| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
I've always thought this was. You can have smoke in all sorts of situations without fire. You can even have it the other way round if you are using Kemp Nuts anthracite coal as we did at Springbank Road after the Clean Air Act of 1956.
Though I confess I don't see its application here. Which smoke, what fire?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The loss of Morgan McSweeney's official government mobile phone is a good opportunity to run AE through its paces.
First, the careful ignoral. This possibly seminal event has been widely reported by but not, as far as I can see, much followed up by the MSM.
Second, the ten point cause-and-effect timeline.
1. McSweeney and Mandelson are close buddies.
2. McSweeney instrumental in Mandelson's appointment as Ambassador in Washington.
3. This becomes a cause célèbre.
4. Leader of the Opposition demands all relevant phone records be inspected.
5. Prime Minister agrees to this.
6. McSweeny 'loses' his so it can't be.
7. Prime Minister says he is satisfied McSweeney is telling the truth.
8. Nobody else much does, but shrugs.
9. AE notices the 'careful ignoral' aspect
10 And launches an enquiry...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Now for the world record aspect.
Have you heard of a case involving a senior government figure losing his official mobile phone? I haven't, so I assume it is a rare event. But not, clearly, a one-off, world record, type of event. It must happen from time to time. So why haven't I/we heard of other examples?
| Because they'd keep it very, very quiet. |
The last thing the security services would want was the person who finds/stole the phone to know is that he's got hold of something far more valuable than a common-or-garden mobile phone. Unless the thief stole it for that very reason, in which case it would be even more important to keep it in-house. So McSweeney does hold a world record:
| The only person who has ever been forced to reveal he's lost an official government mobile phone. |
More...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
McSweeney has 'mislaid' his phone. What does he do next?
| He rings the police and reports the loss of his phone. |
It is difficult to think of a more unlikely thing to do.
1. You are a top official governmental personage.
2. You mislay your official governmental mobile phone.
3. You tell your boss, the Prime Minister.
4. You tell the security services.
5. You sit tight and wait for the ramifications that are coming down the track.
| You don't ring the local plod and ask for a crime number so you can get a replacement from the insurance. |
You just don't. Unless...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I have just watched the Newsnight treatment of the story. We get a two minute re-hash, the studio guests harrumph, except the Labour MP who says nothing to see here.
But, by a coincidence (I assume), one of them happens to be someone tasked to deal with exactly these kinds of things when she was in office. She says, darkly, that 'even she' cannot fathom what the government statement means.
What does Newsnight do with this startling revelation from an expert insider sitting on their very own sofa, prepared to spill a bean or two? It spends the rest of the programme interviewing an actor who once played Peter Mandelson in a TV series!
Dearie me, we must press on and do it ourselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The smoking gun was however revealed -- to me, at least -- on Newsnight.
| The CCTV footage of the incident may now have been wiped because they are only retained for three months. |
We know this cannot be true because whatever the sequence of events, the security services were informed about it at the time or very soon after. MI5 might be a byword for incompetence but even they would not have allowed such incomparably significant tapes to be wiped.
It is looking more and more like a high level damage containment exercise. But we know 'high level' amounts to a bogus list because that is not how state apparats work. They are never seamless. In this case there are parties with overlapping but different interests viz
* the local police
* the Metropolitan Police
* MI5
* 'the government'
* the Labour Party
* Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney, Peter Mandelson
* the British people
So what are we left with...?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | So what are we left with...? |
These are not lost messages between McSweeny and Mandelson, as they will be on Peters phone, currently in the possession of the police.
Unless Peters phone was also stolen, or accidently dropped in the Thames.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | These are not lost messages between McSweeny and Mandelson, as they will be on Peters phone, currently in the possession of the police. Unless Peters phone was also stolen, or accidently dropped in the Thames. |
This is no longer the point. There are apparently quite a number of ways to get the messages. Though it may be that No 10 cleaning the phone on the night this all happened (for security reasons) might make the totality of McSweeney's phone records irrecoverable.
It is Starmer's direct lie--uttered in Helsinki yesterday--that it is 'farfetched' McSweeney would deliberately lose his phone before knowing it would be required for examination. It has now been established that 'Number Ten' was embarked on a detailed plan to obviate Kemi Badenoch's anticipated demand that it must be. So Starmer knew and he has lied.
| I have now established the fulcrum that decides the whole affair. |
It seems (I have been galloping to keep abreast of something I haven't been following hitherto) that, according to McSweeney
* he was coming out of a dinner party in Pimlico
* he was consulting his government phone to see what's what
* a man on a bike rode up, snatched the phone and cycled off
* McSweeney chased the man up the street
* the street in question is covered by CCTV so the event was recorded.
| That's the be-all and end-all of everything. |
If it happened, McSweeney is off the hook. If it didn't happen, Starmer is out. Unless the whole thing was staged (which would be farfetched) the footage will determine the outcome.
But here's the AE bit. Everybody is being incredibly vague about the CCTV footage. All sorts of red herrings have been mentioned in passing, viz
* The police were given the wrong street (but MI5 weren't)
* It has been wiped (not possible in the three months when everybody knew of its significance)
* It is inconclusive. It could miss the robbery, but not a man and a cyclist haring up the road
* The fatal bit of vérité embroidery that always unmasks the liar.
We can therefore and finally conclude:
1. The robbery never happened
2. McSweeney deliberately got rid of his mobile phone
3. Starmer is lying his head off
4. MI5 is covering the government's arses.
/ends
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The story is, undeniably, of both human interest and political importance. It certainly got a lot of coverage on the minor MSM I consulted via Google and YouTube.
I therefore turned eagerly to the main Channel 4 News bulletin to find out the latest developments. This was the running order:
Iran War
Lebanon
Political demo in London
Ukraine
Cairngorm campfire ban
Tiger Woods road accident
Hunt for a capybara escaped from a wildlife park.
It was a case of 'nothing to see' after all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
For convenience, we can put all McSweeney business here. No doubt it will teach AE lessons eventually.
I spent the weekend watching obscure podcasts featuring real MacSweeney experts as opposed to the MSM (and their podcasts) where everybody is suddenly a MacSweeney expert and just repeating stuff. (This applies to me but I'm built of softer stuff.)
My chief discovery is that a real conspiracy is at work, and which is in danger of being exposed. At the centre of events is something called 'Labour Together'. I'll just give the salient timeline without comment
1. In 2017, at the height of Corbyn mania, a parliamentary grouping of anti-Corbynites called Labour Together came into being.
2. Its organising figure was a minor party functionary called Morgan McSweeney.
3. Labour Together was mysteriously well-financed. They were supposed to reveal the sources of their funding but McSweeney avoided doing so by various ingenious stratagems.
4. The organisation practiced 'entryism' i.e. manoeuvring their members into Parliament and other high places of opportunity by means of smoke-filled room politics as opposed to out-front politics.
5. In 2020 they were able to get their candidate, Keir Starmer, elected to the leadership of the party on a 'let us unite all factions' ticket.
6. Starmer and MacSweeney moved rapidly to rid the party apparat of Corbynites and take over the running of it themselves.
7. Labour Together stalwarts were pushed into winnable seats at every opportunity.
8. In 2024 their efforts were rewarded with a giant majority in Parliament, including a substantial number of Labour Together insiders.
9. Starmer formed a cabinet dominated by Labour Together people (names provided on request).
10 Then everything started going wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Oh no! It looks as if the McSweeney/Starmer axis is involved in child sex trafficking and allied trades. I don't think I'll go down that road. I'd prefer to concentrate on politics.
McSweeney is a convicted liar: promising everyone he was reporting the funding but wasn't. It amounted to £700,000 by the time they got fined fourteen thousand pounds. That's Labour Together not McSweeney.
It's fascinating how, in this country, when you commit a crime and get caught, you can pay to have someone else serve the sentence. I intend to rob a bank, get the AEL to plead guilty to corporate money-laundering and pay back two per cent of it.
But it's MI5's role that stirs the sinews. When the big beasts of the MSM started looking into Labour Together, Big Mac hired offshore spooks to get some dirt on the hacks. When this proved disappointing--neither the Guardian nor the Sunday Times employ out and out crooks--Morgana told MI5 that Labour Together was being targeted by Russians and Chinese trying to to destabilise British politics.
This seemed to do the trick, and the pressure was off. MI5, it would seem, are rather partial to an outfit that's keeping Marxists out of everyone's hair. Hence, when CCTV footage arrived of a street in Pimlico in the dead of night, they completely missed the bloke who wasn't chasing an imaginary black mugger in a balaclava on a pedal bike.
But they advised Downing Street the stolen phone must, on all accounts, be swiped completely and without delay. Just to be on the safe side.
Wilco!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
A few years ago someone put something up (I forget where) about who he thought the Top Ten wackoes were. I was immensely proud to be on the list. I agreed about the other nine being wackoes (maybe not all of them, but certainly nearly all of them).
I was reading something last night that bought this episode to mind. But I had two further thoughts that I didn't have at the time, viz
1. Everyone else on the list presumably came to the same conclusion as I had.
2. Is there a test for judging this objectively?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
Site Admin
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
|
Any test would have to start with an at least cursory reading of ten wackos, followed by a deeply considered reading of all ten. I only know one person on earth willing to do that
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I don't think this would help for reasons I will list later. But meanwhile I should add something many people don't accept:
| It is not possible to know you are yourself a wacko |
You can hear the whole world telling you you are a wacko but if you believed it you would change your opinions.
I don't believe it is possible to set up shop as a wacko. Though I suppose it is technically possible to come to the realisation you are a wacko later on but decide to continue on what may have become a lucrative career.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Pete Jones wrote: | | Any test would have to start with an at least cursory reading of ten wackos |
How would you decide beforehand who is a wacko and who isn't, to come up with your ten? It is true you could apply the test using the list-of-ten I mentioned, but then you would be starting from a dubiously subjective sample. But let's assume you can vault that hurdle (e.g. ten wackiest authors as voted by... etc).
| followed by a deeply considered reading of all ten |
It does not require a deep reading of them, most are self-definingly wacko by their premise. 'The royal family are lizards' etc. In fact the deeper you went into them the less inclined you would be to consider them wacko (Soap Opera Syndrome). None of us are immune to that.
| I only know one person on earth willing to do that |
I don't care who they are, they would still have to satisfy us as to their methodology to make their efforts worthwhile. It may be possible to define wacko-ism by appealing to basic science in some cases e.g. 'life forms cannot radically mutate at will', but only if you are prepared to dismiss the possibility of superior beings who can either do this or control our perceptions that they don't.
I would be prepared to do that on the basis that superior beings would not have allowed their secret to be discerned by BBC sports reporters but many on the list will likely involve past superior cultures who may have left enough evidence for us all to discern.
It is undeniable the evidence is sufficiently ambiguous for this to be a non-wacko enterprise. But there is still the one insuperable difficulty:
| What about the non-wacko who disputes one or other tenet of 'basic science'? |
After all, that is how we make progress. But I doubt a single individual, no matter how indefatigable, would be able to recognise something their contemporaries cannot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
