The #1 reason your county is in recession. CORRUPT BANKS!
64 views
Skip to first unread message
hedgehog
Jun 29, 2012, 9:25:25 AM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
We've seen on our evening news down here that the # 1 reason the UK is
in so much trouble is because of the greedy bankers fiddling interest
rates to suit themselves. A simple case of looking out for theirself
first and to hell with the country and everyone else. Once again the
Tory sponsored spin spread so thickly on this board is nailed down as
a lie.
in so much trouble is because of the greedy bankers fiddling interest
rates to suit themselves. A simple case of looking out for theirself
first and to hell with the country and everyone else. Once again the
Tory sponsored spin spread so thickly on this board is nailed down as
a lie.
tinman
Jun 29, 2012, 9:31:42 AM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
News is he won't be resigning. If there was any doubt as to just
how corrupt and greedy these bankers are it's here right now.
He shouldn't even have the option of resigning............he should be
sacked and then charged with fraud
how corrupt and greedy these bankers are it's here right now.
He shouldn't even have the option of resigning............he should be
sacked and then charged with fraud
jar
Jun 29, 2012, 12:52:32 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
You have got it badly Hedgehog . What makes you think that your greedy bankers only live in the UK and before you make an even bigger fool of yourself check out the model Balls presented to Brown that gave them the light touch legislation that allowed them to get away with what they have been doing. When they bailed out RBS why didnt they make sure that these bankers could get away with awarding each other these bonuses and how much must have Fred the shred thanked them for not doing so.
jar
Jun 29, 2012, 12:54:24 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Hes in front of a cross section of MPs next week and unless hes too clever for them might not have the option of resigning . Hopefully he will have to repay all those huge bonuses he got whilst he oversaw tghis scam
tinman
Jun 29, 2012, 1:14:24 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
If anyone is still in any doubt that this recession is 100% down to
the banks you should watch the BBC news.
Spin all the lies you want about it being someone or something else,
but now only the blind or the stupid will deny it wasn't 100% down to
the banks.
the banks you should watch the BBC news.
Spin all the lies you want about it being someone or something else,
but now only the blind or the stupid will deny it wasn't 100% down to
the banks.
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 2:39:20 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
The only ones who have it bad is you Tory braindead. What part of OUR country and YOUR LOTS BULLSHIT went over your head? We know that the world bankers are crooks but unlike this country they are blamed for the crisis rather than the government of the day. Thankfully when the shit did hit the fan labour were in rather than the Tories who were pushing for even more leniency and detegulations of the UK bwankers. Hedgehog is 100% correct about the Tory bullshit and I suppose now your inept bunch of tossers and chamcer osbore have driven the UK into double dip recession you ble that on labour. Oh dear you only have to over the old posts on this board when your lot kissed enough lib dem arse to gain power to see all your and the other braindead crap of how the Tories were going to turn the economy around.
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 3:07:24 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 29, 7:39 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> The only ones who have it bad is you Tory braindead. What part of OUR country and YOUR LOTS BULLSHIT went over your head? We know that the world bankers are crooks but unlike this country they are blamed for the crisis rather than the government of the day. Thankfully when the shit did hit the fan labour were in rather than the Tories who were pushing for even more leniency and detegulations of the UK bwankers.
Tories called for more deregulation of the banks
Message has been deleted
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 3:26:04 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Look on this board locky the links are there. I can't help it if they prove that your usual bullshit is just Tory bollocks.
tinman
Jun 29, 2012, 3:27:42 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Tories called for more deregulation of the banks
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=iOz5TRekadOzEbSCf2RLuw&cp=48&gs_id=3&xhr=t&q=Tories+called+for+more+deregulation+of+the+banks&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&oq=Tories+called+for+more+deregulation+of+the+banks&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1eaa9f0e17b32af9&biw=1026&bih=630
A simple google search will give you all the links you could ever want
TB.
The pro-business and rightwing thinktank lobbies are being
disingenuous by suggesting otherwise. Never forget it was the
Conservatives who were calling for more deregulation in the banking
sector as late as 2007.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2012/05/10/the-chimera-of-deregulation/
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 3:30:06 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Locky is a typical Tory Tinman he will spend 24/7 looking up Tory bollocks rather than the truth.
tinman
Jun 29, 2012, 3:33:24 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Well there's plenty of evidence to be found with a simple google
search jon.
It's not our fault it's not the evidence that he wants.
search jon.
It's not our fault it's not the evidence that he wants.
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 3:36:22 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Like I stated Tinman locky and other Tory braindead only look for Tory bollocks rather than the truth. The truth is a very alien concept to a Tory.
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 3:42:57 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 29, 8:27 pm, tinman <tinman080...@aol.com> wrote:
> Tories called for more deregulation of the banks
>
>
> A simple google search will give you all the links you could ever want
> TB.
You post a link to a far left wing blog, you might as well posted a
> A simple google search will give you all the links you could ever want
> TB.
link to Plonksys post.
Plonksy made his usual excuse and you posted plonksys brothers blog,
neither of can post a link to show the Tories wanted less
deregulations of the banks because they didn't
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 3:43:48 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 29, 8:33 pm, tinman <tinman080...@aol.com> wrote:
> Well there's plenty of evidence to be found with a simple google
> search jon.
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 3:57:21 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Get off your fat tory arse and look for yourself locky...You bloody tories expect everyone else to run around for you...I told you there are links on this board..
tinman
Jun 29, 2012, 3:59:31 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Tories called for more deregulation of the banks.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=9Q-Y6UMWrhWX-XKalVYAnQ&cp=48&gs_id=3&xhr=t&q=Tories+called+for+more+deregulation+of+the+banks&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&oq=Tories+called+for+more+deregulation+of+the+banks&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1eaa9f0e17b32af9&biw=1026&bih=630
Pick anyone you want.
But don't worry I do understand. You would rather live in denial, and
that OK with me. I do understand you will never be, in fact you don't
have the brains to be anything other then what you are. You fool no-
one but your self. You need to believe everything is someone else's
fault you believe Cameron will lead you and everyone else's out of the
dark and into the light. Hey get the fuck on with it. Stay in denial
what the fuck do I care.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=9Q-Y6UMWrhWX-XKalVYAnQ&cp=48&gs_id=3&xhr=t&q=Tories+called+for+more+deregulation+of+the+banks&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&oq=Tories+called+for+more+deregulation+of+the+banks&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1eaa9f0e17b32af9&biw=1026&bih=630
Pick anyone you want.
But don't worry I do understand. You would rather live in denial, and
that OK with me. I do understand you will never be, in fact you don't
have the brains to be anything other then what you are. You fool no-
one but your self. You need to believe everything is someone else's
fault you believe Cameron will lead you and everyone else's out of the
dark and into the light. Hey get the fuck on with it. Stay in denial
what the fuck do I care.
tinman
Jun 29, 2012, 4:03:01 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
jon I've just posted the whole link for the fucking moron. If he
doesn't like the truth then there's fuck all I or anyone can do to
help him. let him live his meaningless life in denial. Eveyone with
eyes to see knows the Tories are a dead party.
doesn't like the truth then there's fuck all I or anyone can do to
help him. let him live his meaningless life in denial. Eveyone with
eyes to see knows the Tories are a dead party.
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 4:05:49 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
> Get off your fat tory arse and look for yourself locky
I've asked you before to supply a link to your LIE, you've never
supplied a link to the many socialist myths you post and you wont post
one this time.
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 4:06:56 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Like all bloody tories when they are prover wrong they still argue the bloody toss...And of course the usual braindead always fail to mention that it was hag thatcher and regan who stated derulation of the banks and the city...But hey don't lets blind them with the truth as it it counteracts their old worn out tory bollocks..
tinman
Jun 29, 2012, 4:11:14 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Is it any wonder posters are leaving this board for pastures new. The
like of TB and the two old fools have stifled and strangled it until
its choking on their bullshit.
TB wanted links he got links and still he's in total denial. You can't
reason or talk to a person so blinded by a party he tells bare asre
lies that are so transparent you would think even he couldn't possibly
believe them.
like of TB and the two old fools have stifled and strangled it until
its choking on their bullshit.
TB wanted links he got links and still he's in total denial. You can't
reason or talk to a person so blinded by a party he tells bare asre
lies that are so transparent you would think even he couldn't possibly
believe them.
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 4:17:05 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
They are a bloody waste of space Tinman...if the crap that their lot are dealing out now was under labour you wouldn't be able to shut the tory twats up..
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 4:22:58 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
So still no link then
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 4:24:26 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Tinman gave you the bloody links locky...But of course you we wouldn't want to stop you showing the rest of us how thick you are would we?
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 4:31:08 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Tinman posted a link to a far left blogger, I asked for evidence
knowing you had none, the pair of you have proved me 100% correct, I
rest my case.
knowing you had none, the pair of you have proved me 100% correct, I
rest my case.
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 4:34:17 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
He posted a bloody google page it aint our fault that you are thick...Here this took all of two seconds to find there are hundreds of them on google...
The pro-business and rightwing thinktank lobbies are being disingenuous by suggesting otherwise. Never forget it was the Conservatives who were calling for more deregulation in the banking sector as late as 2007. They and their friends are now – consciously or otherwise – using the smokescreen of our current economic problems to tick off some of a longer list of long-standing big business gripes, be they around the planning system, the ability of the regulators to inspect their premises, or any tidying-up of ‘unnecessary’ legislation.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2012/05/10/the-chimera-of-deregulation/
John Redwood is upset at Labour’s attacks on him for writing a Tory party policy paper in favour of deregulation shortly before the banks collapsed in large part because of inadequate regulation.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/06/01/john-redwoods-part-in-the-credit-bubble/
The pro-business and rightwing thinktank lobbies are being disingenuous by suggesting otherwise. Never forget it was the Conservatives who were calling for more deregulation in the banking sector as late as 2007. They and their friends are now – consciously or otherwise – using the smokescreen of our current economic problems to tick off some of a longer list of long-standing big business gripes, be they around the planning system, the ability of the regulators to inspect their premises, or any tidying-up of ‘unnecessary’ legislation.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2012/05/10/the-chimera-of-deregulation/
John Redwood is upset at Labour’s attacks on him for writing a Tory party policy paper in favour of deregulation shortly before the banks collapsed in large part because of inadequate regulation.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/06/01/john-redwoods-part-in-the-credit-bubble/
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 4:39:07 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Whats a matter locky? Cat got your tongue...
tinman
Jun 29, 2012, 4:41:31 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Leave it jon the only think thats happened is the man has made himself
look a bigger fool then we thought possible.
You can't possibly believe TB is in anyway a rational person, with
that in mind he should be pitted not abused.
He's best left in his own make believe world.
On Jun 29, 9:34 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> He posted a bloody google page it aint our fault that you are thick...Here
> this took all of two seconds to find there are hundreds of them on google...
>
> The pro-business and rightwing thinktank lobbies are being disingenuous by
> suggesting otherwise. *Never forget it was the Conservatives who were
> calling for more deregulation in the banking sector as late as 2007*. They
> policy paper in favour of deregulation* shortly before the banks collapsed
look a bigger fool then we thought possible.
You can't possibly believe TB is in anyway a rational person, with
that in mind he should be pitted not abused.
He's best left in his own make believe world.
On Jun 29, 9:34 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> He posted a bloody google page it aint our fault that you are thick...Here
> this took all of two seconds to find there are hundreds of them on google...
>
> The pro-business and rightwing thinktank lobbies are being disingenuous by
> calling for more deregulation in the banking sector as late as 2007*. They
> and their friends are now – consciously or otherwise – using the
> smokescreen of our current economic problems to tick off some of a longer
> list of long-standing big business gripes, be they around the planning
> system, the ability of the regulators to inspect their premises, or any
> tidying-up of ‘unnecessary’ legislation.
>
> http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2012/05/10/the-chimera-of-deregulation/
>
> John Redwood is upset at Labour’s attacks on him for writing a *Tory party
> smokescreen of our current economic problems to tick off some of a longer
> list of long-standing big business gripes, be they around the planning
> system, the ability of the regulators to inspect their premises, or any
> tidying-up of ‘unnecessary’ legislation.
>
> http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2012/05/10/the-chimera-of-deregulation/
>
> policy paper in favour of deregulation* shortly before the banks collapsed
> in large part because of inadequate regulation.
>
> http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/06/01/john-redwoods-part-in-the-c...
>
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 4:42:51 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
> John Redwood is upset at Labour’s attacks on him for writing a *Tory party
> policy paper in favour of deregulation*
Deregulation of business is not deregulation of the Banks, try again
Plonksy.
> policy paper in favour of deregulation*
Deregulation of business is not deregulation of the Banks, try again
Plonksy.
Affa
Jun 29, 2012, 4:44:58 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
On Friday, June 29, 2012 8:42:57 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:
You post a link to a far left wing blog, you might as well posted a
link to Plonksys post.
jar
Jun 29, 2012, 4:45:18 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
I read several papers and lsten to news and debates tinman. Dont call others liars just because their opinion is different from yours . You have to ask yourself who introduce the light touch legislation that allowed the banks to behave the way they did, You have to ask yourself why we were in such a vulnerable to deal with this US import that we didnt want. Your conclusions may be different to mine but its not worth calling you a liar about just unable to accept what really happened to make the banks behave so badly.
On Friday, June 29, 2012 6:14:24 PM UTC+1, tinman wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2012 6:14:24 PM UTC+1, tinman wrote:
If anyone is still in any doubt that this recession is 100% down to
the banks you should watch the BBC news.
Spin all the lies you want about it being someone or something else,
but now only the blind or the stupid will deny it wasn't 100% down to
the banks.
> Hes in front of a cross section of MPs next week and unless hes too clever
> for them might not have the option of resigning . Hopefully he will have to
> repay all those huge bonuses he got whilst he oversaw tghis scam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:31:42 PM UTC+1, tinman wrote:
> > News is he won't be resigning. If there was any doubt as to just
> > how corrupt and greedy these bankers are it's here right now.
>
> > He shouldn't even have the option of resigning............he should be
> > sacked and then charged with fraud
>
> > On Jun 29, 2:25 pm, hedgehog <hedgeho...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > We've seen on our evening news down here that the # 1 reason the UK is
> > > in so much trouble is because of the greedy bankers fiddling interest
> > > rates to suit themselves. A simple case of looking out for theirself
> > > first and to hell with the country and everyone else. Once again the
> > > Tory sponsored spin spread so thickly on this board is nailed down as
> > > a lie.
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 4:46:28 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
> He posted a bloody google page
An empty google pageJonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 4:47:45 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Oh look locky is now making himself look an even greater idiot..
jar
Jun 29, 2012, 4:48:14 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Just remind yourself who was in Government at the time Jonsky. Opposition partys do not make laws. OK>
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 4:48:42 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Its very simple jar it was hag thatcher...But of course you knew that didn't you..
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 5:01:31 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 29, 9:47 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh look locky is now making himself look an even greater idiot..
after your beloved Enron Brown deregulated them
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 5:06:33 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Like I said locky get off your fat tory arse and look for yourself...Its has been posted enough times all over the board...And isnt it strange how you never mentioned the other link...Priceless ROFLMAO..
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 5:11:33 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 29, 10:06 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Like I said locky get off your fat tory arse and look for yourself
no different to your LIE Thatcher abolished appenticeships, you lied
then and your lying now.
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 5:12:21 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Go to bed locky you are just making yourself look an even bigger prick..
Trueblue
Jun 29, 2012, 5:31:32 PM6/29/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 29, 10:12 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Go to bed locky you are just making yourself look an even bigger prick..
Jonksy
Jun 29, 2012, 5:49:45 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Nope because I haven't lied,,,Still keep spouting your same old shite locky and who knows you may even believe it yourself one day..
Affa
Jun 29, 2012, 8:29:03 PM6/29/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
George Osborne, his first appearance as Shadow Chancellor introduced himself
with these opening remarks ..........
George Osborne (Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Treasury; Tatton, Conservative)
"I absolutely agree. The amount of money that the Government have set aside does not begin to meet the problem, which is why we propose using the unclaimed assets of banks to deal with it. It is interesting that the Treasury is now looking at that idea, and we will wait and see whether it uses those assets for the desperate situation that my hon. Friend has highlighted.
The Chancellor always thought that he would be out of the Treasury before any of these challenges caught up with him, but it seems that however many times the Prime Minister fools him, he never learns. There he stands in the Treasury, the packing cases ready, the removal van in the drive and his coat on—then the Prime Minister buys him an ice cream, and it is back to square one. At least the first time the Prime Minister did him over he took him to a restaurant and bought him dinner.
The Chancellor is stuck at the Treasury, and he cannot duck the economic challenges facing the country. We need to keep taxes and regulation low so that we can compete"
.......... On the City of Lodon debate a few weeks later he opened with .......
"What the Chancellor did not mention is that we are celebrating this week the 20th anniversary of the big bang, (Thatcher's deregulation of the Financial Services Sector in 1986) which he opposed at the time but now presumably welcomes. The City is not celebrating the damage that he has done to the pensions industry and with his tax and regulatory regime".
Do note that this was a direct reference to 'tight regulation of the City, Banking Sector'. He stuck to that theme (over regulation), right up to late 2007 ...... when it became a lot clearer that loose regulatary practice had led to this crisis.
Sandman
Jun 30, 2012, 4:02:39 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Try these Blue, three links all placing the start of the disaster to
Thatchers "Big Bang" in October 1986, and fast increase of the
wages gap. The last link is by an American.
Trueblue
Jun 30, 2012, 4:35:03 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 30, 9:02 am, Sandman <joere...@aol.com> wrote:
> Try these Blue, three links all placing the start of the disaster to
> Thatchers "Big Bang" in October 1986,
Browns deregulation that bought abouut the banking crisis, the head of
the toothless FSA set up by Enron Brown agreed with them as did the
Governor of the BOE
Trueblue
Jun 30, 2012, 4:40:33 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 30, 1:29 am, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> Do note that this was a direct reference to 'tight regulation of the City,
> Banking Sector'. He stuck to that theme (over regulation), right up to late
> 2007 ......
conservatives call for lighter or less of the banks.
ewill
Jun 30, 2012, 4:43:29 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
It's a reference to lighter regulation , not tighter
> * <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=264> fools him, he never
> time the *Prime Minister* <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=264>did him over he took him to a restaurant and bought him dinner.
>
> The *Chancellor* <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=170> is stuck
> .......
>
> "What the *Chancellor* <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=170> did
> George Osborne, his first appearance as Shadow Chancellor introduced
> himself
> with these opening remarks ..........
>
> *George Osborne* <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/?m=1868> (Shadow
> himself
> with these opening remarks ..........
>
> Chancellor of the Exchequer, Treasury; Tatton, Conservative)
>
> "I absolutely agree. The amount of money that the Government have set aside
> does not begin to meet the problem, which is why we propose using the
> unclaimed assets of banks to deal with it. It is interesting that the
> Treasury is now looking at that idea, and we will wait and see whether it
> uses those assets for the desperate situation that my hon. Friend has
> highlighted.
>
> The *Chancellor* <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=170> always
>
> "I absolutely agree. The amount of money that the Government have set aside
> does not begin to meet the problem, which is why we propose using the
> unclaimed assets of banks to deal with it. It is interesting that the
> Treasury is now looking at that idea, and we will wait and see whether it
> uses those assets for the desperate situation that my hon. Friend has
> highlighted.
>
> thought that he would be out of the Treasury before any of these challenges
> caught up with him, but it seems that however many times the *Prime Minister
> * <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=264> fools him, he never
> learns. There he stands in the Treasury, the packing cases ready, the
> removal van in the drive and his coat on—then the *Prime Minister*<http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=264>buys him an ice cream, and it is back to square one. At least the first
> time the *Prime Minister* <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=264>did him over he took him to a restaurant and bought him dinner.
>
> The *Chancellor* <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=170> is stuck
> at the Treasury, and he cannot duck the economic challenges facing the
> country. We need to keep taxes and regulation low so that we can compete"
>
> .......... On the *City of Lodon* debate a few weeks later he opened with
> country. We need to keep taxes and regulation low so that we can compete"
>
> .......
>
> "What the *Chancellor* <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=170> did
Jonksy
Jun 30, 2012, 5:11:18 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
And where exactly did I state that they did old man. You really should keep up to speed on what's being said jar.
Sandman
Jun 30, 2012, 5:14:19 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
You obviously missed the first part of the independant link that said.
The crises consuming the Brown government today should indeed
be seen as a
Winter of Discontent – a moment when the governing
ideology is coldly exposed as
unworkable. But this time the ideology
being exposed as unworkable is
small-government CONSERVATISM.
It is Gordon Brown's decision to retain and push forward the Thatcherite
policy of perpetual deregulation and spending cuts in a
slew of policy
areas that has left him skidding into a dead-end. I think that fully places
Thatcher as the nucleus from which everything else developed, and the
reason massive salaries and bonuses became the norm for bankers and
CEO's, building societies becoming banks etc. Brown stupidly continued
what Thatcher started, after pressue from the banks here and in the USA.
Never deny Thatcher started the rot.
ewill
Jun 30, 2012, 5:32:08 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
the independent link was written by that well known , proven ,
completely discredited ,ultra left winger, made up quotes ex''
journo'' Johann Hari
completely discredited ,ultra left winger, made up quotes ex''
journo'' Johann Hari
Trueblue
Jun 30, 2012, 5:33:36 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
> You obviously missed the first part of the independant link that said.
> The crises consuming the Brown government today should indeed
> be seen as a Winter of Discontent – a moment when the governing
> ideology is coldly exposed as unworkable.
An assumption made by the reporter which ignores the fact Brown
> The crises consuming the Brown government today should indeed
> be seen as a Winter of Discontent – a moment when the governing
> ideology is coldly exposed as unworkable.
removed all regulartory controls of the banks from the BOE a move
every single Conserative chancellor past and present condemmed
Affa
Jun 30, 2012, 5:35:56 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
On Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:14:19 AM UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
Brown stupidly continued what Thatcher started, after pressue from the banks here and in the USA.
Never deny Thatcher started the rot.
I quoted that first appearance of George Osborne at the dispatch box as Shadow Chancellor
in which he boasts of the 'Big Bang' twenty years earlier that Gordon opposed at the time but now "must welcome" for the change in fortunes of UK plc.
A boast accompanied by an accusation that Brown hindered City competitiveness by over regulation.
How the rhetoric changes, eh!
Affa
Jun 30, 2012, 5:46:15 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
On Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:32:08 AM UTC+1, ewill wrote:
the independent link was written by that well known , proven ,
completely discredited ,ultra left winger, made up quotes ex''
journo'' Johann Hari
Elaine; I personally have no confidence in what any Coalition spokesperson writes or says.
It is taken for granted that they, and I must include the Tory supporting press most of the time, will put a positive spin on everything and anything that can in any way demonstrate their fitness to govern.
Nevertheless, I do not dismiss their claims, but instead will unravel the spun yarn and attempt to expose the real truth of it .......... this frequent dismissal of 'lefty' comments shows a lack of argument on your part.
ewill
Jun 30, 2012, 5:49:12 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Anything written by Hari can be completely discounted - even the lefty
Indy got rid of him
Indy got rid of him
ewill
Jun 30, 2012, 5:58:13 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/dirty-hari/>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirty Hari
Jonathan Foreman — December 2011
This year saw two major scandals in the British media. The one that
received the most attention concerned cell-phone “hacking” by a
private detective hired by the now-shuttered News of the World. Such
illegal private espionage has been a practice of other tabloid
newspapers—including the left-wing Daily Mirror and the
paleoconservative Daily Mail—but the outcry focused on papers owned by
Rupert Murdoch, whose Atlanticist, free-market, and populist ethos has
long infuriated the British media and political establishment.
The second scandal involved the exposure of Johann Hari, the
celebrated young columnist and media personality, as a plagiarist,
fabricator, and user of Internet aliases to carry out smear campaigns
against his enemies and to promote his own career. The Hari affair
provoked less consternation—though it arguably offers as troubling a
picture of the state of British journalism as the hacking scandal
does. Indeed, the response to the scandal from Hari’s employers at the
Independent and from much of the media establishment was arguably even
more revealing of a deficit in the ethics of British media culture
than were Hari’s original derelictions.
Like several rising stars in American journalism over the past three
decades—the Washington Post’s Janet Cooke in the early 1980s, the New
Republic’s Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass in the 1990s, and the New
York Times’s Jayson Blair in the early 2000s—Hari, now just 31,
achieved his rapid success at a startlingly young age in large part
thanks to his deceptions and fabrications. These went undetected for a
long time because editors chose not to examine his work too closely.
In Hari’s case (as in the case of Glass), his editors did not check
his work because he skillfully played to their prejudices, in
particular their anti-Americanism and loathing of Israel.
The reaction to his journalistic crimes stood in stark contrast to the
American response to Glass and others. Hari’s sins were not greeted
with the outrage, disappointment, and deep soul-searching of the sort
that went on at all three American journalistic establishments—which
led to editors being fired and new standards of exactitude being
imposed—but rather with a blasé wave of the hand. In America, if a
journalist is caught in repeated invention and deliberate dishonesty,
his or her career ends. Not so in Britain. Hari was merely suspended
from the Independent and is due to return to it after completing a
journalism class in New York.
_____________
Born in Glasgow, Hari was hired right out of Cambridge University as a
21-year-old by the New Statesman. He moved from there to the
Independent and very quickly became its most talked-about writer after
Robert Fisk, the infamous veteran Middle East correspondent (whose
propagandistic reporting has problems of its own). Astonishingly
prolific, Hari specialized in pithy, personal, no-holds-barred
political and cultural diatribes, combining undeniable verbal
brilliance and erudition with vituperation that could be savage even
by the unrestrained standards of British journalism.
It was typical of Hari that in one of many articles vilifying Israel
(a stance popular with readers and editors of the Independent) he
wrote, “Israel, as she gazes at her grey hairs and discreetly ignores
the smell of her own stale shit pumped across Palestine, needs to ask
what kind of country she wants to be in the next 60 years.”
He also wrote about himself with what looked like unsparing if
solipsistic openness. He told readers about his issues with his
homosexuality, his struggles with his weight, and his battles with
depression in articles that were often moving and thoughtful. Hari’s
combination of vulnerability and viciousness apparently made it all
the more difficult for editors and colleagues to confront him about
his suspiciously unconvincing reporting.
His fans were not limited to Independent readers with an apparently
insatiable hunger for anti-Israel and anti-American invective.
Liberals, centrists, and conservatives also found themselves praising
Hari’s columns for devastating attacks on the likes of Harold Pinter,
Eric Hobsbawm, George Galloway, and other progressive darlings with
soft spots for Stalinists and progressive dictators. Like Christopher
Hitchens, whose friendship Hari cultivated, he seemed to bring
impressive moral force and democratic convictions to his political
writing.
Whether out of conviction or for careerist reasons (or both), Hari
occupied a libertarian niche on the left that allowed him to identify
with the left establishment while attacking multiculturalism,
totalitarianism, “anti-imperialist” support for third-world tyrants,
and politically correct blindness to the dangers of Islamofascism.
Like Hitchens, he was a strong supporter of Western intervention in
the Balkans and then Iraq,1 although he changed sides with snarling
vehemence in 2006. This reversal only added to his celebrity. In 2008,
he was awarded the prestigious Orwell Prize for political writing.
George Orwell was surely spinning in his grave on the evening Hari
rose to the dais to accept it.
Long before he ascended these heights, he had been dogged by whispers
that the quotes in his articles and columns were too perfect to be
real. While he was at the New Statesman, the magazine’s deputy editor,
Cristina Odone, was so troubled by the quotations he used in a
supposedly reported story that she asked to see his notebooks. He put
off bringing them in, then claimed to have misplaced them. After
discovering that Hari had been forced off the Cambridge student
newspaper for allegedly unethical behavior while still an
undergraduate, Odone finally went to the magazine’s editor, Peter
Wilby, but without result. Odone subsequently found that her Wikipedia
entry had been altered to include references to her alleged homophobia
and anti-Semitism as well as other flaws. The changes were made by one
D. Rose, of whom more later.
Wilby, like subsequent editors, seems to have felt that Hari’s
possibly problematic methods were of lesser significance than his
cleverness, his unusually humble background (Hari claims his mother
worked as a cleaning lady), his ability to bring in a gay readership
and, above all, his ideological soundness on subjects like Israel and
America.
Hari left the New Statesman after a year or so and tried to get work
at the highly respected, left-leaning Guardian newspaper with the
assistance of Polly Toynbee, an elder stateswoman on the left whom he
had assiduously cultivated. But the Guardian, which generally holds to
serious, almost American standards of journalistic ethics, had
suspicions about his methods. The Independent, with a much smaller
staff and an increasingly tabloid sensibility, was not so scrupulous.
In Spring 2003, the satirical magazine Private Eye charged Hari with
falsehoods in three New Statesman stories, including one in which he
claimed to have spent a month reporting from Iraq when in fact he had
gone on a two-week package tour of the country’s ancient sites. In
another story, Hari claimed to have seen a demonstrator bleeding to
death at the Genoa G8 summit. The Eye’s Hackwatch column stated: “As
several witnesses can attest, Hari wasn’t there, having hailed a taxi
to escape the scene some time before” the killing.
There were other questions asked on the Internet over the following
years, but it was not until 2011 that Hari’s reputation was seriously
challenged. It was a handful of left-wing bloggers who started the
ball rolling this spring—bloggers who disliked his initially pro-war
position on Iraq, or the vituperativeness of Hari’s attacks on figures
like the ancient apologist for Stalin, Eric Hobsbawm.
Those bloggers pointed out that interviews Hari had conducted with
writers such as Antonio Negri included quotations that looked like
word-for-word lifts from earlier published writings by those
interviewees.
The historian Guy Walters, writing for the New Statesman’s website,
pointed out that Hari’s fawning May 2006 profile of Venezuelan
strongman Hugo Chavez included quotations identical to those in a 2001
Jon Lee Anderson New Yorker piece.
Anderson’s piece read: “‘I realized at that moment that I was saying
goodbye to life,’ Chávez said. ‘So it is possible that one has been a
bit…imbued with that…ever since, no?’”
Here is Hari’s, five years later: “‘I realized at that moment that I
was saying goodbye to life,’ he says, looking away. ‘So it is possible
that, after surviving, one has been a bit imbued with that sense ever
since, no?’” It is Hari’s use of the phrase “looking away” that
exposes him—with its deliberate, dishonest implication that these are
words Hari heard from the lips of the Venezuelan quasi-dictator.
The discovery that Hari had dishonestly “improved” what his
interviewees had really said to him gave sudden credibility to the
complaints by many interview subjects over the years that he had
misrepresented their words. These included Noam Chomsky, who in
December 2003 accused Hari of “idiotic fabrications” that were
“beneath contempt.” Four years later Hari would claim he saw the light
about the evil of the Iraq war as a result of communications with
Chomsky, but his response to the claim that he was a fabricator at the
time was devastatingly pithy: “If you want ‘idiotic fabrications,’
Professor Chomsky, I suggest you look to your predictions of a ‘silent
genocide’ in Afghanistan if the U.S. intervened. Or perhaps your long-
standing dismissal of the Cambodian genocide as ‘American
propaganda.’”
Conservative bloggers soon joined in the pile-on. One of them, Guido
Fawkes, found that one of the four pieces Hari had submitted to the
organization that awarded him the Orwell Prize in 2008, entitled “How
Multiculturalism Is Betraying Women,” was largely lifted from Der
Spiegel. Too smart just to cut and paste, Hari had changed the odd
word here and there and given made-up names to anonymous women
interviewed by the German magazine.
If Hari’s attackers came from both the left and the right, his
defenders tended to come from the media establishment and the liberal
center. They included Caitlin Moran of the Times, a columnist equally
celebrated for her youth and snark, and the Observer’s media
columnist, Peter Preston, who wrote that the complaints against Hari
were “ethically ludicrous.”
Those defenses began to sound hollow when article after article turned
out to contain invented scenes or dialogue or characters. In a report
from the Copenhagen Climate summit, Hari falsely claimed that a large
globe erected in the city’s central square was “covered with corporate
logos—the Coke brand is stamped over Africa,” alongside the logos of
McDonalds and Carlsberg. The only McDonalds sign was on a restaurant
across the square from the summit.
Hari won a prize for a story from Central Africa in which he rightly
excoriated France’s role in the Rwanda genocide but also claimed—
falsely, according to the aid agency that brought him to the region—
that French soldiers told him “children would bring us the severed
heads of their parents and scream for help, but our orders were not to
help them.” The aid worker who was translating for him says that she
never heard the French soldiers say anything of the sort.
Again and again Hari’s reportage boasted quotations that were too
perfect to be believable and apparently too delicious for his editors
to check. When other news organizations looked for people Hari had
named as sources in articles reported from Dubai and Caracas, they
couldn’t find them. Given the extent of his fabrications, it would be
interesting to find out if there really was “a chatty, scatty 35-year-
old Californian designer” named Hillary-Ann on the 2007 National
Review cruise that Hari went on and wrote about—and if she has any
memory of saying, as he claimed in the Independent, that “we need to
execute some of these people…these prominent liberals who are trying
to demoralize the country…just take a couple of these antiwar people
off to the gas chamber for treason.”
Like so many frauds, Hari sometimes made such outrageous claims that
you almost wonder if he unconsciously wanted to be caught. At the
Independent he claimed in a piece about the dangers of robot weaponry
that “the former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was nearly
killed a few years ago after a robot attacked him on a tour of a
factory.” It was completely untrue, but apparently no one at the paper
thought to check.
Hari even lied in book reviews to damage the reputations of his
personal or ideological enemies. In a review for Dissent of Nick
Cohen’s book What’s Left, he claimed that Cohen, a left-wing supporter
of the liberation of Iraq, had said the West was right to support
Saddam Hussein when he was gassing the Kurds in the late 1980s. In
fact Cohen’s book says the exact opposite. In an equally venomous and
dishonest review of a book by the historian Andrew Roberts, Hari tried
to smear Roberts as a racist, accusing him baselessly of “links to
white supremacism.”
For the most part, though, complaints about Hari during the spring of
2011 were confined to the blogosphere and were ignored by the
journalistic establishment. This continued until Nick Cohen wrote a
column in the Spectator in July revealing that he had been the victim
of pseudonymous vilification by Hari. Cohen and others had discovered
that their Wikipedia entries had been altered to include libelous
attacks by one David Rose, who claimed to be a Cambridge climate
scientist—but who, a simple search demonstrated, happened to use a
computer at the Independent and who also happened to write many
website comments in praise of Johann Hari.
“David Rose” spent thousands of hours, often very late at night,
obsessively promoting Hari’s reputation as an important intellectual
figure and denigrating those with whom he disagreed. One attack by
“Rose” on the conservative columnist Richard Littlejohn was posted at
midnight on Christmas Eve. After initial denials, Hari admitted to
being Rose and to having carried out the “sock-puppet” attacks on
Cohen, his New Statesman editor Cristina Odone, and others.
It was at this point that the Council of the Orwell Prize decided to
investigate the stories for which he been given the prize in 2008.
However, the organizations that had given him the Amnesty
International Journalism Award and the Martha Gelhorn Prize did not
deign to do so.
And yet, even though it was plain as day that Hari had stolen other
interviewers’ work and passed it off as his own, even after there was
every reason to believe that his reporting was packed with bogus
conversations with faked or suspiciously untraceable sources, and even
after Hari had admitted to his malicious sock-puppetry, the
Independent continued to back its young star. Simon Kelner, editor at
the time, lobbied behind the scenes to save Hari’s Orwell prize and
refused to supply the Orwell jury with documentation that it asked
for.
Eventually the Independent was compelled to launch an official inquiry
into the behavior of its star. The investigation was headed by the
paper’s founder, Andreas Whittam Smith. Even though Whittam Smith had
always presented himself as a kind of Gandhi of British journalistic
integrity, in his inquiry he failed to contact editors who had worked
with Hari or victims of Hari’s open or pseudonymous smear campaigns.
Hari returned the award just as the committee was about to rescind it.
And he published a long quasi-apology in which he admitted to being
“stupid” and “arrogant” but not to being dishonest. He blamed his
errors on his youth and lack of formal journalistic training. He said
he would be taking a leave of absence to study at a journalism school
in New York City, where he would presumably be helped to understand
the difference between truth and falsehood and why lying, even for
some supposed greater good, is not acceptable journalistic practice.
He hinted that his downfall had come at the hands of sinister
“powerful people.”
The apology was fisked by the British journalist Toby Young, who gave
Hari the kind of drubbing Hari had so often dished out to others: “The
reason you’ve been put through the wringer by various bloggers and
journalists isn’t because they’re the paid lackeys of the military-
industrial complex,” Young wrote. “It’s because you’re a sanctimonious
little prig.”
_____________
To understand the Hari case, you have to appreciate the environment in
which he worked. Hari’s reporting habits are far from unique in
British journalism. Americans horrified by the ethical lapses in the
journalism practiced in the UK have no idea how amoral and
unprincipled British newspapers and magazines can be (though they’ve
been given a dark glimpse of it in the voluminous coverage of the
hacking scandal). That conduct, horrific though it was, at least had
as its goal the collection of dark secrets. Hari is part of another
tradition—a tradition that seems indifferent to the truth. The star
correspondent of one broadsheet won a prize a few years ago partly for
a story about the Taliban’s chief torturer. Afterwards the reporter
had to admit that this person did not exist and was in fact a
composite of several people. The admission had no effect whatsoever on
the reporter’s career. The same was true of another habitually
dishonest star reporter whose false claims of an Israeli massacre in
the West Bank town of Jenin were disproven without question.
Still, it is worth wondering why, even given the looser journalistic
culture in the UK, Hari was able to lie and cheat for so long and why
his career is even now on hold rather than definitely over. Partly it
is a matter of ideology. If he had been a journalist of the right, the
Guardian and the BBC would have instantly assigned teams to go through
his past work and his activities on the Internet. Instead, they left
it to the blogs or implied that Hari was being persecuted for minor
errors. It may also have had something to do with the fear he
sometimes inspired thanks to the viciousness of his columns and his
obsessive pursuit of his enemies on the Internet (Hari was an adroit
early adopter of online social networks).
The main reason was almost certainly that Hari was so very, very good
at expressing and justifying the prejudices expressed around North
London dinner tables that he made them sound not only reasonable but
noble. This was particularly so when it came to America and Israel.
There are many anti-Zionist writers in Israel-obsessed Britain; some
of them, unlike Hari, are supporters of anti-Israel terrorism. But
Hari brought a unique kind of credibility as well as rhetorical skill
to the cause. Arguably this was why Peter Wilby and Simon Kelner, his
viscerally anti-American and anti-Israel editor-mentors, overlooked
the evidence of his dishonesty.
After all, Hari could not be further from the upper-class Arabists or
dull dogmatic leftists who had been the primary anti-Israel voices in
Britain. Hari had no orientalist fetish for Arab kings and tribesmen
or sympathy for pro-“resistance” dictators like Syria’s Bashar al-
Assad. He just hated Israel, and hated it while being proudly and
overtly anti-Islamist, anti-tyranny, young, libertarian, gay, and hip.
He both spoke to and represented a new, young generation of Israel-
obsessives.
It was an obsession that became increasingly ugly. Hari exploited his
reputation as a moderate, morally serious voice to promote pseudo-
historians such as Ilan Pappe and the anti-Israel Holocaust
revisionist Norman Finkelstein. (“I love Norman Finkelstein,” he once
told an interviewer. “I love what he says about Elie Wiesel. I hate
the mystification of the Holocaust and the attempt to turn it into a
kind of quasi-religious thing.”2 Hari’s take on Israel’s history is
typified by jibes about the centrist Israeli politician Tzipi Livni,
whose parents were members of the nationalist Irgun movement in
Palestine: “In theory…Livni should be in a strong position to
understand nationalist ‘terrorists’ who have planted bombs on buses
and in cafés—because she was raised by them.”
It is mainly because he specializes in this sort of rhetoric, pickled
in bigotry and casuistry, that the Independent is so anxious not to
lose him. Its new editor, Chris Blackhurst, has written that the
British government opposed proposals for introducing Islamic banking
in Britain because of “enormous pressure” from the “pro-Israel lobby.”
Given repellent rhetoric like that, it is no wonder that Blackhurst
“hopes to see [Hari] back in the not-too-distant future.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
1 People therefore identified him with the briefly fashionable
“Eustonite” left—so called after the 2005 Euston Manifesto (of which I
am a signatory), whose supporters decried blanket anti-Western,
objectively pro-Islamist, anti-Semitic, and pro-terrorist attitudes
prevalent in the antiwar movement, and who proclaimed support for
America, enlightenment values, and those fighting for democracy
everywhere.
2 In the same interview, Hari claimed that the Palestinian town Rafah
looked “like Hiroshima . . . a city of 100,000 has just been destroyed
and people [are] living in absolute terror.”
>>>>
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/dirty-hari/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirty Hari
Jonathan Foreman — December 2011
This year saw two major scandals in the British media. The one that
received the most attention concerned cell-phone “hacking” by a
private detective hired by the now-shuttered News of the World. Such
illegal private espionage has been a practice of other tabloid
newspapers—including the left-wing Daily Mirror and the
paleoconservative Daily Mail—but the outcry focused on papers owned by
Rupert Murdoch, whose Atlanticist, free-market, and populist ethos has
long infuriated the British media and political establishment.
The second scandal involved the exposure of Johann Hari, the
celebrated young columnist and media personality, as a plagiarist,
fabricator, and user of Internet aliases to carry out smear campaigns
against his enemies and to promote his own career. The Hari affair
provoked less consternation—though it arguably offers as troubling a
picture of the state of British journalism as the hacking scandal
does. Indeed, the response to the scandal from Hari’s employers at the
Independent and from much of the media establishment was arguably even
more revealing of a deficit in the ethics of British media culture
than were Hari’s original derelictions.
Like several rising stars in American journalism over the past three
decades—the Washington Post’s Janet Cooke in the early 1980s, the New
Republic’s Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass in the 1990s, and the New
York Times’s Jayson Blair in the early 2000s—Hari, now just 31,
achieved his rapid success at a startlingly young age in large part
thanks to his deceptions and fabrications. These went undetected for a
long time because editors chose not to examine his work too closely.
In Hari’s case (as in the case of Glass), his editors did not check
his work because he skillfully played to their prejudices, in
particular their anti-Americanism and loathing of Israel.
The reaction to his journalistic crimes stood in stark contrast to the
American response to Glass and others. Hari’s sins were not greeted
with the outrage, disappointment, and deep soul-searching of the sort
that went on at all three American journalistic establishments—which
led to editors being fired and new standards of exactitude being
imposed—but rather with a blasé wave of the hand. In America, if a
journalist is caught in repeated invention and deliberate dishonesty,
his or her career ends. Not so in Britain. Hari was merely suspended
from the Independent and is due to return to it after completing a
journalism class in New York.
_____________
Born in Glasgow, Hari was hired right out of Cambridge University as a
21-year-old by the New Statesman. He moved from there to the
Independent and very quickly became its most talked-about writer after
Robert Fisk, the infamous veteran Middle East correspondent (whose
propagandistic reporting has problems of its own). Astonishingly
prolific, Hari specialized in pithy, personal, no-holds-barred
political and cultural diatribes, combining undeniable verbal
brilliance and erudition with vituperation that could be savage even
by the unrestrained standards of British journalism.
It was typical of Hari that in one of many articles vilifying Israel
(a stance popular with readers and editors of the Independent) he
wrote, “Israel, as she gazes at her grey hairs and discreetly ignores
the smell of her own stale shit pumped across Palestine, needs to ask
what kind of country she wants to be in the next 60 years.”
He also wrote about himself with what looked like unsparing if
solipsistic openness. He told readers about his issues with his
homosexuality, his struggles with his weight, and his battles with
depression in articles that were often moving and thoughtful. Hari’s
combination of vulnerability and viciousness apparently made it all
the more difficult for editors and colleagues to confront him about
his suspiciously unconvincing reporting.
His fans were not limited to Independent readers with an apparently
insatiable hunger for anti-Israel and anti-American invective.
Liberals, centrists, and conservatives also found themselves praising
Hari’s columns for devastating attacks on the likes of Harold Pinter,
Eric Hobsbawm, George Galloway, and other progressive darlings with
soft spots for Stalinists and progressive dictators. Like Christopher
Hitchens, whose friendship Hari cultivated, he seemed to bring
impressive moral force and democratic convictions to his political
writing.
Whether out of conviction or for careerist reasons (or both), Hari
occupied a libertarian niche on the left that allowed him to identify
with the left establishment while attacking multiculturalism,
totalitarianism, “anti-imperialist” support for third-world tyrants,
and politically correct blindness to the dangers of Islamofascism.
Like Hitchens, he was a strong supporter of Western intervention in
the Balkans and then Iraq,1 although he changed sides with snarling
vehemence in 2006. This reversal only added to his celebrity. In 2008,
he was awarded the prestigious Orwell Prize for political writing.
George Orwell was surely spinning in his grave on the evening Hari
rose to the dais to accept it.
Long before he ascended these heights, he had been dogged by whispers
that the quotes in his articles and columns were too perfect to be
real. While he was at the New Statesman, the magazine’s deputy editor,
Cristina Odone, was so troubled by the quotations he used in a
supposedly reported story that she asked to see his notebooks. He put
off bringing them in, then claimed to have misplaced them. After
discovering that Hari had been forced off the Cambridge student
newspaper for allegedly unethical behavior while still an
undergraduate, Odone finally went to the magazine’s editor, Peter
Wilby, but without result. Odone subsequently found that her Wikipedia
entry had been altered to include references to her alleged homophobia
and anti-Semitism as well as other flaws. The changes were made by one
D. Rose, of whom more later.
Wilby, like subsequent editors, seems to have felt that Hari’s
possibly problematic methods were of lesser significance than his
cleverness, his unusually humble background (Hari claims his mother
worked as a cleaning lady), his ability to bring in a gay readership
and, above all, his ideological soundness on subjects like Israel and
America.
Hari left the New Statesman after a year or so and tried to get work
at the highly respected, left-leaning Guardian newspaper with the
assistance of Polly Toynbee, an elder stateswoman on the left whom he
had assiduously cultivated. But the Guardian, which generally holds to
serious, almost American standards of journalistic ethics, had
suspicions about his methods. The Independent, with a much smaller
staff and an increasingly tabloid sensibility, was not so scrupulous.
In Spring 2003, the satirical magazine Private Eye charged Hari with
falsehoods in three New Statesman stories, including one in which he
claimed to have spent a month reporting from Iraq when in fact he had
gone on a two-week package tour of the country’s ancient sites. In
another story, Hari claimed to have seen a demonstrator bleeding to
death at the Genoa G8 summit. The Eye’s Hackwatch column stated: “As
several witnesses can attest, Hari wasn’t there, having hailed a taxi
to escape the scene some time before” the killing.
There were other questions asked on the Internet over the following
years, but it was not until 2011 that Hari’s reputation was seriously
challenged. It was a handful of left-wing bloggers who started the
ball rolling this spring—bloggers who disliked his initially pro-war
position on Iraq, or the vituperativeness of Hari’s attacks on figures
like the ancient apologist for Stalin, Eric Hobsbawm.
Those bloggers pointed out that interviews Hari had conducted with
writers such as Antonio Negri included quotations that looked like
word-for-word lifts from earlier published writings by those
interviewees.
The historian Guy Walters, writing for the New Statesman’s website,
pointed out that Hari’s fawning May 2006 profile of Venezuelan
strongman Hugo Chavez included quotations identical to those in a 2001
Jon Lee Anderson New Yorker piece.
Anderson’s piece read: “‘I realized at that moment that I was saying
goodbye to life,’ Chávez said. ‘So it is possible that one has been a
bit…imbued with that…ever since, no?’”
Here is Hari’s, five years later: “‘I realized at that moment that I
was saying goodbye to life,’ he says, looking away. ‘So it is possible
that, after surviving, one has been a bit imbued with that sense ever
since, no?’” It is Hari’s use of the phrase “looking away” that
exposes him—with its deliberate, dishonest implication that these are
words Hari heard from the lips of the Venezuelan quasi-dictator.
The discovery that Hari had dishonestly “improved” what his
interviewees had really said to him gave sudden credibility to the
complaints by many interview subjects over the years that he had
misrepresented their words. These included Noam Chomsky, who in
December 2003 accused Hari of “idiotic fabrications” that were
“beneath contempt.” Four years later Hari would claim he saw the light
about the evil of the Iraq war as a result of communications with
Chomsky, but his response to the claim that he was a fabricator at the
time was devastatingly pithy: “If you want ‘idiotic fabrications,’
Professor Chomsky, I suggest you look to your predictions of a ‘silent
genocide’ in Afghanistan if the U.S. intervened. Or perhaps your long-
standing dismissal of the Cambodian genocide as ‘American
propaganda.’”
Conservative bloggers soon joined in the pile-on. One of them, Guido
Fawkes, found that one of the four pieces Hari had submitted to the
organization that awarded him the Orwell Prize in 2008, entitled “How
Multiculturalism Is Betraying Women,” was largely lifted from Der
Spiegel. Too smart just to cut and paste, Hari had changed the odd
word here and there and given made-up names to anonymous women
interviewed by the German magazine.
If Hari’s attackers came from both the left and the right, his
defenders tended to come from the media establishment and the liberal
center. They included Caitlin Moran of the Times, a columnist equally
celebrated for her youth and snark, and the Observer’s media
columnist, Peter Preston, who wrote that the complaints against Hari
were “ethically ludicrous.”
Those defenses began to sound hollow when article after article turned
out to contain invented scenes or dialogue or characters. In a report
from the Copenhagen Climate summit, Hari falsely claimed that a large
globe erected in the city’s central square was “covered with corporate
logos—the Coke brand is stamped over Africa,” alongside the logos of
McDonalds and Carlsberg. The only McDonalds sign was on a restaurant
across the square from the summit.
Hari won a prize for a story from Central Africa in which he rightly
excoriated France’s role in the Rwanda genocide but also claimed—
falsely, according to the aid agency that brought him to the region—
that French soldiers told him “children would bring us the severed
heads of their parents and scream for help, but our orders were not to
help them.” The aid worker who was translating for him says that she
never heard the French soldiers say anything of the sort.
Again and again Hari’s reportage boasted quotations that were too
perfect to be believable and apparently too delicious for his editors
to check. When other news organizations looked for people Hari had
named as sources in articles reported from Dubai and Caracas, they
couldn’t find them. Given the extent of his fabrications, it would be
interesting to find out if there really was “a chatty, scatty 35-year-
old Californian designer” named Hillary-Ann on the 2007 National
Review cruise that Hari went on and wrote about—and if she has any
memory of saying, as he claimed in the Independent, that “we need to
execute some of these people…these prominent liberals who are trying
to demoralize the country…just take a couple of these antiwar people
off to the gas chamber for treason.”
Like so many frauds, Hari sometimes made such outrageous claims that
you almost wonder if he unconsciously wanted to be caught. At the
Independent he claimed in a piece about the dangers of robot weaponry
that “the former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was nearly
killed a few years ago after a robot attacked him on a tour of a
factory.” It was completely untrue, but apparently no one at the paper
thought to check.
Hari even lied in book reviews to damage the reputations of his
personal or ideological enemies. In a review for Dissent of Nick
Cohen’s book What’s Left, he claimed that Cohen, a left-wing supporter
of the liberation of Iraq, had said the West was right to support
Saddam Hussein when he was gassing the Kurds in the late 1980s. In
fact Cohen’s book says the exact opposite. In an equally venomous and
dishonest review of a book by the historian Andrew Roberts, Hari tried
to smear Roberts as a racist, accusing him baselessly of “links to
white supremacism.”
For the most part, though, complaints about Hari during the spring of
2011 were confined to the blogosphere and were ignored by the
journalistic establishment. This continued until Nick Cohen wrote a
column in the Spectator in July revealing that he had been the victim
of pseudonymous vilification by Hari. Cohen and others had discovered
that their Wikipedia entries had been altered to include libelous
attacks by one David Rose, who claimed to be a Cambridge climate
scientist—but who, a simple search demonstrated, happened to use a
computer at the Independent and who also happened to write many
website comments in praise of Johann Hari.
“David Rose” spent thousands of hours, often very late at night,
obsessively promoting Hari’s reputation as an important intellectual
figure and denigrating those with whom he disagreed. One attack by
“Rose” on the conservative columnist Richard Littlejohn was posted at
midnight on Christmas Eve. After initial denials, Hari admitted to
being Rose and to having carried out the “sock-puppet” attacks on
Cohen, his New Statesman editor Cristina Odone, and others.
It was at this point that the Council of the Orwell Prize decided to
investigate the stories for which he been given the prize in 2008.
However, the organizations that had given him the Amnesty
International Journalism Award and the Martha Gelhorn Prize did not
deign to do so.
And yet, even though it was plain as day that Hari had stolen other
interviewers’ work and passed it off as his own, even after there was
every reason to believe that his reporting was packed with bogus
conversations with faked or suspiciously untraceable sources, and even
after Hari had admitted to his malicious sock-puppetry, the
Independent continued to back its young star. Simon Kelner, editor at
the time, lobbied behind the scenes to save Hari’s Orwell prize and
refused to supply the Orwell jury with documentation that it asked
for.
Eventually the Independent was compelled to launch an official inquiry
into the behavior of its star. The investigation was headed by the
paper’s founder, Andreas Whittam Smith. Even though Whittam Smith had
always presented himself as a kind of Gandhi of British journalistic
integrity, in his inquiry he failed to contact editors who had worked
with Hari or victims of Hari’s open or pseudonymous smear campaigns.
Hari returned the award just as the committee was about to rescind it.
And he published a long quasi-apology in which he admitted to being
“stupid” and “arrogant” but not to being dishonest. He blamed his
errors on his youth and lack of formal journalistic training. He said
he would be taking a leave of absence to study at a journalism school
in New York City, where he would presumably be helped to understand
the difference between truth and falsehood and why lying, even for
some supposed greater good, is not acceptable journalistic practice.
He hinted that his downfall had come at the hands of sinister
“powerful people.”
The apology was fisked by the British journalist Toby Young, who gave
Hari the kind of drubbing Hari had so often dished out to others: “The
reason you’ve been put through the wringer by various bloggers and
journalists isn’t because they’re the paid lackeys of the military-
industrial complex,” Young wrote. “It’s because you’re a sanctimonious
little prig.”
_____________
To understand the Hari case, you have to appreciate the environment in
which he worked. Hari’s reporting habits are far from unique in
British journalism. Americans horrified by the ethical lapses in the
journalism practiced in the UK have no idea how amoral and
unprincipled British newspapers and magazines can be (though they’ve
been given a dark glimpse of it in the voluminous coverage of the
hacking scandal). That conduct, horrific though it was, at least had
as its goal the collection of dark secrets. Hari is part of another
tradition—a tradition that seems indifferent to the truth. The star
correspondent of one broadsheet won a prize a few years ago partly for
a story about the Taliban’s chief torturer. Afterwards the reporter
had to admit that this person did not exist and was in fact a
composite of several people. The admission had no effect whatsoever on
the reporter’s career. The same was true of another habitually
dishonest star reporter whose false claims of an Israeli massacre in
the West Bank town of Jenin were disproven without question.
Still, it is worth wondering why, even given the looser journalistic
culture in the UK, Hari was able to lie and cheat for so long and why
his career is even now on hold rather than definitely over. Partly it
is a matter of ideology. If he had been a journalist of the right, the
Guardian and the BBC would have instantly assigned teams to go through
his past work and his activities on the Internet. Instead, they left
it to the blogs or implied that Hari was being persecuted for minor
errors. It may also have had something to do with the fear he
sometimes inspired thanks to the viciousness of his columns and his
obsessive pursuit of his enemies on the Internet (Hari was an adroit
early adopter of online social networks).
The main reason was almost certainly that Hari was so very, very good
at expressing and justifying the prejudices expressed around North
London dinner tables that he made them sound not only reasonable but
noble. This was particularly so when it came to America and Israel.
There are many anti-Zionist writers in Israel-obsessed Britain; some
of them, unlike Hari, are supporters of anti-Israel terrorism. But
Hari brought a unique kind of credibility as well as rhetorical skill
to the cause. Arguably this was why Peter Wilby and Simon Kelner, his
viscerally anti-American and anti-Israel editor-mentors, overlooked
the evidence of his dishonesty.
After all, Hari could not be further from the upper-class Arabists or
dull dogmatic leftists who had been the primary anti-Israel voices in
Britain. Hari had no orientalist fetish for Arab kings and tribesmen
or sympathy for pro-“resistance” dictators like Syria’s Bashar al-
Assad. He just hated Israel, and hated it while being proudly and
overtly anti-Islamist, anti-tyranny, young, libertarian, gay, and hip.
He both spoke to and represented a new, young generation of Israel-
obsessives.
It was an obsession that became increasingly ugly. Hari exploited his
reputation as a moderate, morally serious voice to promote pseudo-
historians such as Ilan Pappe and the anti-Israel Holocaust
revisionist Norman Finkelstein. (“I love Norman Finkelstein,” he once
told an interviewer. “I love what he says about Elie Wiesel. I hate
the mystification of the Holocaust and the attempt to turn it into a
kind of quasi-religious thing.”2 Hari’s take on Israel’s history is
typified by jibes about the centrist Israeli politician Tzipi Livni,
whose parents were members of the nationalist Irgun movement in
Palestine: “In theory…Livni should be in a strong position to
understand nationalist ‘terrorists’ who have planted bombs on buses
and in cafés—because she was raised by them.”
It is mainly because he specializes in this sort of rhetoric, pickled
in bigotry and casuistry, that the Independent is so anxious not to
lose him. Its new editor, Chris Blackhurst, has written that the
British government opposed proposals for introducing Islamic banking
in Britain because of “enormous pressure” from the “pro-Israel lobby.”
Given repellent rhetoric like that, it is no wonder that Blackhurst
“hopes to see [Hari] back in the not-too-distant future.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
1 People therefore identified him with the briefly fashionable
“Eustonite” left—so called after the 2005 Euston Manifesto (of which I
am a signatory), whose supporters decried blanket anti-Western,
objectively pro-Islamist, anti-Semitic, and pro-terrorist attitudes
prevalent in the antiwar movement, and who proclaimed support for
America, enlightenment values, and those fighting for democracy
everywhere.
2 In the same interview, Hari claimed that the Palestinian town Rafah
looked “like Hiroshima . . . a city of 100,000 has just been destroyed
and people [are] living in absolute terror.”
>>>>
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/dirty-hari/
jar
Jun 30, 2012, 6:16:13 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Mrs Thatcher wasnt in power in 1997 Jonsky when Balls presented Brown with the light touch approach which enabled the banks to behave the way they did . It was all part of Labours charm offensive with the city . You knew that but as usual didnt understand it didnt you.
Jonksy
Jun 30, 2012, 6:25:54 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Are you bloody thick or what jar? Hag thatcher was the one who put deregulation in place the dye was cast along time befor labour got in. And if labour had not of been in at the time the shit hit the fan it would have been even more disastrous because right up to 2007 you lot were pushing for even greater deregulation. Spin away and wriggle all you like jar it was your favourite hag who laid the foundations for the shite we now find ourselves in.
Affa
Jun 30, 2012, 6:33:00 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
My post was a general reference to your dismissals.
btw is Jonathan Foreman beyond reproach?
The right wing media has its own fantasists, Littlejohn and Clarkeson spring to mind,
but of course these people will escape such concerted disassembling.
I'll add here that imo George Osborne fits into this category ..... a man who is a stranger to truth.
Jonksy
Jun 30, 2012, 8:10:50 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Foreman was formally a lawyer in New York Affa so we all know what lying shysters they are.
ewill
Jun 30, 2012, 9:17:31 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Your post supported his view. His articles have no credibility
You are clutching at straws of desperation if you attempt to compare
Hari with either Clarkson or Littlejohn
The outing of Hari can be seen across all media , including their own
trade association
You are clutching at straws of desperation if you attempt to compare
Hari with either Clarkson or Littlejohn
The outing of Hari can be seen across all media , including their own
trade association
jar
Jun 30, 2012, 9:58:04 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
No I leave that to you Jonsky. Mrs T introduced self regulation after the big bang if you want to get it right. Circumstances found that it was necesary to regulate the banks after the election where Labour had had a charm offence with the city. Balls model which Brown adopted plainly wasnt sufficient to stop the banks acting as they have. Dont believe me then listen to Millebands speech where he admitted that they had got it wrong or in his parlance didnt do enough!! So just because you are incapable of understanding the facts think twice before you prove once again to be the boards idiot
jar
Jun 30, 2012, 10:06:21 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Hadnt realised the man was under the influence of Blair
Jonksy
Jun 30, 2012, 10:34:22 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Once again jar you are just spouting unadulterated tory shite. The hag laid the foundations of bank deregulation so spin away old man because it gives the rest of us a good laugh.
jar
Jun 30, 2012, 10:49:33 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
I thought I had said it in the easiest way that even you would understand but apparently not. Another waste of time .
Jonksy
Jun 30, 2012, 10:52:57 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Don't try thinking jar you know it isn't conducive to indoctrination.
hedgehog
Jun 30, 2012, 10:53:20 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
LMFAO You have to be heads out in front the funniest poster on
here. Ever thought of becoming a parrot.
here. Ever thought of becoming a parrot.
Jonksy
Jun 30, 2012, 10:55:22 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
He gives us all a bloody good laugh Hedgehog along with the other two braindead gullibles.
jar
Jun 30, 2012, 11:02:28 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
As long as I can make a few dumbheads laugh then I compensate those that have to read the crap you and Jonsky write. Jonsky and Tinman have beaten me to being a parrot one leg up from being a vents dummy hedgehog.
hedgehog
Jun 30, 2012, 11:02:44 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
If you actually look at what he post jon, it's rehashed from someone
else's posts to suit his needs, I doubt the bloke has an original
thought of his own to post.
else's posts to suit his needs, I doubt the bloke has an original
thought of his own to post.
jar
Jun 30, 2012, 11:10:56 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
You cannot be serious and it becomes more rediculous when you tell Jonsky who anyone can see restricts himself to copying other peoples phrases and newspaper articles. Not that you had any credibilty to start with but what you think you had is now well and truly shot to pieces
jar
Jun 30, 2012, 11:11:27 AM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
oh dear usual crap with no content . I really am wasting my time
On Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:55:22 PM UTC+1, Jonksy wrote:
He gives us all a bloody good laugh Hedgehog along with the other two braindead gullibles.
On Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:55:22 PM UTC+1, Jonksy wrote:
He gives us all a bloody good laugh Hedgehog along with the other two braindead gullibles.
Anthonychng
Jun 30, 2012, 11:20:34 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
You are stating the obvious hedgehog. We are not as dim back here as
you would hope. We are quite aware of the inadequacies of Bankers and
their dishonest ways.....not just here either. But that is nothing
new. Not something to blame the Tories for. After all it was a
Labour government who introduced a softy-softly policy so far as Banks
were concerned and a Labour governement that chose to turn a blind eye
to what those banks were up to. It is a Tory led coalition that has
made sure what bankers have been up to is to see the light of day.
Don`t flatter yourself that Bruce Bank Ltd in Wogga-Wogga are any
better.....just a bit slower to be found out. Banks everywhere look
after themselves. That is why they use YOUR money to invest whilst
paying out as low an interest rate as they can get away with.
you would hope. We are quite aware of the inadequacies of Bankers and
their dishonest ways.....not just here either. But that is nothing
new. Not something to blame the Tories for. After all it was a
Labour government who introduced a softy-softly policy so far as Banks
were concerned and a Labour governement that chose to turn a blind eye
to what those banks were up to. It is a Tory led coalition that has
made sure what bankers have been up to is to see the light of day.
Don`t flatter yourself that Bruce Bank Ltd in Wogga-Wogga are any
better.....just a bit slower to be found out. Banks everywhere look
after themselves. That is why they use YOUR money to invest whilst
paying out as low an interest rate as they can get away with.
Anthonychng
Jun 30, 2012, 11:23:32 AM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Usual nonsense tinman. The Banks have proved to be crooked.....just
as they were during Labour`s 13 year reign, but even without their
contribution to a recession, Labour had already ruined our economy.
The Banking thing came along just in time for Brown to hide his
disastrous time as Chancellor. The fact that you can`t see that
should not come as a surprise to anyone. The end of your little
Labour nose is about as far as you can manage.
On Jun 29, 6:14 pm, tinman <tinman080...@aol.com> wrote:
> If anyone is still in any doubt that this recession is 100% down to
> the banks you should watch the BBC news.
>
> Spin all the lies you want about it being someone or something else,
> but now only the blind or the stupid will deny it wasn't 100% down to
> the banks.
>
>
>
> > Hes in front of a cross section of MPs next week and unless hes too clever
> > for them might not have the option of resigning . Hopefully he will have to
> > repay all those huge bonuses he got whilst he oversaw tghis scam
>
> > On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:31:42 PM UTC+1, tinman wrote:
> > > News is he won't be resigning. If there was any doubt as to just
> > > how corrupt and greedy these bankers are it's here right now.
>
> > > He shouldn't even have the option of resigning............he should be
> > > sacked and then charged with fraud
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
as they were during Labour`s 13 year reign, but even without their
contribution to a recession, Labour had already ruined our economy.
The Banking thing came along just in time for Brown to hide his
disastrous time as Chancellor. The fact that you can`t see that
should not come as a surprise to anyone. The end of your little
Labour nose is about as far as you can manage.
On Jun 29, 6:14 pm, tinman <tinman080...@aol.com> wrote:
> If anyone is still in any doubt that this recession is 100% down to
> the banks you should watch the BBC news.
>
> Spin all the lies you want about it being someone or something else,
> but now only the blind or the stupid will deny it wasn't 100% down to
> the banks.
>
>
>
> > Hes in front of a cross section of MPs next week and unless hes too clever
> > for them might not have the option of resigning . Hopefully he will have to
> > repay all those huge bonuses he got whilst he oversaw tghis scam
>
> > On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:31:42 PM UTC+1, tinman wrote:
> > > News is he won't be resigning. If there was any doubt as to just
> > > how corrupt and greedy these bankers are it's here right now.
>
> > > He shouldn't even have the option of resigning............he should be
> > > sacked and then charged with fraud
>
> > > On Jun 29, 2:25 pm, hedgehog <hedgeho...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > We've seen on our evening news down here that the # 1 reason the UK is
> > > > in so much trouble is because of the greedy bankers fiddling interest
> > > > rates to suit themselves. A simple case of looking out for theirself
> > > > first and to hell with the country and everyone else. Once again the
> > > > Tory sponsored spin spread so thickly on this board is nailed down as
> > > > a lie.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > We've seen on our evening news down here that the # 1 reason the UK is
> > > > in so much trouble is because of the greedy bankers fiddling interest
> > > > rates to suit themselves. A simple case of looking out for theirself
> > > > first and to hell with the country and everyone else. Once again the
> > > > Tory sponsored spin spread so thickly on this board is nailed down as
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trueblue
Jun 30, 2012, 12:15:51 PM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 30, 2:58 pm, jar <jar...@aol.com> wrote:
> No I leave that to you Jonsky. Mrs T introduced self regulation after the
> big bang if you want to get it right.
look it up after reading this not that he'll have any idea what he'd
reading about.
Jonksy
Jun 30, 2012, 12:29:29 PM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
The hag was the one responsible locky. So get over it she was the one who laid the foundations for the crap we are in now.
Trueblue
Jun 30, 2012, 12:33:29 PM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
So explain in simple terms how breaking the old boys closed shop and
modernisingthe trading system which restored the City as marker leader
after being devestated under Labour is to blame, like I said you
haven't got a fucking clue what big bang was about.
modernisingthe trading system which restored the City as marker leader
after being devestated under Labour is to blame, like I said you
haven't got a fucking clue what big bang was about.
Affa
Jun 30, 2012, 1:14:44 PM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
" Before Big Bang the City was a place where occasionally there was a problem when honest firms employed dishonest people. Today that is reversed".
You know what the worry is? That dishonest firms employ dishonest politicians to ensure their dishonest practices remain. You wouldn't want twelve convicted criminals on the jury when a thief is on trial .........
but that is what we've got now.
.
Y
Trueblue
Jun 30, 2012, 1:28:33 PM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 30, 6:14 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> " Before Big Bang the City was a place where occasionally there was a
> problem when honest firms employed dishonest people. Today that is
> reversed".
to modernisation, its clear you like Plonksy have no idea what big
bang was all about
tinman
Jun 30, 2012, 3:00:31 PM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Could we have a link to this claim please.
Trueblue
Jun 30, 2012, 3:18:57 PM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 30, 8:00 pm, tinman <tinman080...@aol.com> wrote:
> Could we have a link to this claim please.
conservatives stated they want less regulation of the banks.
Briar
Jun 30, 2012, 3:38:36 PM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
It is no myth, socialist, conservative, leb-dim, fascist or theocrat
sort. But it is not just our banks, the whole thing started in New
York, in their banks, and all ovdr the USA wheree local banks were
selling sub-prime loans made to people who were never going to be able
to repay their mortgages, along with a mixed bundle of stuff, as
Derivatives, to other banks, all round the world. Thus they sold
their toxic debts and spread it around the world, and every bank that
bought and sold on these things made them more expensive, until
someone looked inside and realised they were worth less than
nothing ! A whole bunch of con artists were ripping off the sleepy,
the tired, the gullible. THAT is where all this trouble started.
sort. But it is not just our banks, the whole thing started in New
York, in their banks, and all ovdr the USA wheree local banks were
selling sub-prime loans made to people who were never going to be able
to repay their mortgages, along with a mixed bundle of stuff, as
Derivatives, to other banks, all round the world. Thus they sold
their toxic debts and spread it around the world, and every bank that
bought and sold on these things made them more expensive, until
someone looked inside and realised they were worth less than
nothing ! A whole bunch of con artists were ripping off the sleepy,
the tired, the gullible. THAT is where all this trouble started.
Trueblue
Jun 30, 2012, 4:07:08 PM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 30, 8:38 pm, Briar <BriarLor...@aol.com> wrote:
> It is no myth, socialist, conservative, leb-dim, fascist or theocrat
> sort. But it is not just our banks, the whole thing started in New
> York, in their banks,
even you should realise the money supply is controlled by government
central, ie Bank of England the FED or ECB, your right in one sense it
started in the US under the Clinton Administration and very shortly
afterwards in the UK and the Eurozone.
As Robert Peston clearly explained in his Euro Crisis documentary it
was the central banks, IE Governments that flooded the system with
cheap money, the banks were simply a tool to get that cheap money into
the economy to create growth, in America and the UK it was cheap
Mortgages, in the Eurozone it was not only mortgages but cheap
government borrowing for weak economies to expand state spending.
When the bubble burst as every economist predicted it would because
printed money creates inflation and higher borrowing costs the banks
were left with debts that would never be repaid, which is why Peston
says the banks are victims just like all of us.
In short this crisis could never have happened had governments
CONTROLLED the money supply which reminds of Thatcher who said
economys stand or fall on sound money, you cannot buck the market, she
was 100% right.
Jonksy
Jun 30, 2012, 4:07:47 PM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Oh dear locky is spitting his dummy out...It was ALL started by the hag and reagun oh locky of the gullibles..
Trueblue
Jun 30, 2012, 4:11:17 PM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 30, 9:07 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh dear locky is spitting his dummy out...It was ALL started by the hag and
> reagun oh locky of the gullibles..
Jonksy
Jun 30, 2012, 4:17:24 PM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
So come on locky explain the damage done by the hags deregulation of the city and the. banks.
Trueblue
Jun 30, 2012, 4:53:03 PM6/30/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
On Jun 30, 9:17 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> So come on locky explain the damage done by the hags deregulation of the city and the. banks.
sector in the late 1970s was in deep shit, overtaken by Wall Street
and European markets, theres a clue for you, now answer the question
you plank, what was the big bang all about, because it was FUCK ALL
to do with deregulation of the banks as socialists claim
Jonksy
Jun 30, 2012, 5:01:40 PM6/30/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Once again locky you are just stalling and no amount of your indoctrinated bullshit can let the hag off the hook..It is proven from top to bottom and from left to right it was all down to the the hags initial meddling..
Briar
Jul 1, 2012, 1:15:09 AM7/1/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Sorry 'Blue, but it would appear you are less well informed than I
am. The actual money supply is not controlled by anyone including
governments and even banks. With Derivatives, Options, Hedge Funds,
credits, loans, Shares etc. and Compound Interest, "money" can be
magicked out of thin air, and once conjured up it is quite hard it
seems to get rid of it completely. Add to these the fact that there
are even people forging the stuff - as long as their product is
accepted and not noticed it all goes into the system and there is a
lot of it in circulation.
One can set up a private limited company, and issue shares using bits
of paper called share certificates, and hand some out to friends and
relations, then after the Company has traded or been active for a
while, one can have more shares offered to people on one of the many,
small stock exchanges, or even warrants, and one can set the initial
price for them, and literally you will have created lots of money from
virtually nothing. Back in the Biotech Boom
time I did this more than once, so I know about this. The secret is
to sell them before the disappointments appear.
Anyone taking a loan from a bank will be paying compound interest.
This generates lots of money for banks. Anything that speeds up the
flow of money automatically makes it effectively increase the amount
flowing. If people were to get paid twice a week instead of once, on
condition they used it all up before they were paid again, everyone
would double their effective income and boost the economy enormously.
A bank lends out much more than it actually has, estimating that as
long as most borrowers pay nack regularly as arranged, they will not
find they have insufficient to meet their obligations. When the have
been over-optimistic, they borrow from other banks, and even from some
gullible government that thinks they are "too big to fail" !
Money is an invention of humans so it is only limited when humans
decide to make it so. It does not have to obay natural laws so we can
fantasise with it, and the only limits are our lack of imagination.
am. The actual money supply is not controlled by anyone including
governments and even banks. With Derivatives, Options, Hedge Funds,
credits, loans, Shares etc. and Compound Interest, "money" can be
magicked out of thin air, and once conjured up it is quite hard it
seems to get rid of it completely. Add to these the fact that there
are even people forging the stuff - as long as their product is
accepted and not noticed it all goes into the system and there is a
lot of it in circulation.
One can set up a private limited company, and issue shares using bits
of paper called share certificates, and hand some out to friends and
relations, then after the Company has traded or been active for a
while, one can have more shares offered to people on one of the many,
small stock exchanges, or even warrants, and one can set the initial
price for them, and literally you will have created lots of money from
virtually nothing. Back in the Biotech Boom
time I did this more than once, so I know about this. The secret is
to sell them before the disappointments appear.
Anyone taking a loan from a bank will be paying compound interest.
This generates lots of money for banks. Anything that speeds up the
flow of money automatically makes it effectively increase the amount
flowing. If people were to get paid twice a week instead of once, on
condition they used it all up before they were paid again, everyone
would double their effective income and boost the economy enormously.
A bank lends out much more than it actually has, estimating that as
long as most borrowers pay nack regularly as arranged, they will not
find they have insufficient to meet their obligations. When the have
been over-optimistic, they borrow from other banks, and even from some
gullible government that thinks they are "too big to fail" !
Money is an invention of humans so it is only limited when humans
decide to make it so. It does not have to obay natural laws so we can
fantasise with it, and the only limits are our lack of imagination.
tinman
Jul 1, 2012, 7:12:02 AM7/1/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
He's now doing what he's always done jon when he finds that he's
backed into a corner. Just like Cameron he goes into a flap and tries
to lie his way out.
backed into a corner. Just like Cameron he goes into a flap and tries
to lie his way out.
Jonksy
Jul 1, 2012, 7:16:12 AM7/1/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Yep they are all the bloody same when presented with the truth Tinman..
tinman
Jul 1, 2012, 7:20:11 AM7/1/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
All they have now are the transparent lies that only the stupid
believe and repost day after day. As I've said before it's two old
men that haven't worked in years and a blind idiot that has nothing
left now the lies are nailed to his forehead.
believe and repost day after day. As I've said before it's two old
men that haven't worked in years and a blind idiot that has nothing
left now the lies are nailed to his forehead.
jar
Jul 1, 2012, 7:30:02 AM7/1/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
TBs asking a question tinman How can a question be a lie.You get shriller by the day
Jonksy
Jul 1, 2012, 7:37:38 AM7/1/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
I you knew the fuck what was going on jat you would know that the question has been answered dozens of times by Poc, Affa, Sandman, Tinmam, Hedgehog and me...But of course you tories each have your own evasion techniques and wriggles like you shoot the messenger and locky askes the same dumb quesetions over and over which have been even the other night he kept asking for luinksn and when the dumbshit has them he still fucking asks for a link you tories are all the same..
Jonksy
Jul 1, 2012, 7:39:00 AM7/1/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Should have been If you knew the fuck jar..
tinman
Jul 1, 2012, 7:44:06 AM7/1/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
I find jar hilarious now he's been reduced to roaming around on here
going from topic to topic telling others to open their eyes wake up
and please please stop criticising Cameron. He's desperate to find
another poster that'll believe his lie. even though his lie is so
transparent even the blind can see through it.
going from topic to topic telling others to open their eyes wake up
and please please stop criticising Cameron. He's desperate to find
another poster that'll believe his lie. even though his lie is so
transparent even the blind can see through it.
Jonksy
Jul 1, 2012, 7:46:48 AM7/1/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Yep he is just a joke now Tinman...Ask the dumb idiot a simple question and he goes all coy like a wall flower at a prom party..
tinman
Jul 1, 2012, 7:51:08 AM7/1/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
Mind if a bandwagon comes along jar is the first on board, he does
love a bandwagon does jar
love a bandwagon does jar
jar
Jul 1, 2012, 7:53:46 AM7/1/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
lol no you dont tinman as we often see you lose it, still I suppoose you have to adopt that attitude as usual you are unable to defend your constant silly driveling about a gvt that had to pick up the mess they found .Now if you could come up with some sensible criticism of this gvt instead of spending your time comforting each other and childish posts you wouldnt be wasting and interupting some of the sensible debates that from time to time occur.
tinman
Jul 1, 2012, 7:56:06 AM7/1/12
to GPPS (General Politics People and Society)
From jars post
" you wouldnt be
wasting and interupting some of the sensible debates that from time
to time
occur."
Priceless fucking priceless.
" you wouldnt be
wasting and interupting some of the sensible debates that from time
to time
occur."
jar
Jul 1, 2012, 7:59:17 AM7/1/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Poor hedgehog only silly people would believe that why not concentrate on facts as opposed to left wing propaganda. Mrs T deregulated Balls persuaded Brown on the light touch regulation which allowed the banks to behave as they did. This is why Id like a Leveson style enquiry as it would put Balls and Brown under oath (if that means anything to them) .Then your posts along with the other bad losers would be shown up for what it is.
On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:25:25 PM UTC+1, hedgehog wrote:
We've seen on our evening news down here that the # 1 reason the UK is
in so much trouble is because of the greedy bankers fiddling interest
rates to suit themselves. A simple case of looking out for theirself
first and to hell with the country and everyone else. Once again the
Tory sponsored spin spread so thickly on this board is nailed down as
a lie.
jar
Jul 1, 2012, 8:00:51 AM7/1/12
to gpn-general-po...@googlegroups.com
Its quite plain we have forgotten more than youve ever learnt then if you have never had the capacity to understand whats going on what else can one expect., The pair of you are bitter losers and as Ive said the sooner you get used to the fact the sooner you might stop posting these useless diatribes. What you try to do with your swearing and insults in an effort to provoke doesnt go unoticed and as I have also said your favourite effort in calling people you cant best in argument old men tells people more about you than anything else as it shows that you once again have literally nothing useful to say.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages