes on Aleppo to coincide with the US election".
The Guardian's election-day story was picked up by several pro-Clinton news outlets in the US and circulated via Google News' USA edition, with predictions of Russian strikes "within hours" that would involve , "cruise missiles, carrier-based and land-based warplanes".

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM

Steve the source stands. The former prime minister publicised the joke.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8159142/David-Cameron-makes-John-Bercow-dwarf-joke.html
of course it was quoted in a quality paper the torygraph.

It seems that, like Jim, you are peddling false news. Go and sit on the naughty step.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:25 PM

You have a lot more to answer for than the source of that joke. You need to go through an awful lot of old threads before you can claim who's been silent about this, that and the other. Which you haven't done. Go and put yourself in the nearest rubbish bin.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM

I cannot help but think that Terrikins and Iains are twins.

Slightly different approach but perhaps Terrikins is trying to reinvent himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:02 PM

Steve it is only a person like you would make an issue of the source of the joke. Some of us have more important things to do. Anyway I get a lot more sense off the sheep on the mountain than from you. A nice bracing day for checking on sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:08 PM

mayomick. Thanks for locating the article. I only made a cursory search to demonstrate a point. Later arrivals insisted on specifying the nature of the error to be identified.

raggedytashy I do not need a twin to post on here. You may feel the need for help;- i do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:14 PM

"It seems that, like Jim, you are peddling false news. "
It seems that you are rejecting the reports which were covered by all the press, researched fully by Amnesty and acknoleged in the British Parliament to the extent that they voted whether to intervene or not
Your link is to the opinion of an "investigative journalist, Rick Sterling, who is member of the Syria Solidarity Movement - an organisation whose declared aim is "Respect for and protection of Syrian sovereignty and Territory - in other words, an active mouthpiece and propagandist for the Assad Regime.
C'mon - give us a break!!
You really are not very good at this, are you?
"you are also very quiet about arms sales by your labour buddies"
I have no time for right-wing Labour - I stpooed voting for them twenty years ago = they are the ones who did deals and sold out the people who created the Labour Party.
My recent support for the hope Corbyn has brought that Labour will return the party to the the principles it once stood for.
I HAVE ALWAYS CONDEMNED SELLING ANY ARMS FOR PROFIT - WHOEVER DOES IT - LABOUR - CONSERVATIVE - THE RAVING LOONEY PARTY - PROFITEERING ON DEATH IS AN ACT OF UTTER EVIL AND THOSE WHO POINT THE FINGER AT OTHERS WHILE THEIR OWN PARTY IS INVOLVED IN THE TRADE IS JUST AS EVIL
Jaysus - it's like talking to a child!!.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:34 PM

"Russia to launch 'large-scale' airstrikes on Syria as Americans vote"
The above Guardian headline , written by the British newspaper's World affairs editor Julian Borger featured prominently on the Google News aggregator site on US election day ,November 8 .The article's opening paragraphs predicted massive Russian airstrikes on Aleppo within 24 hours............."according to reports".

According to reports is the key here. The Guardian are reporting what has been reported elsewhere. If people are stupid enough to think that 'according to reports' is fact then they deserve everything they get.

I think all newspapers rely on this tactic to some extent but the Mail is particularly guilty of it. Which is why they have been discounted as a valid source while other papers have not.

No cigar this time mayomick.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:42 PM

Hope you're listening, Iains. You are totally out of order here claiming that any of us blokes you have taken against have kept silent about those atrocities and dodgy arms dealings. We have not, and it would be a really good thing if you were to research old threads before you start chucking out your accusations. As for the joke, yep, trivial. But your false reporting of its provenance is, unfortunately, emblematic of your slapdash approach. A word in your shell-like, mate. You may not like us much but we are not stupid and we instantly pick up on people like you with an agenda but little with which to support it. It's tough at times around here and hawks abound, as some of us have found out to our cost over a number of years. So take a back seat for a bit. It'll do you good and help to stop you from being humiliated.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:02 PM

Iains, you may have noticed I frequent refer to other posters not by their preferred name but whatever comes to mind.

Childish I know, but in my defence I have proffered an olive branch to various people only to have it thrown back in my face. I have even sent a PM on occasion to pour oil on very troubled water.

Could I suggest that rather than going down a much worn, and tiresome road that you and I maintain a little decorum and refer to each other by our chosen pseudonyms.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:57 PM

Talking to a child Jim? It seems you are the one that insists on spilling the paintbox all over the page. That is puerile!
I am more inclined to believe the report I linked to than amnesty or
babblings in Parliament. The author made some very valid criticisms of amnesty that I believe have substance. If I could see a similar article from RT, quoting the same figures,I might believe it.
How do you know you are not been fed a line to satisfy a certain agenda.
Who benefits from toppling Assad? certainly not the average poor Syrian. If he goes it ends up as another failed state like Libya and Iraq. And who created these failed states if it was not American Hegemony. And why were they broken? because oil is underneath in the case of Iraq and Libya and Syria is needed to provide a pipeline route for Quatari gas and oil from other gulf states. Right now european pipelines import russian gas and Vlad the lad has control and he certainly does not want a western controlled pipeline nicking some of his trade, or providing an independant source. With Syria broken into pieces America will control the future pipelines. It is a resource was pure and simple. The link is old but a good summary.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/the-wars-that-really-are-about-the-oil/

You may believe the propaganda about Syria and the terrorists masquerading in a so called civil war, but I do not believe a word of it. And I had 4 years in country up to and including the start of the destabilisation and still have ex colleagues and friends there.
From the start of the fight to replace Assad the mainstream media has been feeding the public with an entirely false narrative, and are rarely reined in for their more outrageous claims.
You can continue to believe your sources if you wish but do not expect me to. I have watched events from the sidelines in many countries for 45 years. I would not be so conceited as to say I know what is going on, but I can recognise horsesh*t when I see it. I can say with all honesty the story reeled out for public consumption concerning these events is frequently massaged to the extent the original event can scarcely be recognised. (as an example While in Nigeria I saw footage of the miners strike and Mr plod was laying into the miners with gusto.Not a very edifying sight to have with your cornflakes, and definitely not broadcast on any British TV station. If that was not unrestrained police brutality, I do not know what is.) The situation in Syria goes far beyond replacing Assad and vilifying him at every opportunity. Why do you think that in Syria,as in Iraq, critical infrastructure is bombed to smithereens by the "coalition" No bridges, no hospitals, no water, no power,no medicines, no compassion. All these targets hit the civilian population and I can only believe it is to destroy social cohesion. I am beginning to think the civilians are an unnecessary appendage interfering in the great game of American hegemony, and collateral damage is encouraged. Often Russian airstrikes are blamed especially by the white helmets, but who in their right mind kills civilians deliberately when trying to win hearts and minds? After all in Iraq with reputedly 500,000 kids being killed, when quizzed Madeline Albright said:"We think it was worth it"
If Trump manages to pull all his forces out of the country and lock horns with the neocons and reach an accommodation with Russia and China he will be acclaimed a hero.
I have said before Assad is no angel, but he stands head and shoulders above those destroying his people and country.

To an extent I agree with you about Corbyn. Unfortunately he appears too nice a man to make a good career politician. Whatever party is in power needs a strong opposition to prevent a virtual dictatorship, especially since government has essentially morphed into a one man band. Your crack about Maggie and the veg may be banal but there is unfortunately an underlying reality to it. Spitting image may actually have portrayed the reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 06:12 PM

Oh dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 07:10 PM

"the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime." - Legal advice to the British Government presented to Parliament

There was never any intention, not even the remotest possibility, of the UK - "the British Parliament voted on whether to send troops into Syria" - Jim Carroll's incorrect understanding

Troops all of the UK's 82,000 would be useless when it comes to deterring or disrupting because they could not be put "on the ground" in sufficient strength in time, especially when you consider that the British Army was still engaged in Afghanistan at that time.

Assad's attacks on his civilian population were mainly carried out by ground forces and his air force {Principally "barrel bombs" dropped by helicopter). Establishment of a "no-fly zone" would serve to deter and attack from the air on Assad forces armour and artillery would definitely disrupt - all done from the Air - no ground troops required.

Not "nitpicking", not "semantics" - just better understanding coupled with the application of common sense and reasoning - oh and of course a far better memory for detail.

By the way Iains your link about it all being about oil - it is old, it was a complete and utter load of b*****ks in 2014 and it still is today. The USA has no need whatsoever to tailor it's foreign policy for oil from the middle-east.

Russia's sole interest in Syria is connected to a naval base and port facilities - same reason they took Crimea.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 07:14 PM

there are four horses running in this raceon monday 13 feb, can any of you very clever people predict which one is going to win.
Same Circus (32)
J: W T Kennedy T: D McCain Jnr        117222        11–5        5/4        
6/5
        
3
Big Penny (85)
J: Aidan Coleman T: Jonjo O'Neill        31        10–12        –        
5/4
        
4
Your Turn (46)
J: B Hughes T: T R Gretton        F3/2        10–12        –        
13/2
        
2
Arctic Lady (33)
J: A P Heskin T: T R George

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 07:41 PM

Arctic Lady because it's so bloody cold here. I don't bet, so if it wins it'll be a right pisser.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 02:17 AM

What does the tipster in the Daily Mail reckon GSS? That according to Wiki would then eliminate one of the four choices.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:23 AM

"Jim Carroll's incorrect understanding"
More uncorroborated dismissal of reported facts
"That is puerile!"#
What is peurile is dismissing the facts of Syria, which we watched nightly on television, read daily in our newspapers, have been threatened with actions by the international law courts, were defended by Russian and Chinese vetoes, were condemned internationally and were were almost acted on with military invention by Britain..... on the basis of an article written b a syrian propagandists
That is as puerile as it comes.
You alone on this forum are the only one to defend the horrors of this regime.
You are right as far as the "civil war masquerade goes - it started as part of the Arab Spring protests as a reaction to decades of torture and mass murder, with the assistance of World indifference, Assad turned it into a Civil War
SYRIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
UNITED NATIONS
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/02/08/UN-report-Syrias-Assad-guilty-of-inhuman-crimes-gruesome-torture-deaths/8491454979690/
WORLDWIDE CONDEMNATION
OFFICIAL BRITISH CONDEMNATION OF SYRIA
And you prefer to take the word of a Syrian propagandist
Right!!!!!!
Enjoy your solitude - at least you have the Russians and Chinese to lean on for support
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:52 AM

YOUR incorrect understanding. Show me anything stated by either the Prime Minister, any other Cabinet Minister, any Senior Civil Servant or any Senior Military Commander that would suggest that there was ever any mention of sending British troops to intervene on the ground in the Syrian conflict. If you cannot do that then your statement about there ever being a debate in the House of Commons about sending British troops to Syria is wrong - more Carroll "Made-up-Shit".

No need to attempt to divert the thread by introducing whichever of your pet hobby-horses you fancy riding today. No need to tell whoever is following this thread what a bad person you think I am - all you have to do is put up something credible to support your contention (You won't do that of course primarily because you can't, such evidence does not exist).

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM

Spend a Penny on
Big Penny, it would make you a right pisser! But a better better.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 04:43 AM

If you wish to insist that they voted not to intervene militarily rather than to send in troops (I'm sure the no fly zone would be enforced by civilians!!!!) - feel free
The vote was instigated because of the massacres that were taking place in Homs - no 'no fly zone' would have made the slightest difference to that
Both you and your mate accused me of being a fascist for wanting Britain to "invade" Syria, not for establisjhing a no fly zone.
This is typical of your smoke and mirrors.
The point was - to our latest atrocity denier - that Britain was forced to hold a vote on intervening to stop the atrocities.
As you put so much effort in denying Britain's part in those atrocities, to the extent of "not having a crystal ball" and claiming shipments that were licences weren't, I have little doubt you will continue to obstruct this discussion with your nit-picking.
You have a thing for mass murderers, don't you?
Chacon son gout
Jim Carroll

This is how The Daily Telegraph reported on the issue - you can interpret that as "establishing a 'No Fly Zone if you wish

SYRIA CRISIS: NO TO WAR, BLOW TO CAMERON
David Cameron was forced to abandon plans for Britain to participate in military strikes against Syria after suffering an unprecedented Parliamentary defeat.
                                        
By Robert Winnett, Political Editor
29 Aug 2013
Dozens of Conservative MPs refused to support the Prime Minister and sided with Labour in opposing a Government motion which supported the principle of military intervention. The motion backing the use of force "if necessary" was rejected by 285 votes to 272, a majority of 13 votes.
It is the first time that a British Government has been blocked from executing a military deployment and highlights the deep mistrust of official intelligence in the wake of the Iraq war.
Within minutes of the embarrassing defeat, the Prime Minister said that he understood that there was not support for British action against Syria and indicated he would abandon any such plans. The decision came just hours after Britain had sent fighter jets to the region.
Mr Cameron had hoped to join America in launching cruise missile strikes against the Syrian regime as soon as this weekend after Assad was accused of deploying chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus last week.
Related Articles
The Prime Minister had played a leading role in persuading President Obama of the need for action against Syria – with Britain tabling a draft United Nations resolution – and the Parliamentary vote may also undermine Mr Cameron's international reputation.
"I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons," Mr Cameron said tonight.
"It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the Government will act accordingly."
Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, said that the Parliamentary vote would be welcomed by the Syrian regime.
"I am disappointed," he said. "We do believe that the use of chemical weapons in this way needs a clear and strong response."
"There is a deep well of suspicion about military involvement in the middle east stemming largely from the experiences of Iraq."
"I don't think it is anything to do with the Prime Minister, I think it is to do with the legacy of experience."
It is the first time since the 1956 Suez crisis that an opposition has failed to support Government plans for a deployment of the armed forces.
The Coalition's motion – which had already been watered down earlier in the week to allow for another Parliamentary vote before Britain took part in direct military action – was defeated by a majority of 13 votes.
In a night of febrile scenes in the Commons, senior Cabinet ministers openly accused those opposing the motion of giving "succour" to the Assad regime. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, allegedly shouted at Conservative rebels who he described as a "disgrace".
Labour demanded an official inquiry into the activities of the Prime Minister's main spin doctor.
The Parliamentary vote may trigger a leadership crisis for Mr Cameron as Conservative MPs openly criticised the Prime Minister's decision to recall Parliament and force a vote. He was accused of a massive miscalculation with Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister, describing the Prime Minister's actions as "rushed" and "cavalier".
There were shouts of "resign" from the Labour benches as the results of the Parliamentary vote were read out by John Bercow, the Commons Speaker.
Mr Cameron has spent much of the week personally stressing the need for military action against the Assad regime. In his speech to Parliament today, the Prime Minister had insisted that Britain has a duty to "do the right thing" and intervene in the "humanitarian catastrophe" unfolding in Syria.
However, he also admitted that the intelligence assessment did not provide "100 percent" certainty of the evidence against the regime.
The Prime Minister told an emergency sitting of Parliament that the country should not be "paralysed" over its response to international crises in the wake of mistakes made in the run-up to the Iraq war.
He had implored MPs to "force themselves" to watch harrowing videos of small children suffering following a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week which killed hundreds of ordinary Syrians.
However, in a major blow to his authority, senior Conservative MPs spent the day standing up during the eight-hour Parliamentary debate to criticise the Government's plans to intervene in the Syrian crisis. Among those blocking the plans were David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, and former ministers.
Nick de Bois, Secretary of the Tory 1922 Committee, voted against the Government. He said it was an "extremely difficult decision".
Ed Miliband refused to support the Government's Parliamentary motion saying that he was, as yet, not fully convinced of the case against the Assad regime. The decision sparked an angry backlash from Downing Street who accused the Labour leader of "giving succour" to the Syrian dictator. This was strongly denied by senior Labour sources who said that the behaviour of Mr Cameron's aides was "frankly insulting".
Other developments today in the Syrian crisis saw:
The publication of a British intelligence briefing which concluded that it was "highly likely" that the Assad regime was responsible for last week's chemical weapons attack which killed more than 300 civilians.
The release of the Attorney General's legal advice which ruled that British could legally participate in military strikes against Syria to protect innocent civilians from further atrocities.
The White House privately briefing senior figures in the US Senate and Congress on secret intelligence on the Assad regime which could pave the way for American action against Syria this weekend.
President Assad pledge that Syria would "defend itself in the face of any aggression".
The experience of the Iraq war was repeatedly raised by MPs during the debate – with several former Labour Cabinet ministers speaking and describing the "scars" of the mistakes made by the Blair administration.
"I am very clear about the fact that we have to learn the lessons of Iraq," the Labour leader said. "Of course we have got to learn those lessons and one of the most important lessons was indeed about respect for the United Nations."
He added: "I do not rule out supporting the Prime Minister but I believe he has to make a better case than he did today."
During the course of the debate, a succession of senior Conservative and Labour MPs also made speeches expressing doubt over the wisdom of British action against Syria.
David Davis, the former shadow home secretary said that the intelligence "might just be wrong".
Mr Davis said that chemical weapons were used either by Assad's regime, by a rogue regime military unit, or by rebels "with the direct aim of dragging the West into the war".
Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, said "We all know - I have the scars about this - how easy it is to get into military action and how difficult it is to get out of it.".
In a parallel debate in the House of Lords, Lord Hurd, the former foreign secretary, said: "I cannot for the life of me see how dropping some bombs or firing some missiles in the general direction of Syria, with targets probably some way removed from the actual weapons we've been criticising, I can't see how that action is going to lessen the suffering of Syrian people.
"I think it's likely to increase and expand the civil war in Syria, not likely to bring it to an end."
The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of his fears that Christians in Syria would be targeted in the wake of any strike.
However, other senior Parliamentarians offered backing for the Prime Minister. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the head of the Intelligence and Security committee, said: "At this very moment, the Assad regime in Damascus are watching very carefully as to whether they will get away with what they have done."
"If they get away with what they have done, if there is no significant international response of any kind, then we can be absolutely certain that the forces within Damascus will be successful in saying we must continue to use these whenever there is a military rationale for doing so.
"There is no guarantee that a military strike against military targets will work, but there is every certainty that if we don't make that effort to punish and deter, then these actions will indeed continue."
Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: "We are, I think, living under the shadow, sadly, of Iraq. But this is not Iraq. We are not putting boots on the ground, we are not invading, we are not seeking to govern somebody else's country and, above all, this is not George W Bush, this is Barack Obama.
"And you only need to look at this American president and what he has done to see how nervous, how hesitant, how cautious he is about action."
Tonight, American reports suggested that President Obama was now drawing up plans to intervene in Syria without international assistance.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 05:51 AM

Carroll - Do you ever READ the vast swathes of text you "cut'n'paste" in your attempts to support your arguments??

"The vote was instigated because of the massacres that were taking place in Homs" - Jim Carroll once again paying absolutely no heed to facts or to any time-line

Date of the massacres in Homs - Spring 2012
Read your Telegraph article and you will find that this debate was triggered by Assad using chemical weapons against civilians in Aleppo in August 2013. I know Jom it is just one of those minor "nitpicking details" that you cannot be bothered with but if you are going to post it really should be accurate if you are trying to make a point in any discussion.

"no 'no fly zone' would have made the slightest difference to that" - Jim Carroll

Three occasions where no-fly zones have worked and saved civilian lives under threat:
1: Iraq
2: Kosovo
3: Libya

Now then onto your "Article"

What do you think the following refers to?

(A) "David Cameron was forced to abandon plans for Britain to participate in military STRIKES against Syria"

Hang on I will tell you - AIR STRIKES (If you refer to the actions of ground troops the wording would refer to "raids", "assaults", "offensive operations" - not "strikes".)

(B) "The decision came just hours after Britain had sent fighter jets to the region."

As these were the only British Forces deployed it would seem to imply that only AIR STRIKES were being considered - NO deployment of boots on the ground in Syria.

(C) Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: "We are, I think, living under the shadow, sadly, of Iraq. But this is not Iraq. We are not putting boots on the ground, we are not invading, we are not seeking to govern somebody else's country"

Now then Jom, in the light of all of that, what was that shit you were spouting about the debate being about sending British troops to Syria?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:30 AM

"Carroll "
As insecure as that eh?
The vote was held after a history of massacred and human rights abuses - no one incident can be cited - the Chemicals (possibly facilitated by British sales) were a step too far.
The Human Rights abuses are decades old
The rest is evasive bullshit.
Britain felt compelled to do something that your running- mate has described as "false news", which is why I put it up and why you are trying to steer the discussion away from
Were those who were to set up your "no fly zone" not "troops" - perhaps Securicor' offers a service we don't know about!!
" Jom"
And yet more insecurity - you really are a psychological mess.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

"no one incident can be cited" - Jim Carroll

But Jom - you only cited one in your post

Then that long article from the Telegraph only cited one, the one described initially by Barack Obama as a "Red Line" incident - the use of chemical weapons on civilians.

Since when have RAF personnel ever been referred to as "troops" Jom?

send troops into Syria Is what you said Jom - you're in a hole stop digging - better still buy yourself an Observers Book of Wild Flowers and join your pals discussing orchids.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:03 AM

You two should really get a room.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:09 AM

" Jom ", "Jom", "jom"
Bad as that?
Not really Stu - just good to see him squirm when the thread seems not to be going anywhere
Satisfied now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:31 AM

Since when do thread with the four horseman in full flow ever go anywhere? No offence intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:34 AM

Goodness Teribus, civilian lives saved by no fly zones in Libya? It would be a massive stretch to say that western intervention in Libya saved more lives than it destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:55 AM

Are threads supposed to go somewhere, Stu?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:57 AM

Maybe the old threads home?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM

"No offence intended."
None taken, Stu
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 11:14 AM

Thankfully Mr. Carter(UK) Gaddafi's assassins never got the opportunity to annihilate the population of Benghazi ( All 631,555 of them - "going street by street, house by house, room by room and wardrobe by wardrobe") Balance weighed the 9,400 actually killed, most of whom were combatants, stacks up quite well against what the case might have been had Gaddafi carried out his threat. So yes the establishment of the "no-fly zone" over Libya did save civilian lives.

Stu, no room needed, the solution is simple, the second the "Usual suspects", particularly Jom, stop posting arrant nonsense, then I would find no need to post at all.

As to this going nowhere? Well we have one more proven example of Jim Carroll "Made-up-shit" that the British were going to send troops into Syria. Truth of the matter is = That was never, ever considered.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 11:19 AM

Oh, give over.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 11:34 AM

What Shaw? No amusing off topic anecdote about wild flowers, cheese, beer, rambles, or pointless and unproductive demos?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:07 PM

They all have as much to do with the initial topic as the latest bunch of posts. May as well talk about something pleasant if we are going to wander this far off topic.

Weather has really bucked up in Airedale today. If it keeps up we will have a grand weekend at Ribblehead.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:13 PM

Enjoy gazing at your "Puff-Puff" Gnome - remember to take your anorak.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Stu
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:27 PM

El Tezzo me old sprout, you are one of the usual suspects.

Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:29 PM

Oy doyen of all "factul" information. You may recall Dave saying he was sorry the steam train was NOT running when he is there.

And you expect us to believe your other rants :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:34 PM

Incidentally Ribbleshead Viaduct is one of the finest examples of Victorian building work on any rail system in the country. Right up your street I would have thought. It is surrounded by moorland that has been sculpted by man for centuries, again right up your street I would have thought.

But maybe not, any graceful and sublime seems an anathema to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 01:01 PM

Anoraks or similar are de rigueur out on the fells in February, Teribus but nowadays they tend to be made of Gortex or some modern breathable windproof fabric. Probably completely unlike your days swabbing decks dressed from head to foot in oilskins. Raggy has already pointed out that steam trains are not running that weekend and I must add that I did say I am no train buff anyway. Still such (in)attention to detail is only to be expected. Good to see that you agree about much pleasanter subjects anyway.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 01:03 PM

Incidentally, Raggy, in case you did not see it in daylight last time, the Station has the best view from a Gents toilet that you are likely to come across. Check it out :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 02:58 PM

Well Raggy, had YOU read Gnome's post - the locomotive he spoke so fondly of he could see this evening (13th Feb) as it would be passing about half a mile from his house - true? The loco will be running between Skipton and Appleby during the week from the 14th to 16th of Feb and as I understood it Gimli was going to go a-wandering with his knapsack on his back up by Ribblehead the week-end of 18th/19th Feb. No mention of him being away from home this evening in his original post, which when all said and done is just off-topic waffle, engaged in by the usual suspects when on-topic points you and your pals have put up are being more than successfully challenged.

Yet another OWN GOAL Raggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:11 PM

As I said earlier. No more off topic than many other posts on here, including yours Teribus.

Don't think I will get to see the Tornado anyway - Bit busy and will not see much in the dark anyway.

BTW - Gimli is a Dwarf. Different race. You are getting nearly as accurate as the Daily Mail.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 03:44 PM

He said he would not see the train on his weekend when he is away walking.

Clear, simple. Even for someone of your limited capabilities.

The fact the same train may be running close to where he lives is irrelevant, although your knowledge of his exact whereabouts is slightly disconcerting.

PS The son of Gloin is a dwarf and not a Gnome, quite different beings

............. if they exist of course, no doubt you believe in them.

Can you not get a job in a café frying eggs or something, you MAY have a talent for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 07:29 PM

Well you know what it is like in these northern climes at this time of the year one rotund little prat rambling over the hills with a knapsack full of Donald Trump toilet rolls looks pretty much like another, surprised both DtG and you Raggy are so concerned about race. Have you got something against Dwarfs?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 04:03 AM

Nothing at all, Teribus. Just pointing out that your posts are getting increasingly inaccurate as you get more desperate to win points. What's with the insults anyway? You will soon have someone telling you that if you have to resort to abuse you have already lost :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 04:32 AM

"What's with the insults anyway?"
Didn't you know?
Bullies always get of on insulting when they realise they are no match for those they are arguing with - especially when they are doing it from the safety of anonymity and distance.
The more the mis-match, the louder and more blustering the bullying
Have you seen his lists?
I'm thinking of putting together some more - they weer the tip of the Iceberg
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 07:42 AM

At least Mr T's insults contain a good measure of wit and humour, I especially liked the picture of Dave and his Trump toilet rolls :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 07:50 AM

I would have though shit and rumour were more common ingredients ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 07:51 AM

"Mr T's insults contain a good measure of wit"
I think you are half right!!
Weren't you the one whingeing about being insulted not so long ago?
It seems it's one rule for your friends and running mates....
Do you thik Ms Coulter has "a good measure of wit"
Probably
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 07:56 AM

Is this you Dave?


http://www.bathroomfurniturefunstore.com/bathroom-accessories-toilet-paper-holders.html

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM

See you've gone quiet about Diane Abbott, Iains, now that she's voted for article 50 (third reading) and been apologised to by that complete arsehole David Davis. Another fox shot, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

"Is this you Dave?"
Have we finished with your defence of Assad Iains?
Just asking
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 10:22 AM

No, Iains, but I like the idea :-)

Good measure of wit and humour, ake? I am beginning to understand why you lot stick together. As I have said on many an occasion

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

...and long may it remain so :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 10:39 AM

Steve, Jim and D the G, seeing as the thread was hijacked by trainspotting, discussion of various weeds and other anorak pursuits, I decided to not waste my time any further. I do not possess an anorak so do not feel I can make any contribution to the thread at present.
Happy anoraking!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 10:47 AM

Just for the record Iains, Orchids, whether you like them or not, are hardly weeds. Many are protected species, most are very expensive to purchase and surprisingly difficult to cultivate successfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 10:56 AM

Raggytash. Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:40 AM

Here you go Gnome:

Your "Puff Puff" Courtesy of the Daily Mail

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:22 PM

Thank you Teribus. Much appreciated and it would be churlish of me to mention that you probably just tried to either annoy someone who has already said he is not a train buff or you tried to belittle a classic steam locomotive by referring to it as a 'Puff Puff'. So I won't. I will say that neither ploy is likely to work though :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 02:43 PM

From the gruniard, saving our wildflowers from depredation by wild anoraks.



https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/16/rules-picking-wild-flowers

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 04:10 PM

It was a pleasanter thread for the few minutes you kept your word Iains.

I do not possess an anorak so do not feel I can make any contribution to the thread at present.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 04:25 PM

The law does not prohibit the uprooting of all wild flowers, just those on protected lists. You're allowed to uproot dandelions, chickweed, creeping buttercup and groundsel from your veg plot, despite the fact that they are just as wild as any arctic-alpine growing on a Scottish summit.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 11:31 AM

It was a pleasanter thread for the few minutes you kept your word Iains.
Is the gnomette having a snowflake moment?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

That is a troll post, Iains.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 01:14 PM

Yay! I'm a snowflake and a gnomette:-D Well done, Iains. I am sure your mother must be proud of you :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 02:58 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM

That is, I believe, the best comment you have ever made :-)