|
|
|
|
Go
Down to Index
|
Truth |
The
exquisite sculpture of Bernini, |
Justice
at the |
Main
Index (You may not believe it, the middle
is a sculpture not a picture, click to enlarge and look at finger
pressure).
Each site index is being
categorised to simplify searches to topics of particular focus,
please refer to them in the interim of this page being
assembled.
(
The sites are over one gigabyte,this is a long task, please use
menus and site maps meantime ).
|
Dizzy from spin, look at the S.O.D. (Sound bite / Spin Of the Day) |
|||||||
|
Comments for fun.
Thu, 29 May 2008 From the terrible spin document below. How can they gain the respect of the public without any moral view at all? But the Local Government Association said motorists inconvenienced by errant parkers would "at last get justice". "at last get justice" Surely an errant parker gets penalised, now they call it justice? OH! The penny's just dropped. It's like Camden, where they say to the motorist, “You were awarded the penalty charge notice”. NO they can't be saying stupid things like that! Of course not, have a look here. “Just Kidding!” 'High standard' “Just kidding!” Sound bite or just a bite at the truth? . Full piece with SOME disambiguation.
CHANNEL
4 News Wed, 28 May 2008 19:48:47
That
wasn't the question.
BBC news is this really news or
some kind of keep things under present continuous never ending
optative moods. Nice one. Tell the public we ARE
to (present continuous)
announce......
Govt
boosts production. For God's sake don't do that? We need to
get the £2.7 billion back fast before they wake up to
inflated prices and of course our windfall
in tax revenue.
YES. Just kidding again.!
BBC Live Downing Street,Thu, 15 May 2008 12:33:51
“We are making right decisions as a government.”
'Suppressio veri suggestio falsi'. Omission? ---- “We are also making wrong decisions as government.” Nobody is perfect surely?
PM “Holding regular month news conference.” still listening as below?
“We will punish anti-social behaviour.”
Would that be all kinds, including embezzlement, and hiding faults, breaching FOI's and managing the tribunals by politicising them?
“We will help people through difficult times.”
Which people? Might that be the rich who are now richer?”
BBC Live Downing Street, Thu, 15 May 2008 12:10:43
Prime Minister's Briefing
PM: “I am well placed to deal with the economy....”
Still talking while his former assertion was "I am paid to listen".
Nice to be informed the PM is well placed to deal with the economy....
Would be much much nicer if he actually DEALT the economy.... rather than told us of his 'placings', while of course still, talking when paid to listen?
Sat, 3 May 2008 12:47:54 A joke no longer London MAYOR. Nick Robinson's Newslog Suggestion for Boris, and (listening?) B. The promise to deal with congestion and revenue. Resolve congestion charges, CO2 emissions, and cut a tumour off the body electorate, putting the parasitic divisive plunder force to decent work, by stopping; barking for parking, and chasing stationary vehicles to create CO2, and allow people to be their own judges of whether they can tolerate congestion, by staying away. By simply raising the tax on petrol, while easing the congestion by encouraging people to stay parked free. The change over can be adjusted to match precisely the dual easing with the fuel taxing. Problem, you will need co-operation of someone caught by his own Neuro-Linguistic Programming of others, in the government's PR spin drama, where hardly a minute goes by and someone contradicts what they say almost in the same sentence or paragraph. “I am paid to listen and lead”. (Big B). Why is he even speaking then? Listening means being quiet? Never mind if it is too difficult, 'the next sentence is true', 'the previous sentence is false'. (Liar's paradox). “We need a bill o'frights, and must cut out spin”. (on being selected not elected). (Clever B). http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2008/05/a_joke_no_longe.html#commentsanchor Comment. 31, Perhaps it was too toned down? How can one listen and lead without
speaking, how does one speak and listen, rationally?
If he means listen THEN lead and speak, don't you think 12 years
in office, is enough to listen? AND everyone told him, he was not
wanted, did he listen? Sound Bite of the day -- S. O. D.
Examining the
propositions contained in manufactured assertions. And showing
the potential for alternatives to be true simultaneously in
affirmations. False emphasis, dropping the critical adverb or
adjective and misdirection. Economy of truth, suppressio veri and
suggestio falsi.
Telling a truth, economically; The new standard for truths in section nine statements, that leaves open the potential for false representation. Truth, the Whole truth and Nothing but..', is best, While 'Truth and Nothing but..', leaves out the rest. Law
– By Questor ©
|
|||||||
|
Sound Bite
of the day -- S. O. D. “The leak could not have come from number 10 Downing Street because of its inconsistencies.” Possibly true! (Perhaps Number 11 or 12? Nr 10's waterworks are fine). Downing Street stated that “the approach to leaks is something we are against”. Note the two copulas IS
and ARE one is in the main
clause the other in the subordinate clause.
BE SURE you understand the IDEA here. Its' ONLY the APPROACH to leaks, that they are against, not the leaks that are a part of the testing mechanism to opinion. You know, they could have you thinking it was actually the LEAKS .. SEE IT?
Full potential for
not being against the leaks themselves. Do you see?
|
|||||||
|
Tue, 6 Mar 2007. NOBODY asked him about IMPROPRIETIES.... OR if somebody DID, then it was to beg the question and LEAD the witness to answer something NOBODY had on their mind, since the ISSUE was Cash for Honours......... Petitio Principii Silly me?
That is the focus of interest, anything else is 'off piste'. Or turn it around how you wish.
|
|||||||
|
Sun, 22 Jul 2007 CASH for HONOURS. No 10 honours plot: four new names - Times Online http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2116324.ece Text Selection: No 10 honours plot: four new names David Leppard and Robert Winnett POLICE investigating the cash for honours scandal seized evidence that Downing Street had plotted to hand peerages to eight of the 12 businessmen who had bankrolled Labour’s 2005 election campaign. A draft honours list, drawn up in September 2005, showed that the plan to offer peerages to businessmen who had loaned Labour millions of pounds had involved twice as many lenders as previously disclosed. Scotland Yard discovered that every Labour lender who was eligible for a seat in the House of Lords was initially nominated in lists compiled for Tony Blair by his top aides. Sir Christopher Evans, the biotechnology entrepreneur, Rod Aldridge, former executive chairman of Capita, Derek Tul-lett, the broker, and Andrew Rosenfeld, chairman of Minerva, were all on an internal Downing Street peerages list. Until now the names of only four lenders – Sir David Garrard, Barry Towns-ley, Chai Patel and Sir Gulam Noon – were known to have been put forward. Police chief feels heat over inquiry's ending ‘No one to be charged’ over cash for honours The Sunday Times has also discovered that there was a second key piece of evidence – a diary kept by Evans that allegedly details a series of meetings at the House of Lords in 2004 with Lord Levy, Blair’s chief fundraiser, to discuss a peerage. One well-placed Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) source said the diary was “dynamite” and provided “spectacular” evidence of an alleged “agreement” for Evans to be ennobled in return for a £1m loan. Evans’s name was removed from the honours list after Downing Street discovered that his company was the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. A CPS official said that these two pieces of evidence formed the core of the 16-month police investigation, which the Yard believed until recently would lead to charges against key Downing Street aides. However, the investigation was effectively halted at a meeting on July 4 when a leading government barrister, David Perry QC, ruled that the diary was not admissible as evidence. Perry also said the police must have evidence of an “unambiguous agreement” showing that the financial backers gave money only on the explicit understanding that they would be honoured in return. The CPS announced last week it would not be charging anyone. The decision followed a criminal investigation that led to the arrest of Levy and Ruth Turner, Blair’s director of government relations. Blair himself was questioned three times by police. Government insiders revealed that the police were shocked at the decision not to prosecute. An official said the police and the CPS had worked side by side on the case for 18 months until there was a “sudden change that pulled the plug”. The official said: “All those eight people gave massive loans, then shortly after they all appeared on No 10’s peerages list. It looked pretty odd, to say the least. Were the Met right to investigate it? Yes, they f****** were.” Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who led the investigation, is expected to be called this Thursday before the Metropolitan Police Authority, which is reviewing the inquiry. He may be asked to disclose evidence which had led his team and CPS advisers to be so confident. This is understood to include details of at least three drafts of the working peerage list drawn up by Downing Street aides in September 2005. Police obtained the document last summer after which Yates told MPs he had uncovered “significant and valuable” evidence not yet in the public domain. The document revealed that eight people were on an internal peerage list. This was hinted at in the CPS’s formal-document explaining its decision on Friday. It is understood police obtained information on how Levy was involved in supporting names who were to be on the list. Drafts of the list were then compiled by Turner, John McTernan and Jonathan Pow-ell, Tony Blair’s chief of staff. Detectives also studied e-mails sent during its compilation which referred to the potential nominees’ loans to the party. The other four who loaned Labour money were ineligible for peerages as they live abroad or had already been ennobled. Government sources revealed Evans’s diaries were central to the investigation. The Sunday Times has established that there are entries apparently recording discussions between Evans and Levy in 2004. In these meetings, the diaries allegedly explicitly link the offer of a loan to the promise of a peerage. Levy told police he had never made any such offer. “If those diaries ever get into the public domain, the effect will be spectacular,” said one person who has read them. Evans’s spokesman said yesterday no such discussion had taken place, adding: “The CPS judgment was crystal clear – there was no evidence of wrongdoing and the CPS explained that in some detail. That is the end of the story.” Nobody is talking of wrongdoing, it's about breaking the law, oh sorry wrong word chosen, so wrongdoing isn't the same class concept as breaking the law. I see. Evans himself attacked Labour for abandoning him during the inquiry. Asked if the party had been supportive, he told a Sunday newspaper: “The short answer is no,” adding that some in the party considered him and the others “dispensable pawns”. Sarah Helm, Powell’s wife, described the early morning police raid on Turner during the investigation as “Gestapo tactics. Pick on the vulnerable, preferably a single woman living alone”. Additional reporting: Holly Watt Have your say Diaries inadmissible - a higher form of proof required - evidence of an 'unambiguous agreement'. It is diffcult not to conclude that the CPS bottled out at the very last minute, a hasty retreat from justice helped in no small way by ex-Treasury barrister David Perry QC. It will interesting to follow the careers of all the participants in the cash-for-honours inquiry! Malcolm, Dundee, Details of a plan to start a private prosecution here: http://www.order-order.com/2007/07/private-prosecution-pledge-support.html Bishop Hill, Scotland, Let the C.P.S. or Scotland Yard - or both - publish in its entirety the investigation and reports the one prepared and the other received thus enabling outside but experienced barristers/solicitors who have both prosecuted and defended in our Crown Courts to evaluate the evidence for themselves and to judge whether the decision not to prosecute by the C.P.S. is justifiable: have they courage so to do? Karm Arger, Sheerness/Kent, U.K.
Whoever heard of people in circumspection getting together and preparing an 'unambiguous agreement' explicitly stating what has been done with a nod and wink, to be set down in a document and witnessed by a solicitor as a future record of alleged malfeasance? It's as transparent as the honeymoon being over and wanting an election on the back of it. Tony, London,
These allegations should have been taken to Court and if not proven at least had a fair hearing from an impartial Judge and Jury. The only man to come out of this sordid affair with honour and integrity is Yates who, despite total non cooperation from people who should know better, doggedly pursued a trail of smoke and mirrors in pursuit of the truth and finally got shafted by a swift goal post change due to one man's arguable assertion. philip, Ipswich, [ However, the investigation was effectively halted at a meeting on July 4 when a leading government barrister, David Perry QC, ruled that the diary was not admissible as evidence. Perry also said the police must have evidence of an “unambiguous agreementâ€� showing that the financial backers gave money only on the explicit understanding that they would be honoured in return. The CPS announced last week it would not be charging anyone. ] Whoever heard of people in circumspection, getting together and preparing an 'unambiguous agreement' explicitly stating what has been allegedly done with a nod and wink, to be set down in a document and witnessed by a solicitor a a record of malfeasance? An antilogism test of the ruling..... not admissible as evidence. ......must have evidence of an “unambiguous agreement” The reductio ad absurdum test conclusion is: A RULE IN FUTURE that people whose conduct is venal and characterised as malfeasant MUST now put their agreements in writing as per contract law, witnessed and recorded so that investigations are not blocked.
Oh Dear! At least that part is unambiguous. Tony Winter, London, In my opinion the cash for honours scandal is a whitewash to protect Tony Blair Government. Public should demand a fair investigation. Munna, London, UK. it is a cornerstone of the legal system to ensure that evidence submitted is admissable. Perhaps, the "inadmissable" diaries should be submitted to a judge to rule on their inadmissability. I smell cover-up. At the very least, there should be a public enquiry into this whole sorry saga. imj, Abu Dhabi, UAE So the CPS have decided not to pursue the "Loans" matter.Yet I(and I'm sure many readers)have a very uneasy feeling about all of this which just won't go away.What's to be done? H.Ducker, W.s.Mare, N.Somerset That which is covered will be uncovered... H E Torrance, London, Albion A great relief for Tony- It wouldnt have looked to good on his CV to have been hauled before the Bench, It could have seriously diminished his chances, when applying for the Presidency of Europe... You also point out in the associated article that Perry was involved in (allegedly) legitimising the case for war in Iraq. Another fine mess he has extracted TB from. t m j Black, Southampton, Let's face it, there was never going to be a prosecution unless the evidence was 100% crystal clear. There is no way that the CPS would wish to loose such a case. Ultimately, this will all be used as an excuse for State funding of political parties with the long suffering British people having to pick up the additional taxation. Peter Hargreaves, Stockport, Cheshire, England Any further enquiry should be taken from MP,s. I agree with the previous comment. Have this tested in the civil courts where far more information can be placed before the electorate - and not with a public enquiry cover up either. It seems to me that politicians have stopped treating the public with contempt - they now treat us as beneath contempt. Richard, Newcastle, it is clear that the police believed that there was widespread corruption. If the CPS is dgoing to retain any credibility over this squalid affair they should publish the information that the police based their case upon and explain more thoroughly why a prosecution was ruled out. Tim, Stamford, UK A deterioration in the integrity of our courts? Looks as if the effects of our foreign policy, hand in hand with the USA seems to be filtering into our justice system. Whats next I wonder as the saga continues... Farrukh, Woking, I will not be surprised if the executive of the CPS are the recipients of future honours. Tony G, Harrogate, UK Quite clearly David Perry is corrupt and if he is not, let him sue me. The crown prosecution service is corrupt as is the government. As far as I am concerned there no longer is arule of law in this country. Steven Katirai, Ncl / Tyne, Did they have a list of people to reward, in breach of statutes? Yes. Can that list be produced in Court? Not according to one QC. No wonder the jails are having to be emptied early when the people who are in jail may have broken laws, but their real mistake was in not appointing the CPS who will one day decide if the PM can be charged. Is there a correlation between this weasily double speak and low turnouts in elections? You bet your life there is! Frank Keegan, Alderley Edge, Industrious though our police were, anybody who thought members of the government would be brought to trial is extraordinarily naive............. john problem, london, Initially, those involved in the investigation didn't complain about the police, we now find that they're beginning to attack the police's role. An allegation was made, the police investigated, whats wrong with that. Terror suspects have to put up, with being investigated, whether they are guilty or not. Are they thinking that they, should be above the law? The general public knew that it was unlikely to see any prosicutions, but the police din't say they was no evidence, only insufficient evidence! polly, newcastle, These few evil thugs have made Britain a State formally ruled by a gang of crooked thugs. Police, CPS, Courts and Executive are no more than mere puppies of the evil politicinas who in the Uk are worse than Hitler. Vicitm, Lon don, Nazi The whole affair stank because it became, quite simply, a media witch hunt which the late and unlamented Senator McCarthy would have been proud to join. Let`s be clear there were too many in the press who just wanted to `get at Blair` irrespective of any investigation or reasonable look at the evidence. Now the cry `stinking fish`. Perhaps they should realise that the smell comes from them phil, market drayton, uk This decision stinks ! Better for a judge and jury to decide what is admissible. It is clearly in the interests of justice and the public interest that this matter be aired in a court. The alternative is that the smell will linger on and those arrested will be for ever tainted with suspicion and denied their opportunity to be found innocent by a jury. tony cave, london, UK The CPS have never stated that the suspects had not committed any offences, i.e. were "Not Guilty ." Just that there was an unrealistic prospect of conviction if prosecutions were undertaken . There is the difference. Tony Cocks, Plymouth, UK What is needed is for a wealthy person to finance a private prosecution and demand all the evidence that the police have by way of a court order if necessary. By pass the CPS and let a jury decide. Kevin, Birmingham, United Kingdom The sudden decision by CPS not to pursue a prosecution smells to high Heaven! It is in the public's interest to have ALL documents relating to the investigtation made public. Certainly it would be in the best interests of all concerned. For any to oppose openess would only serve to make them appear guilty. David Perry QC, ruling that the diary was not admissible as evidence was more than the usual nitpicking that has destroyed the justice system. Ignoring the supporting evidence out of hand makes the CPS appear to be a participant along with others who were under suspicion. Bob Evans, Anaheim, California |
|||||||
|
At 7/26/2007 10:56:30 AM the text below was copied from the web document BBC NEWS | Entertainment | PM wants TV row 'sorted out' fast http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6915671.stm
Captured Text Selection:
PM wants TV row 'sorted out' fast Mr Brown spoke about the scandal at Prime Minister's Questions Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he wants the controversy over misleading TV competitions sorted out "quickly". Mr Brown told the House of Commons he would discuss the recent spate of problems with media regulator Ofcom. "This is a very serious matter because it affects the confidence that people have in television stations," he said. GMTV's managing director has resigned, while the BBC has suspended its competitions after some contests were found to have deceived viewers. Mr Brown told Prime Minister's Questions he would discuss the issue with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as well as Ofcom. GMTV's Paul Corley said he hoped his departure would restore trust "It is a matter for these authorities to sort out and they should do it quickly," he said. Mr Brown's comments came after GMTV boss Paul Corley announced he would be leaving the breakfast television station. It has been revealed that some entrants to the programme's premium rate phone quizzes had no chance because winners had already been selected. Mr Corley's resignation was part of a series of measures he said he hoped would help "restore trust" in the company. Also on Wednesday, Channel 4 announced details of its own "action plan designed to safeguard viewer trust". 'Determined' Proposals include an "enhanced" training programme for producers and "new protocols" for its promotional materials. Chief executive Andy Duncan said the channel was taking "appropriate steps, in partnership with our suppliers, to ensure viewers are not misled by our programmes". He said he hoped the measures would show "how seriously Channel 4 takes the issue of trust and how determined we are to prevent our hard-won relationship with our viewers being undermined by careless or dishonest actions". The BBC has suspended all contests on TV, radio and interactive services after an inquiry unearthed irregularities with competitions on programmes including Comic Relief and Children in Need. Earlier this month the company was fined £50,000 for allowing a child visiting the Blue Peter studio to pose as a competition winner on BBC One last November.
Comment.
The keywords for this analysis are in red. Fraud and complicity are glozed as controversy and misleading.
One may be forgiven for thinking there was nothing misleading about the face of fraudulent conversion in bad faith payments to winners that are already picked out.
"This is a very serious matter because it affects the confidence.” I SEE! This is the spin that was announced on the day of appointment to new office that was to be eliminated.
Look at the reasoning from nature of problem, to reason why it needs to be sorted.
“serious because .. confidence”. THE CAUSE of it being serious is CONFIDENCE, not alas the malfeasance aspects in integrity, lawfulness, due process and fraud that is most likely..
Not serious in itself as delinquency in a code of conduct we all expect and trust blindly. Isn't this the stuff of “yes prime minister”, but it's not humour surely?
So much for spin being eliminated. So much for malfeasance being misleading.
|
|||||||
|
From the terrible spin document below. How can they gain the respect of the public without any moral view at all? 'High standard' Sound bite or just a bite at the truth? “Just kidding!”. Caroline Sheppard, the chief adju-dictator of the new penalties, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the new measures should make it easier for drivers to appeal against penalties. “should” is a spin-ster keyword to emphasise, it makes the remainder a false representation, under Fraud Act 2006. AT TEC now, an appeal form is so ring fenced there is NO ESCAPE save perjury and prison, inside a ring fence form that cannot be modified – official. Yes it's easier to appeal, (download a ring fenced form) harder to succeed in the appeal.
"There's a very clear appeals process, Forgot a few words, should read. “RING FENCED and FALLACIOUS“ clear appeals service, leading to a TEC forbidden form P2/P3, “the worst piece of ring fencing that defeats fundamental principles of law”, disambiguation coming soon. Official, confirmed by the exchanegs to be revealed, and enhanced by “irrelevant thesis” with CPR 16.5. looking at "very carefully". “looking” is a spin-ster keyword nothing other than this is ever DONE. Go to the looking room!
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
* Culpability
as
the
function of anticipation and expectation.
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
We do have to be clear that it is a balance between
making sure that traffic can keep moving, but also having a
fairer system 