Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

  1. A council identifying with the landlord class and some half conscious contempt for the little people. And more than annoyed likely that they faced resistance (because of the strong community). They were well aware of the value and the profits that could be made if they could drive them away and build new. Well that was not that easy. So it was a inconsistent policy of neglect, then some "renovation", but not a renovation for the residents but despite them. And if they had tried to put the available budges to the best possible use (consulting the residents and considering their wishes) - that would have resulted in real improvement - and an incentive to STAY. So no chance to put the place to a more profitable use than to house those people. the funds they had and that waited for investment were therefore used for "beautification", pet projects and not real improvement. The facade was important - for the council, or managment - not the residents: Likely so that the investors for other projects would not be reminded by the old optics that some underclass people had been able to resist gentrification. The residents did not ask for a prettier facade and insulation was not that important, the building is so compact that heating was not an issue. On the other hand the requests of the plebs for other improvement were stubbornly ignored. the budgets were allocated otherwise like for the facade - but then it had to be the cheapest cladding possible. If saving was important - why not ditch the facade at all then ? - oh it was an eye sore for the surrounding wealthy people. (And maybe it was important to provide some contracts for buddies). The old concrete facade WAS safe, and so were the metal frame windows, former fires had happened of course and always stayed within the apartments, where the fire brigade could handle them well. The fridge burnt and then ignited the outside of the building and then the fire raced over the facade burst the windows and crept into all of the house. But no money to improve electric safety, likely also the gas tubes were not encased as they should have been. A renovation for show, done with a lot of contempt for the people for whom it supposedly was done and with a focus on saving and splurging on the wrong things. This was about class. About power. And those who know best would not let themselves be influenced by the plebs.
    8
  2. 8
  3. 6
  4. +Bearded Devil - agree with you regarding RT - Tom is in good company, no need to even "justify" why he took that chance. Frankly he should be thankful (and completely unapologetic) - they gave him a chance and full artistic freedom (and the only other option was WITH editorial control of the outlet). The question is: Why didn't he get this chance with the same degree of freedom by the mainstream media. But frankly: can you imagine his "fucking news" rant in the BBC or Sky News ? RT has good staff, some I rate as highly trustworthy (Thom Hartman, he left meanwhile, and Chris Hedges and Lee Camp to start with). And I heard some who are still on air but also two who left the network meanwhile ALL confirm that they had full freedom and more than with the other networks. - I wonder if that is true for all of the British TV outlets. RT does have its limitations - it is in the name and everyone knows it and can factor it in. While the lamestream media claims to be neutral and objective - and is anything but. I heard from George Galloway that higher ups in the BBC were removed because they were against the Iraq war (don't remember the names) when Cheney/Bush and Blair beat the war drums in 2002/2003. Dissenters in the U.S. that were kicked out: Phil Donahue (had a very successful news show) and Chris Hedges (award winning journalist with the New York Times, long time war correspondent) lost their contracts. Jesse Ventura cashed in on his contract for cable TV w/o ever being on air (1 Million USD if memory serves). How were they supposed to know that he also was against the upcoming Iraq war - he was a former marine ? I read a comment from someone who had lived in Eastern Germany: "At least we knew that we were not told the truth in the media ......" (We are catching on to that now with the internet and the possibility to compare). Noam Chomsky knew it for the longest time - Manufacturing Consent
    5
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. Labour does not have a rampant anti-semitism problem. Ridiculous ! Times of Israel recently cited a study (in an anti Corbyn article btw) 6 % of the UK population holds views that the survey classifies as anti-semitic, that has been stable over the years, less prejudice than against any other minority in the U.K. There are more anti-semitic views in the far right, all other groups have them equally. Examples for alleged anti-semitism in Labour Jackie Walker was suspended for mentioning that in her familiy there were Jewish slave traders (she is a black Jewish woman). And expelled for a post recommending to pay more attention on Holocaust Memorial Day to the other genocides (that day IS for all genocides, I think she felt the Holocaust dominated in practice). That post was not unreasonable, inflammatory, disrespectful or even controversial (one might disagree politely about how much to cover when - and btw I think that is why she mentioned the slave traders in her family, technically not a genocide but an atrocity - on another occasion though). I think that post was adressed to a smaller audience, not even sure if it was within a (public or private) facebook group. Not like tweeting to a large following. THAT gets you expelled for being a black, "anti-semitic" Jew (linving with a Jewish partner) - who also happens to be the co-founder of Momentum (with the other Jew - Landsman). Who happens to be outspoken about Palestine and Israel. Go figure. I would not be surprised if "interested circles" had dedicated snitches to infiltrate all her social media groups etc. in search of something - anything - to retaliate against her. The shameful thing is that the party did not back her up. Well then the Corbynistas maybe had not taken over the institutions in the party - so the Blairites used the narrow majority and the pretext to weed her out even if it was ridiculous. Now there is an official complaint against Jeremy Corbyn because he called 2 Jewish people who came to pro Palestine events (to disturb them and more than once) "Zionists that may be lacking in English self irony". Oh the humanity ... another tempest in the teacup.
    4
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. Now about the Hamas/Hezbollah controversy, around 9:00 - Corbyn held himself well and remained politely until the Chanel4 guy became so obnoxious that he had to draw the line in the sand - as for debate skills well done by J.C. As for the controversial use of the words "friends" I found his explanation sufficient - it is called diplomatic speech. I was actually interested in hearing what this was all about, I was interested in HEARING what Corbyn had to say and the Channel 4 guy immediately tried to suffocate the explanation. BTW: Corbyn only SAID things when meeting with Hamas/Hezbollah. Are we really to suppose he LIKES them and wants them to continue with whatever they are doing? How do you think the peace negotiations were held after WW1 (after the horrible loss of lifes). After the Vietnam war? After the war in Yugoslavia? The IRA peace negotiations? Even if you despise the people you have to deal with - if you want to promote peace you have to do the diplomatic speech gig. On the other hand a lot of European and US politicians not only have very friendly and polite verbal exchanges with horrible dictators. They also sell them arms and train their police to suppress the democratic opposition in their country. I find virtue in "political correctness" if that means that you make the extra effort to show respect for other people and cultures. And then there is pounding away on words often taken out of context just to score a cheap point. And what became of "it is unpolite and bad interview technique to interrupt". Now if a politician is very evasive, a journalist might have to interrupt to bring him to the point. I did not find J.C. to be evasive or Bla Bla, it looked more like the Channel 4 guy (I do not want to call him an interviewer) had an agenda, maybe did not like the positions and wanted to corner J.C. Or he tried to play devil's advocate and failed poorly.
    2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 'Good thing the borrowing of the Tories was for tax cuts for the rich, the bailout for the banks, the effects of austerity. Even Cameron admitted at some point that austerity had not helped to keep debt stagnant. On the contrary - austerity harmed it and therefore harmed tax revenue. - Plus more military spending and not to forget the very generous subsidies for Hinkley Point never mind the idea to let the Chinese run a nuclear power plant in the U.K. - the U.S. had much higher debt (as percentage of GDP) after WW2 and 90 % tax marginal tax rate for every dollar over 2,1 million USD ( in todays purchasing power). They got that tax rate in 1944 and the nominal 90 % were kept in the books although the rich had loopholes created for them. In a 1960 debate Nixon and JFK discuss an effective top marginal tax rate of 72 %. Taxes were high in other rich countries as well, they stayed relatively high in the U.S. until Reagan came in. That was the next spending and debt spree, this time not in investment like after WW2 but for tax cuts (especially for the rich and biz), military spending, Part of the money in the 1940s went to war loans for the U.K., weapons, food - not to forget the Marshall plan after the war (1947 I guess). The crazies in the U.S. continued to spend boldly, infrastructure, Marshall plan (export subsidies really), education, research. And they adhered to the advice of Keynes to reduce debt when the economy is good - they got it mainly from the high income earners and big biz (the only way to avoid that was to invest - but then someone else made good business and paid tax - one way or another what the government spent came back to them, the money kept circulating). They considerably lowered the debt within 10 years, and managed the switch from a war to a consumer economy. NOW No bold ideas, and same old same old. How is that working out for the U.K. ? in the U.S. wages (real wages = adjusted for inflation) have remained stagnant (well they drown in private debt and work several jobs. Think of it: in 1940 the 40 hour workweek became the law in all of the U.S. - it was a good fit for the stage of the economy THEN. But real wages have fallen in the U.K. - of course the economy is not working, there is not enough disposable income. and INVESTMENT in water and sewage systems and railway is reasonable. Most wealthy countries were never so stupid to give that out of public hand. Of COURSE the consumers will be exploited if it is a natural monoply. btw. the railway does get plenty of subsidies: for longtime investment and for routes that have less passengers but are run for the common good. profit does nothing to make services that are natural monopolies better. people MUST use them, so there is no marketing or sales etc. necessary and usually they are generic and uniform (think sewage system or bridges or water system - product differentiation would not make sense. So why let the profiteers extract profits. In France a part of Paris was under private contract and the contract expired (2009 or 2011), the citizens pressured the mayor to take back water back into public control, they have had it with the profiteers. In Bordeaux the mayor and some managers of the water company went to prison. They call it the system Bordaux in France. They have large companies that are in the biz of water - but it turns out they all take advantage of the customers. (so now they prey on developing countries because the citzens in France and elsewhere called their bluff).
    2
  32. 2
  33. Corbyn IS old Labour (Brexit is a tricky affair, but that is on the Tories) - if Frank Field REALLY wants to fight poverty PM Corbyn is his best shot. - Labour does not have a rampant anti-semitism problem. Ridiculous ! Times of Israel recently cited a study (in an anti Corbyn article btw) 6 % of the UK population holds views that the survey classifies as anti-semitic, that has been stable over the years, less prejudice than against any other minority in the U.K. There are more anti-semitic views in the far right, all other groups have them equally. Examples for alleged anti-semitism in Labour Jackie Walker was suspended for mentioning that in her familiy there were Jewish slave traders (she is a black Jewish woman). And expelled for a post recommending to pay more attention on Holocaust memorial day to the other genocides (that day IS for all atrocities, I think she felt the Holocaust dominated in practice). That post was not unreasonable, inflammatory or controversial. And I think it was adressed to a smaller audience, not even sure if it was within a facebook group. Not like tweeting to a large following. THAT gets you expelled for being a black, "anti-semitic" Jew (linving with a Jewish partner) - who also happens to be the co-founder of Momentum (with the other Jew - Landsman). Who happens to be outspoken about Palestine and Israel. Go figure. Now there is an official complaint against Jeremy Corbyn because he called 2 jewish people who came to pro Palestine events (to disturb them and more than once) "Zionists that may be lacking in English self irony". Oh the humanity ... another tempest in the teacup. I do not think a HONEST MP would bring the party in disrepute by repeating the absurd allegations of anti-semitism. Helping a hostile media, the ENEMIES of the working class, the low income people. Helping the Tories. Field was looking for a pretext to break away from Labour because of Brexit. And in retaliation for deselection. There is certainly a reason that happens, Corbyn used that VERY moderately - so far. His stance seems to be: if he has to aide the Tories and do damage to the agenda of the working people (see Labour manifesto) so be it.
    2
  34. +Shalom Cave diving is an unusual sport to begin with. Diving is expensive, takes a time commitment, it is not like going for a run or lifting weights. - Hobbies with those characteristics (time and money consuming, leaning on the extreme or unusual , nerdy ) have a much higher male participation. Of those who do dive most explore the beautiful warm ocean waters, or lakes (that can get muddy but is less dangerous and challenging than cave diving). And lakes are easier to come by than caves. The British divers that took the lead in finding the way are experts in diving in caves, navigating narrow passages and muddy and cold water. A RARE skill set that differs from that of even the best trained military divers. I think many of the caucasians were such expert amateurs - the pioneers, the Brits were for sure. I guess the Thai authorities sent out a call for help for the exteme specialists, and any expats that were in the country and willing to help, and filled the lines with good military divers - Thai. Thailand is not a wealthy country, so they have less "regular" amateur good divers, not sure if the upper class in Thailand is so willing to take a risk (if they tend to dive for a past time). But it is a popular destination for expats. Costs of living are low, warm weather, beautiful country, if one likes watersports, ... Like an Austrialian. The doctor who was also an experienced cave diver (an unique combination) was flown in from Australia. Beyond that it did not make sense to get people from foreign countries (unless they were very good cave divers).They had to start the search QUICKLY, install the guiding rope, the support stations for the explorers, the pumps. - Growing experience in that dangerous environment helped, once they had their team set up, it did not make sense to introduce new people - just for the sake of making the crowd more diverse. good for the Thai government to ask for international help quickly. Participation according to gender, ethnicity, nationality - both in shouldering your share and being allowed in - matters in REGULAR situations and in life in general. Not in a once in a lifetime rescue. I also assume that in societies where there is a distinct class/wealth hierarchy (so that only the upper class can afford to dive) there will be less amateur volunteers - the higher ups may be less willing to risk their precious life. And the commoners are lucky if they can afford essentials. Then there may be cultural differences if diving as hobby is a thing, and last but not least the media coverage in the early stage when they were "hiring". The Indian army does have divers but they will not be sent unless the Thai army asks for them.
    2
  35. 2
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. +klyneal "We knew when we became pregnant there was no way out .. we were much more responsible ... " - What you describe is SOCIETAL CONTROL and control of FEMALE sexuality in a patriarchal society. I agree that there are situations when people should not have children (immature, in the middle of a bad relationship, health reasons, still in college, poverty ...) Today (unlike in the "good old days" when you did not have a choice, did you ?) a woman is also "responsible" when she uses birth control (including the morning after pill) or if she choses abortion when she !! decides that she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term. Which means that SHE choses to end the POTENTIAL (for a baby coming later into her life) and opts for ending the existence of the fetus or zygote. This is not about being "responsible" about how you bring humans into the world and take care of them later. This is about CONTROL of other ADULTS and how they live their SEXUALITY. Under cover of "moral" and "concern for the "unborn life.". The anti-choice anti-abortion crowd also does not want the abortions with medical pills (early stage !! ) or even the morning after pill (which BTW prevents OVULATION - so there is never even a fertilized egg). Does not matter to them - of course not - the purported reasons are a cover for bigotry. In today's society you cannot openly admit that you want to control somebody's elses sexuality. Would make you look like a nosy busybody - most people would tell you to mind your own business.
    1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. July 2018 Fairy godmother to Corporate Dems: Chose between 2 scenarios They can win the midterms in a landslide (so they can do damage control on Trump), in 2020 they win the presidency and get a supermajority in the Houses. Then they can SHAPE policies. Undo the damage caused by Trump. They can save the country, partially even the world (Global Warming) Getting reelected is EASY, campaigning is mostly pleasant, grassroots efforts. Their jobs, the salaries and benefits as representatives are secure. Oh - and they MUST switch to publicly funded campaigns, and small individual donations no SuperPac Money. MONEY OUT OF POLITICS: Important. Also restrictions on the Revolving door. It gets much harder to cash in on pro Big Biz votes after they leave office. (Other Western "democracies" still have corruption and the politicians working for Big Biz because of THAT). So they must be content with the pay they are getting. And work for their constituency - not Big Donors. **************************** OR 2) They can KEEP the MONEY in POLITICS. They continue to get Big Donations for party leadership and individual campaigns. And the whole lucrative circus for ex-politicians continues (incl. them becoming part of the election game, in media, as strategists or consultants) There are higher risks involved, one can lose a seat - therefore it is important to have served the party leadership + the Big Donors loyally. Then they will provide cushy jobs and lucrative contracts for ex politicians. **************************** The Corporate Dems can chose only ONE scenario (with all pro and cons of the package) What would the Dems choose ? Well, scenario 2 - MONEY - OF COURSE. P.S: Scenario 1) is realistic (even the super majority). If they would rally behind a Sanders platform in a BELIEVABLE MANNER they could win convincingly and with increasing numbers.
    1
  49. 1
  50. Mann * (another opponent of Corbyn and of Jewish descent) and Louise Ellman are repeating the word anti-semitism over and over and over. - well they might be overdoing it. 0,5 % of the UK population are of Jewish descent, the citizens KNOW that they were taken in friendly during WW2 and fared well in the country. And continue to do well. Crying wolf over things that were SAID (and are not remarkable, not for a common sense person) might backfire - also considering the problems the country faces. The people that have to deal with an underfunded NHS, zero hour contracts, business owners worried about Brexit, students with debt (and in unpaid internships) - might have little sympathy for the manufactured outrage. * speech in parliament delivered with pathos and skill - but imprecise and trying to imply Corbyn and momentum in a deceptive manner. Only one example: an alleged threat of an Islamist - and WHAT has that to do with Momentum - which he obviously despises and wished to make look bad. That is odd - if he has the interests of the party and winning elections at his hearth - even if they disagree on some of the policies - he should recognize their contribution in elections and activating the base. But if he would rather lose to the Tories than win with Corbyn, if the interests of Israel, the lobby are more important than getting a government that cares for the downtrodden in the U.K. - than it makes sense. And there are other powerful interests (finance, tax dodging multinationals, fracking, war mongers, MI6 and MI5 hiding reckless erratic behavior behind secrecy, weapons exporters) whose interests align with the that of Blairites and the Israeli lobby.
    1