https://cliscep.com/2018/04/27/syria-and-conspiracy-theories/#comment-25662

Interesting link, clipe. Much to read in it.
First impression of the contents was that if I had the name Jason Felch, I would do something about changing it!
Sep 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Took me a beat or two but so would I.

"Journalism has long been a cover for spooks for a variety of reasons - some outfits being more popular than others...."
Sep 25, 2018 at 7:24 AM | Registered Commentertomo

While I wouldn't want to put anybody at the BBC in peril of their life, I occasionally think that is the only explanation about why the BBC is given such free rein by all UK governments. What better way than to have a large media organization with an excuse to send people anywhere in the world for pretty much any reason? And it is still one of the biggest old-boy/girl networks in town. People like Harrabin and other globe trotting global warmers clearly aren't real journalists, so what is the point of their employment?

michael hart
Journalists are frequently away from the office on assignment, whatever that means.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC
"Unlike the other departments of the BBC, the BBC World Service was funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, more commonly known as the Foreign Office or the FCO, is the British government department responsible for promoting the interests of the United Kingdom abroad."

Yes, tomo. The issue has cropped up again recently with Cody Wilson, the distributor of files for the 3D-printing of firearms.

Like Julian Assange, he seems to have incurred the wrath of the state, but the powers that be were having trouble nailing him legally. So it appeared awfully convenient when they managed to charge him with sexual offences instead. (Sex with an under-age person he met on the internet through a site which was supposedly well vetted to ensure that people were of legal age.
As with Assange, he may well be guilty. I can't really know. But some parts of the story as I have heard it told sound somewhat suspiciously like a honey-trap and, as I said, a bit too suddenly convenient for state prosecutors.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/new-york-times-hid-multiple-key-facts-in-kavanaugh-yearbook-hit/

shorter link

tomo, there are only 2 people who may be able to remember whether they were in the same room as each other, and if anything happened

This is not a Trial, and it is not in a Court. There are no issues or rules concerning the admissibility of evidence. Zero. Zilch.

Anyone for Climate Science in the run-up to the mid-Term US Elections?

I find it deeply dispiriting that the Senate committee (re Kavanaugh) divided 100% on party lines. It looks as though both Democrats and Republicans had decided in advance who they believed and that not one of them approached the committee hearing with an open mind and the possibility of being swayed by the testimony they heard on the day. Thus, the hearing was a piece of theatre that was a complete waste of time.

If Ford's claims are true, then Kavanaugh should not be appointed to the Supreme Court, IMO, but are her claims believable? I've observed witnesses in Court and tribunal on many occasions, and I like to think I have a handle on assessing the probity of witnesses, but I have to say both Ford and Kavanaugh left me deeply unimpressed.

The main concern I have about Ford's testimony is her claim that she is selflessly putting herself under the spotlight now because it is her duty to make sure that a sexual predator does not become a justice of the Supreme Court. Apparently, however, that duty did not extend to stepping forward when he was first appointed a judge, nor when he was promoted to his current position as an Appeal Court judge; only now, when he is a Trump nominee, does this Trump-hating Democrat supporter feel it her duty to come forward. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but this is the bit that doesn't add up for me.

Mark I think it's a question of when you determine it's necessary to stick one's head above the parapet. Ford may have a much higher threshold than most and only when Kavanaugh was likely to be appointed Supreme Court Judge did it become critical enough that she overcame her reluctance. I think most people in her position would have felt the need to act before he became any sort of judge. I don't think she deserves much credit.

Some find her credible, some don't. The same thing happened to Clarence Thomas, and some parts of Anita Hill's story were later found to be false. And it's not like there isn't plenty of political motivation to lie on either side.
Bottom line is due process and presumption of innocence. You cannot convict someone just on the basis of an accusation with zero corroborating evidence. You shouldn't be able to destroy someones career either simply on the basis of an accusation with zero corroborating evidence.

I accidentally watched a bit of BBC TV this evening and they were describing the Republicans as "desperate" to push the process through. In truth, the normal procedure was being followed as it should, and the Democrats have been desperately trying to delay the process in the hope that they might gain the Senate in mid-term elections and thus block his appointment indefinitely. Every single political commentator has seen what the Democrats have done and know what the reasons are, but the BBC just couldn't bring themselves to mention it (at least in the reports I've seen). It is quite the most naked political partisanship I've seen from the BBC in, ohh, several days.

Her narrative is Fixed Or Repaired Daily.
===============