adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 20, 2023 18:47:54 GMT
No, you did not. You repeated the US government's claims and justification. You did not say what Afghanistan's pre-attack involvement was.
Nobody denies that OBL/AQ were hiding in the mountainous Pakistan-Afghanistan border region after the attack - not even at the time. But that was hardly under the control of Kabul, whoever was the nominal government...
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 20, 2023 18:44:55 GMT
Sent as "friends and family", or send as "payment for goods or service"? Both... and i emphasize... i have never been refused a refund.. and i have been using paypal forever. I'm quite surprised if you're getting a refund from claiming your friends and family have scammed you, since PP are quite clear that using that method disclaims all their responsibility. Maybe in the distant past, but they appear to have strongly cracked down on people trying to avoid paying them for the service by lying like that. www.paypal-community.com/t5/Security-and-Fraud-Archives/How-can-I-get-a-refund-on-friends-and-family-payments/td-p/2887446Have to admit, I've never once had to claim a refund off PP - and I use it regularly. Perhaps a little more pre-payment DD, eh?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 20, 2023 18:37:34 GMT
It's a favourite with the scammers it's a simple trick too, "it's £110 via PayPal, OR £100 if you pay as friends and family, because I save the PayPal and eBbay ( or whatever ) fees" too many don't realise "friends and family" gives no protection.Thats rubbish im afraid.... i have made a number of payments through paypal that have transpired to be fraudulent ... i have never.. not once been refused a full refund, always followed up by an email from paypal thanking me for my vigilance.. Sent as "friends and family", or send as "payment for goods or service"?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 20, 2023 18:36:42 GMT
The Beeb at 6pm gave a summary that seemed reasonable but appeared to gloss over certain matters. Have you read the full 40 pager, as published by the Wail? Right up until they point they do read the full 40 pager, and realise that it torpedo's St Nige's baseless claims right in the grifting-zoom-calls.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 20, 2023 18:34:14 GMT
No, I meant what was Afghanistan's role in 11/9? And, if you bother reading that linked article (published 14/10/01, barely a month after the attack), you'll remember that they didn't refuse to hand him over. They were quite happy to. I mean, you don't even need get past the first few words... "The United States today rejected yet another offer by Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden..."In late 2001, the United States and its close allies invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban government. Yes, they did. Yes, they were. Yes, they had. Now, do you want to actually answer the question I asked you? What was Afghanistan's role in 11/9? I mean, it's clearly a lie of Farridgian proportions to say that the Taliban refused to hand OBL over... They were quite happy to - but the US insisted on direct handover, rather than a neutral third party trial (say, the Hague) - and I think we can all agree that the Guantanamo fiasco went on to prove eloquently why that would have been judicially preferable on a global scale. They also didn't want to produce any actual evidence. Surely that would have been the easy bit? And, perhaps more importantly, were the Taliban actually involved in AQ before the attacks? No actual evidence of that has, afaia, ever been produced. Let's not forget that, not THAT much earlier, the Taliban (and their predecessors, the Mujahideen) were funded and armed by the US while they were trying to stop the Soviet invasion. Or were Afghanistan and the Taliban simply a handy scapegoat? I mean, we absolutely haven't come to reap the dividends of that whole mess, have we?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 20, 2023 18:03:28 GMT
Yeh, what EXACTLY was Afghanistan's involvement in that?I mean, as far as I can tell, the country most involved was Saudi... Hijackers were Saudi nationals, OBL was a Saudi national. But Shrubya was close buddies with Prince Bandar, so any comeback in that direction was definitely off the cards. And let's not forget the pretext was that the Taliban were protecting OBL, yet they offered to extradite him for trial in a neutral country if evidence of his involvement was produced... abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80482 in 2001 an international coalition led by the USA invaded Afghanistan to destroy terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda when the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. seems pretty simple to me. No, I meant what was Afghanistan's role in 11/9? And, if you bother reading that linked article (published 14/10/01, barely a month after the attack), you'll remember that they didn't refuse to hand him over. They were quite happy to. I mean, you don't even need get past the first few words... "The United States today rejected yet another offer by Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden..."
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 20, 2023 12:06:44 GMT
The person that led the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq was a conservative, GW Bush. OK I grant you Blair could be called a Liberal and he went along with it. But without conservative Bush they would not have happened. Do you think that GW Bush's reason for invading afganistan was because he was a conservative? Or was it because 3000+people were killed in the twin towers. Yeh, what EXACTLY was Afghanistan's involvement in that? I mean, as far as I can tell, the country most involved was Saudi... Hijackers were Saudi nationals, OBL was a Saudi national. But Shrubya was close buddies with Prince Bandar, so any comeback in that direction was definitely off the cards. And let's not forget the pretext was that the Taliban were protecting OBL, yet they offered to extradite him for trial in a neutral country if evidence of his involvement was produced... abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80482
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 20, 2023 11:54:22 GMT
0.1% of house value. *cough* Yeh, I don't think so... It'd mean an average of £286 at current house prices, up from £159. I'm going to guess that's a wet-finger number produced by one of the anti-BBC competitors... Oh, what a surprise - the only mention seems to be a passing comment by Richard Sharp to the Telegraph - with no number given. Small problem, Sharp was forced to resign months previously as BBC chair over the conflict of interest in arranging that loan for his buddy, BJ Piffle. www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/07/wealthier-households-pay-more-bbc-licence-fee-richard-sharp/
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 19, 2023 14:22:48 GMT
Eww. Anyway - what a surprise - it reveals that the lying liar is telling lies again. Page 39 seems to be the most relevant bit. See that bit? "Below commercial criteria for some time"The main reason they didn't sack him off over that before was that they know he'd get all misleadingly shouty (page 4 - reputational risks of exit). So they waited until his mortgage was repaid, which he's now done... That'll presumably be on his Kent semi, which Zoopla estimates at about £6-700k value. Yet he swears blind (but not actually consistently) that he's got a mill in the bank or three mill under investment? Nah. He did say he was skint a couple of years ago. That's more likely... Page 9 - proposes future annual review - which would be pointless if he was being binned, wouldn't it? Page 10 - no longer politically exposed person. Page 11 - currently cleared as low-risk PEP, looking to declassify at next review. The vast bulk of it is direct quotes from him illustrating the positions. Surely he can't object to those...?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 19, 2023 13:49:07 GMT
Is a Coutts account a "basic service"? Coutts' parent, NatWest, were apparently happy to offer continued banking services, just not through the Coutts premium brand... Bear in mind, too, that banks have long withdrawn service from customers who hold US green cards or nationality, due to US FATCA tax over-reach. That's before we get near nationals of embargoed or boycotted countries. And, of course, even basic bank accounts can be withheld from people because of criminal records involving fraud. Should banks be free to refuse any of those? Even under their premium brands? As far as "politically-exposed persons" goes, which was Farridge's original claim, should (say) the wife of an ex-Soviet 'stan government official be treated the same as an ex-MEP and serial-failure Parliamentary candidate, or is there a sliding scale? Anyway, has he actually published the full report he claims he has, or just a couple of out-of-context (and entirely accurate) snippets from it? Because, frankly, I wouldn't trust him to tell me the time without evidence. Yes, appears to be available on a certain newspaper site ... you will need your shots The nearest I can find is this article, referring and quoting out of context. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/nigel-farage-coutts-uk-bank-accounts/
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 19, 2023 12:26:21 GMT
do we want to live in a country where basic services are denied due to to political belief? Is a Coutts account a "basic service"? Coutts' parent, NatWest, were apparently happy to offer continued banking services, just not through the Coutts premium brand... Bear in mind, too, that banks have long withdrawn service from customers who hold US green cards or nationality, due to US FATCA tax over-reach. That's before we get near nationals of embargoed or boycotted countries. And, of course, even basic bank accounts can be withheld from people because of criminal records involving fraud. Should banks be free to refuse any of those? Even under their premium brands? As far as "politically-exposed persons" goes, which was Farridge's original claim, should (say) the wife of an ex-Soviet 'stan government official be treated the same as an ex-MEP and serial-failure Parliamentary candidate, or is there a sliding scale? Anyway, has he actually published the full report he claims he has, or just a couple of out-of-context (and entirely accurate) snippets from it? Because, frankly, I wouldn't trust him to tell me the time without evidence.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 19, 2023 6:58:01 GMT
I feel sure my fellow formats will be very pleased at the good news of a huge car battery investment made by Tata. Huge? 40GWh/year capacity. For context, Mercedes alone have a partnership with ACC looking at triple that volume by the end of the decade, with Tesla's Berlin factory having a capacity of 250GWh/year alone. European capacity is expected to reach about 800GWh/year by the same time. If we assume a 100kWh battery, then that's 400k vehicles - barely more than JLR's current production. About half of the UK's total vehicle production last year, about quarter of the UK's total car production in 2016. About half the UK's engine production last year. "up to 9,000 jobs" are being quoted - yet JLR's current engine plant in Wolverhampton employs 1,400 with a capacity of 600,000 engines/year. That was only opened in 2017... It's not even a very physically large factory - it'll be part of a 600-acre former Royal Ordnance munitions factory site. Quite why every battery plant has to be a "gigafactory" - a thousand times the size of a megafactory? - I have no idea. Musk coined the term for the Tesla battery factory in Nevada, which employs 7,000 across 4.5 square miles.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 17, 2023 20:45:11 GMT
Yet you parrot Murdoch and Rothermere and their ilk. hate then both. Yet you repeat them wholesale.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 17, 2023 20:17:41 GMT
And that's exactly what was said in the 50s over the Windrush generation, and again in the 80s over section 28. Were they right? nothing of the sort was said in the 50's or the 80's.. Please, don't insult my intelligence by denying basic historical fact.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 17, 2023 20:17:21 GMT
Mmm, they really aren't mutually exclusive. Strange, isn't it, how it's the uberwealthy right wing who are telling you that their vested interests are "to the benefit of the working class". Yet, strangely, it's always those at the bottom of the pile who come off worst. Meanwhile, those who think that the world is a bit for a lot of people are decried by many of the people who might actually benefit from it being made less . Why? Because they believe the Sun and Mail... And vote for people like Boris Johnson, that well-known "man of the people". i have no idea what you are on about, i never mentioned anyone wealthy... i thought you were talking about liberal values. Yet you parrot Murdoch and Rothermere and their ilk.
|
|