Priti Patel

[wilts rover]

Wilts. How you can equate my comments into you being touched and worried, I have no idea. IF this is a matter of national security then it should not be made public. IF it is not a matter of national security then it should be made public. IF there is proved to be a cover up then those responsible should be held to account.

I have never suggested any different. You just assume.

#bothsides

Yes thanks Belton - perfectly fair and resonable. If you trust the government to have that judgement of course as some of us are more trusting than others.

Nothing personal of course, this is just a generalisation, as speaking entirely for myself I always welcome your opinion even if I dont agree with it.

[drfchound]

Quite sad really that people sit and search for online news reports and Tweets and then rush to post them on a football forum.
I suppose it must be gratifying for the poster when four or five people sometimes back them up by adding their two pennorth and then discrediting anyone who dares to add a differing point of view.

BST, the above was my post that you are referring to as a personal insult I assume.
Can you see any reference to you personally?



 

Belton
Once again, I was NOT having a go at you as a person. I was commenting on your approach of consistently criticising any criticism of the Govt. In this particular case, you presented an unfiltered and unprocessed statement from the HO which was highly questionable in its factual accuracy and flatly refuted by the very Panel that had run the inquiry.

It's been a consistent approach of yours to claim that there is a balance between "both sides" in recent political disagreements. The term for that is Bothsidesism. Your contribution last night was very much in that vein and I responded as such. If I got that wrong, I apologise, but perhaps you could have made that clear by saying whether you thought there was merit in the HO statement rather than simply presenting it.

I don't agree that there is an inevitable and intrinsic value in both sides' arguments. Where I think that one side's argument is lacking in merit, I try to provide evidence as to why I come to that conclusion. As I did last night. I happen to think that Bothsidesism is an intellectual cop out that allows, in fact, requires any unsubstantiated bullshit argument to be given equal due.

The confusion here is that you seem to be conflating an attack on your opinions on this issue as a personal attack on you. It wasn't.

Contrast that against Hound's contribution to this discussion. Which you don't appear to be sufficient exercised by to offer an opinion on.

Your choice of course but forgive me if I interpret that as a rather biassed approach to the discussion.

......and yes you did bring me into the discussion when you mentioned me in the above post to Belton.

[SydneyRover]

Let me help you here hound, it's an insult to all those that read newspapers and take news from many sources, that you are suggesting that some do nothing else but look for items that apparently get up your nose, just a suggestion like, when you voice your opposition to something voice it to the crux of the comment and not the authors. When you have mastered that you may find that myself and maybe others will listen to your argument whereby creating a stimulating debate.

But as I don't speak for anyone but myself bst may be referring to something entirely different.

[drfchound]

 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Apologies Hound. It was clearly just a coincidence, you posting straight after my post. How COULD I have thought otherwise...?

Belton.

The point is that, at some stage, when people on one side of an argument have a track record of demonstrably and deliberately misleading, it is natural, in fact I'd say necessary to start to assume that is what they are doing. Otherwise, you give equal credence to oil industry-funded climate change deniers as you do to peer-reviewed academic researchers on climate.

In the case of this Government, yo seem determined to insist that criticism has to be balanced with the Govt's own line. Even when the Govt has been shown time and time again to deliberately mislead. I am genuinely interested in how far a Govt would have to go in misleading before you would start to question whether giving equal weight to their line might be unhealthy? Would you have argued against criticism of Trump when he said we should look into injecting bleach to cure COVID for example?

[belton rover]

Billy. The Trump comparison is ridiculous.

The point is much, much, much simpler than you insist on trying to make it.

I’m not arguing against the criticism of the government. That is the very problem with your style of debate: if I am not totally with you, then I MUST be totally agin you.

I happen to think that the government could well be trying to cover something up here. As I have said before, if that is shown to be true then I shall be as appalled as you. What I won’t do is treat their guilt as fact. Not until it is fact.

Your process is disturbing, not mine.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton

I'm establishing a principle.

Clearly you don't believe that we always have to give equal credence to "both sides". Because some times, one side or the other is simply not deserving of credence.

Now. That point established, back to this Govt and reports. Does it worry you that they have a track record of delaying publication of embarrassing reports, then ignoring their recommendations? Does that give you pause for thought about whether you should give credence to what this Govt says about the reasons for blocking the publication of this report?

I'm not asking you to "accept guilt as fact". I'm asking you to approach a debate with a robust attitude as to what evidence you can trust. In this particular debate, your only substantive contribution was to post verbatim a Govt statement. If you'd said back then that you think the Govt could well be trying to cover something up, but here's what they say anyway, we could have avoided a lot of pointless interaction.

[belton rover]

And the condescension begins. Sometimes I imagine you have a checklist at the side of you of how to drain the life out of someone.

You could have avoided pointless interaction much easier than the methods you always choose.

Just try to remember, Billy, as much as you like to think you are the oracle of discussion on this football forum spin off, you’re actually not. We disagree on many topics, including the topic of how to disagree. I accept that - so should you.

This is not a personal attack, by the way - it’s my personal opinion of your attitude on here.

#bothsidesmatterunlessit’strumptellingustodrinkbleach

[BobG]

A crash course in the process of debate is needed I think.

BobG

[belton rover]

I know, Bob. I keep trying to tell him.

[BobG]

Debate is fact based. Opinion is not.

BobG

[belton rover]

Opinion is not fact based?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton
If you start from the principle that I'm not making this personal, there'd be no need for you to feel personally affronted.

Your initial contribution to this debate was a value-neutral submission of a statement from a Govt that you finally say you think has something to hide. I truly don't understand why you didn't simply say "Here's what the Govt says but I'm not sure I believe it because...". There truly would have been no need for us to go round the houses to get to where we are now. I really don't get why you think me saying that is condescension. It just seems to me like a statement of the bleeding obvious.

[belton rover]

I offered it up for a bit of context Billy. Perhaps I should have wrote ‘for a bit of context.

The reason I did that was because you were, with absolute certainty, going to dismiss any suggestion that the government could be anything other than guilty, guilty, guilty. I don’t have to give you my opinion, or defend my reasons for posting something, just because it might save you a bit of time. Respond or don’t respond, but stop moaning about wasting your time.

Bit of advice to do with what you want: if you think you may be wasting your time, then don’t respond.
See if you can start by not responding to this post, because I guarantee you will see it as a further waste of your time.

[BobG]

Opinion is not fact based?

Correct Mate

Cheers

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

Back on topic of embarrassing shit being kept from seeing the light of day.

Cameron is known to have sent at least a dozen messages to the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, lobbying for Greensill to be given special treatment.

A Freedom of Info request went to the Treasury to have the Secretary's replies published.

This response looks like a middle finger to the concept of FoI. Or, if we are going to look at it from both sides, maybe it's an admission that the Permanent Secretary can't be trusted to wipe his own arse.

“The Treasury does not hold this information. On 1 June 2020, Mr Scholar’s mobile phone had to be reset, after being automatically locked when an incorrect password was entered several times."

[SydneyRover]

In that case the government should ask Cameron or anyone else to produce replies they have received so evidence can be examined, I'm sure they'll do that.

[SydneyRover]

Belton

I'm establishing a principle.

Clearly you don't believe that we always have to give equal credence to "both sides". Because some times, one side or the other is simply not deserving of credence.

Now. That point established, back to this Govt and reports. Does it worry you that they have a track record of delaying publication of embarrassing reports, then ignoring their recommendations? Does that give you pause for thought about whether you should give credence to what this Govt says about the reasons for blocking the publication of this report?

I'm not asking you to "accept guilt as fact". I'm asking you to approach a debate with a robust attitude as to what evidence you can trust. In this particular debate, your only substantive contribution was to post verbatim a Govt statement. If you'd said back then that you think the Govt could well be trying to cover something up, but here's what they say anyway, we could have avoided a lot of pointless interaction.

This one is one of the finest examples a government not wanting to know and protecting donors.

''Leveson inquiry: government confirms second stage axed'' (Mar 2018)

And it just happens that ...............

''The Conservative manifesto for last year’s general election included plans to abandon Leveson 2, which was intended to examine relationships between journalists and the police''

ITMA

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/01/leveson-inquiry-part-2-cancellation-condemned-by-labour-as-breach-of-trust

[belton rover]

Opinion is not fact based?

Correct Mate

Cheers

BobG

Belton: There’s a half full glass of milk in the fridge, Bob.
 Bob: No there isn’t, it’s half empty.
Belton: There’s plenty for both of us.
Bob: No there isn’t how can there be? You have it - I’ll do without.
Belton: What about your cornflakes?
Bob: I’ll have toast instead.
Belton: Suit yer sen Bob, I’ll save your half of the milk for if you change your mind.
Bob: I won’t. Where’s the butter?
Belton: There’s half a tub on the side.
Bob: b*llocks!

[SydneyRover]

encore belton?

[belton rover]

Always leave them wanting more, Sydney.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Patel report suppression mystery rolls on.

https://mobile.twitter.com/adavies4/status/1395673982255386625

She's now saying nothing about "reviewing" the report for national security issues. Now the issue is that she needs to read it before putting it before Parliament, and "she" (note: she says "I", not "the HO") hasn't received it.

But the panel who produced the report said they would be submitting it to the HO today, for Patel to be able to be up to speed with its contents (note: NOT "review" it - contrary to the HO prrss statement on Weds, there is no mechanism by which a Govt Dept can "review" an independent inquiry report) before presenting it to Parliament on Monday.

I'd be amazed if the Panel hasn't submitted the report today. So there is no reason whatsoever that the report should not be made public on Monday.

We will see...

[belton rover]

I suppose it depends on how big Patel’s/ the HO’s in tray is really.
If I received an email on Friday afternoon that demanded action by Monday morning, I’d say ‘f**k that, you should have sent it sooner, I clock off in 10 minutes’.

Perhaps that’s why I’m not Home Secretary.

[BillyStubbsTears]

That'll be why the Panel proposed this approach to the HO several weeks ago. In order for the HO to get space in the diary. At which time the HO raised no objections and didn't mention the issue of needing to do a security review. (The report has already been thoroughly checked by security specialists at The Met by the way.)

All out there in the public domain if you want to look for it Belton.

[belton rover]

Yeah but she’s still got to read it and they might not even have sent it yet. They could have sent it earlier regardless.
It seems to me bothsides are being a bit petty.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Then the HO should have:
a) Negotiated a different timetable weeks ago and
b) Not used the entirely spurious claim this week that they had to run national security checks (apparently telling the Panel that they had the right to redact sections of the report).

[belton rover]

I don’t disagree with with what the HO could have done. I’m just suggesting that the HO could have been sent the documents earlier than what is effectively the afternoon before it’s due to to be put to parliament. If they had, it would reduce the excuses the HO could give for not presenting it on Monday.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

I'm sure you know this sort of timescale is standard practice for major reports. The point is that the reports are made public, and relevant Govt departments get short pre-sight of the report so that they can frame a response to the key issues. That's why Executive Summaries are written.

There is nothing unusual in what was proposed here. Your insistence that the Panel should have chucked convention on its head in this case is odd.

[belton rover]

Billy. You said you would be ‘amazed if the panel hadn’t sent the document today, so there would be no reason why it couldn’t go to parliament on Monday.
YOU brought this one working day timescale into the equation, not me.

Now you’ve gone off rabbiting on about my ‘insistance blah blah blah...’ YET again. I haven’t insisted anything. Not directly, indirectly, or anything in between.

I commented on what YOU wrote. YOU.

The only ‘odd’ things going on here are your increasingly nonsensical rants.

Do what Patel’s probably going to do: shut your lap top and have chill over the weekend or you’ll make yourself ill.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bizarre end to a straightforward discussion.