| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
 Posted -
11/01/2009
:
06:04
|
New Year, new topic. If you want to see the old one do a forum search for same title but 2008.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
Tizer
|
Posted - 22/08/2009 : 11:34
The rest is not `just academic' Frank. The law is like scientific research - you make the best judgement you can on the evidence available, but when more evidence, counter to the previous, becomes available you have to be ready to make a better decision.
The judges have seen more evidence then we have but it doesn't mean they have seen all the evidence.
 |
Bruff
|
Posted - 24/08/2009 : 09:47
Well as folk know, I'm a firm believer in leaving the judging to the judges. But they are like all of us, not infallible.
Wasn't it Lord Denning who, with respect to the police and the Birmingham 6, noted that the prospect of the police 'lying' opened up 'an appaling vista'. Well, they did, and he got it wrong. He also bemoaned their (the 6) many appeals, noting that if they'd been hanged 'the whole community would be satisfied and they'd be forgotten'. As a member of the British families groups has noted, it is miscarriages like this with respect to our own domestic terrorism that makes them take a rather more dispassionate view of the Lockerbie facts.
The interesting thing about Lockerbie which has been noted only in passing, is that one defendant was found not guilty, which given you can have a 'not proven' verdict in Scotland is quite something in a case like this.
There's something right fishy about this, always has been.
Richard Broughton
|
Tizer
|
Posted - 24/08/2009 : 12:08
`Fishy' is the right word for it Richard. Al Megrahi could be a stooge, a fall guy. If he was responsible then I wouldn't have much compassion and would be content for them to have left him in jail. But there are serious doubts now. Journalists from The Times interviewed him at his home and he said his lawyer is going to present evidence that will prove he is not guilty. Now that all this has blown up into such a big international issue surely it is even more important to look at the old evidence again and incorporate new evidence?
There was a very interesting discussion on Robert Peston's Radio 4 programme this morning when he interviewed hedge fund manager Jim Chanos. Whether we like hedge fund managers or not, Chanos knows probably more than anyone else what the likely prospects are for big companies. He was one of the first people to flag up Enron's difficulties. He talked about his attempts over the years to get bankers to accept that companies were much too highly leveraged and that it was all going to end in tears. It was a very illuminating story.
Peston asked Chanos what would be the next big crash and he replied that the US healthcare companies were looking like the next area for trouble. This brought out some interesting information and comments in light of the recent dicsussion of NHS versus US private healthcare. We've already heard that in the US they spend 16% of GDP on healthcare whereas here we spend only 8% but Chanos said that Western countries in general only spend 8-9% (and US citizens have poorer health than UK citizens). To illustrate why healthcare gets so expensive in the USA he said that the US company that sells MR scanners charges $5000 for them in Europe but $35000 in the USA - because they can get away with that price. The healthcare companies just pass on the cost to the customer.
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 24/08/2009 : 16:31
I heard that interview as well Peter and found it amazing, especially the fact that he and three other managers gave evidence to a meeting of the G8 and told them specifically what the problem with the banks was and how serious it was and were totally ignored. He said that one of the men at that meeting (who he refused to name) had apologised to him since. The rest have persisted to bury the story. He also flagged up the bonus system based on false accounting in that they were paid on the putative profit and not the actual gain to the institutions long term.
The man was totally plausible and I believe him. He admitted that one of the reasons he felt his branch of the industry was culpable was because of their secrecy. Worth mentioning that he flagged up Enron before it happened and was ignored again. His take on the drugs industry and helathcare in the US was scary and reinforced in my mind how lucky we are to have an enormous lever like the NHS to protect us from the worst excesses.
If you want to hear him go to 'Listen Again' on BBC.co.uk/R4 and look for the prog transmitted at 09:00 this morning. Essential listening.
As for Lockerbie, nice to hear the Scots equivalent of the Attorney General slamming the former FBI director for his intemperate and inaccurate rant. The argument now seems to be looking at whether the process could have been handled better rather than whether it was correct. I am convinced that eventually we shall hear a very different story and it will be on the lines that Megrahi was used as the fall-guy to get Libya off the hook. Remember how they sweetened the pill by paying money out to the families? Very strange behaviour for a terrorist country. Almost as though they were making an investment in the future.
Question is where is Godron? Consulting with Tone? To all intents and purposes they have hung the Scottish Parliament out to dry as though it is nothing to do with them. Disgraceful!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
frankwilk
|
Posted - 25/08/2009 : 08:13
Stanley " Question is where is Godron? Consulting with Tone? To all intents and purposes they have hung the Scottish Parliament out to dry as though it is nothing to do with them. Disgraceful"
Because we haven't heard from Godron is Disgraceful.
It has nothing what so ever to do with the Westminister Goverment This was a decsion taken under Scottish Law, by an elected Devolved Goverment now they have to live with the decsion. Which now appears to have been made on a cost basis, Goldie asked a straight forward question why was he not kept in Scotland in a secure house with his family. No answer to that one except, I took advice from the Deputy Chief Constable of Strathclyde who thought it would take 28 Policemen to guard him !!!!!
Edited by - frankwilk on 25/08/2009 09:02:42 AM
Frank Wilkinson Once Navy Always Navy |
Tizer
|
Posted - 25/08/2009 : 10:27
More from hedge fund manager Jim Chanos here. Various business web sites picked up his comments on US healthcare from the Today programme, e.g. this Australian journal.
Also, you can read the the comments of James Chanos for the SEC Roundtable on Hedge Funds here.
|
handlamp
|
Posted - 25/08/2009 : 15:09
Godron is only doing what he did when at the Treasury - his Mactavity act when ever a decision has to be made.
Ted |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 25/08/2009 : 16:05
Last time I looked at the map Scotland was still part of the UK.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Bruff
|
Posted - 25/08/2009 : 16:16
Just a quick question really - why do folk refer to 'Godron' Brown.
It's like on other forums (I've not seen it on here) they refer to ZaNu Labour or some such.
Where's all this come from?
Richard Broughton
|
frankwilk
|
Posted - 25/08/2009 : 16:59
Last time I looked at the map Scotland was still part of the UK
Agreed
Part of But not Governed by the UK especially for matters related to Law. Stanley either it is Devolved or it Isn't, no other half way house on that . It really is simple give the Scots a final vote on Independence and lets be finished with this nonsense. We then end up with a Conservative England and Labour will be finished in England and Scotland.
Is it not ironic that we have a Goverment in Power in the UK, which is in Office due to the number of returned Labour MPs from Scotland.
In Scotland they have a Goverment controlled by a party ( the SNP ) that seeks to be separate from the UK Goverment. The Scots voted to Elect into Power the SNP to control Scotland. No one can have their cake and eat it for long.
Don't try to tell me that Slick Alex didn't know what he was doing !!!!!!!
Edited by - frankwilk on 25/08/2009 5:20:54 PM
Frank Wilkinson Once Navy Always Navy |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 26/08/2009 : 07:43
Richard, I'm afraid I am the culprit. We had a story on the site from a member who was being ripped off by the bar prices in a hotel, I think it was in Spain, and he found a bar in a back street where the prices were much more reasonable. While drinking in there one evening he noticed that the label on Gordon's Gin read 'Godron's Gin' and realised why the prices were so cheap, he was drinking counterfeit booze. This tickled me so much that I did a Private Eye on hiom and have called GB 'Godron' ever since. In my admittedly peculiar mind it seems to fit him, he has always seemed to me to be counterfeit, probably because of his spinning and lack of principle both now and when he was Chancellor. Remember the pensions rip-off, the 10p tax, the scandalous amalgamation of revenue and customs? Then we had his 'not me guv' reaction to the collapse of the dodgy credit markets on his watch. No leadership in the expenses row. Not a word from him about the fact that we are lagging behind in recovery from the worst effects of recession.
Mind you, he did congratulate the cricketers....
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 26/08/2009 : 07:55
Frank, you are confusing me. You appear to hate the SNP , socialists and devolution but want independence for Scotland. The prospect of a Conservative government in England fills you with glee but you appear to accept that they would be totally absent from Scotland. Have you really thought this through?
My own feelings are that if Scotland voted for independence they should be allowed to have it but I think it would be a big mistake. Before that happens there should be a separation of economic responsibility with the safety net of the existing status if it went pear-shaped. It would be a bold experiment but might finally prove whether Scotland has enough resources to maintain independence. The one thing I am certain about is that it is a mistake to mix party politics with constitutional change. If it is done it must be by agreement and with proper safeguards. My problem is that I can't see that happening, political rivals would fight for advantage and you would have the equivalent of a polite civil war. But then my opinion doesn't count for anything because at heart I am a socialist. (Note the small 's')
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
frankwilk
|
Posted - 26/08/2009 : 09:07
Frank, you are confusing me. You appear to hate the SNP , socialists and devolution but want independence for Scotland. The prospect of a Conservative government in England fills you with glee but you appear to accept that they would be totally absent from Scotland. Have you really thought this through?
I don't hate anyone not even the SNP who I voted for in the Scottish Election. I believe the Socialist Scottish Labour party have held Scotland back for years. Yes a Conservative Goverment for England does please me. As for no Tories North of the Border so what.
I do believe I am a conservative with a small c Well I am today, Tomorrow maybe a raving left winger. I must admit I change my political leanings to match the subject
Frank Wilkinson Once Navy Always Navy |
Tizer
|
Posted - 26/08/2009 : 09:54
Richard, I can confirm Stanley's story about the origins of the `Godron' name because I'm the member to whom he refers!
|
Bruff
|
Posted - 26/08/2009 : 13:30
I like the origin of Godron - thanks!
Richard Broughton
|
SPEAKER'S CORNER 2012
