25 thoughts on “Tuesday’s Papers

    1. Cú Chulainn

      Seriously Mr. Goo, you don’t believe this spin, do you ? Lots of hard talk, all night meetings. Tunnels. Grandstanding. Then, just in the nick of time: Norway lite.. billed as a great victory for the British bulldog fighting sprit. It’s so predictably boring.

      Reply
      1. GiggidyGoo

        What I’d said a couple of days ago is that you can’t rely on BJs word for anything. Just watch him renege of his big promises during the election, but particularly his earlier dealings with the EU will be thrown out the window. His goal has been achieved as regards getting an overall majority and he will try to use that mandate as leverage in Europe to try change the terms of his agreement.
        He’s a dangerous choice of leader for the UK I believe.

        Reply
        1. bisted

          …I have to confess I was wrong about Brexit…as the obfuscation by MPs at Westminster went on I was sure it would never happen…I never reckoned on Boris…but happy days are here again…no deal may take a little longer but it is the closest outcome to what the UK electorate voted for…a great victory for democracy…

          Reply
    2. Cian

      If BJ, with a majority of MPs, can add British legislation to put a hard deadline on Brexit, then BJ, on 30th December 2020 with a majority of MPs, can pass more British legislation to remove that deadline .

      Reply
      1. bisted

        …the brexiteers in the UK have always believed that the EU needed them more than they needed the EU…the only way they will be persuaded not to opt for a no deal will be if the EU go back and ask the UK for an extension…or come to heel as one tory stated before the election…

        Reply
  1. f_lawless

    I see it’s been more than 2 days since the latest revelations regarding the report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, 2018 – the attack which the US, UK and France used as justification to launch a bombing campaign on Syria.

    Now Wikileaks have released more leaked internal memos which show that 20 OPCW inspectors who were on site in Douma expressed concern with the wording of the OPCW’s final report because they believed it implicated Assad when there was no basis for doing so. Also, the final report was written by a group OPCW officials who never actually visited the site and weren’t in Syria. This is on top of another suppressed report stating that the gas canister could not have come through roof and that the images of the dead bodies were not consistent with chlorine poisoning; Now we learn that a top OPCW official ordered all digital races of this conflicting report to be scrubbed from their internal system.

    A highly newsworthy story of global interest I would have thought -an international organisation seemingly implicated in manufacturing consent for war – and yet only Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday has touched the story. A damning case of bias by omission in the media. I remember a certain commenter whose name begins with N responding to me at the time in 2018 “you’ll believe any old guff about the Machiavellian schemes of the West”. Hmm
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7793253/PETER-HITCHENS-reveals-evidence-watchdog-suppressed-report-casting-doubt-Assad-gas-attack.html

    Reply
    1. Cian

      Don’t tell me that the US, UK, and France would use fake excuses to start a war?

      At least Saddam Hussien did have WMDs.

      Reply
        1. Cian

          sigh. ’twas sarcasm.

          Although that is probably dangerous on Broadsheet these days because there are so many tin-foil hat wearers.

          For clarity: Saddam Hussien did NOT have WMDs. But the US, UK and France decided to invade on the pretence that he did. They have form on invading countries on flimsy evidence.

          Reply
          1. italia'90

            I got the sarcasm in the first line, wasn’t sure aobut the second however
            Now, what should we do next?
            Expel some diplomats would be appropriate, right?

Leave a Reply to scottser Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *