Cynthia McKinney, Monday 8th March

[butchersapron]

What was Ian Henshall doing there then? I would take the word of neither him nor you. You've just made nearly 80 posts on this thread clearly demonstrating your own personal dishonesty - even today you've been caught out inventing stuff about just this issue.

 

[Jazzz]

What was Ian Henshall doing there then? I would take the word of neither him nor you.

It's his campaign.

 

[fogbat]

Do you have any evidence that it was MPs and their aides?

Or do you just know, and no amount of evidence otherwise will convince you?

 

[Jazzz]

Do you have any evidence that it was MPs and their aides?

Or do you just know, and no amount of evidence otherwise will convince you?

What 'evidence otherwise'?

 

[existentialist]

What 'evidence otherwise'?

I think that's your answer, fogbat.

*awaits outburst of truculent flouncery amid bleatings of "ganging up"*

 

[Jazzz]

I think that's your answer, fogbat.

*awaits outburst of truculent flouncery amid bleatings of "ganging up"*

I am pointing out the utter ridiculousness of discussing 'evidence otherwise' where none exists. As for the parliamentary meetings, I know at least two aides went along because I phoned them up myself. As for the 48 or so other chaps, why should we not take Ian Henshall's word for it?

tell me, what did you have for breakfast? doubtless you will easily answer one very simple question, as you chide me for 'evasiveness'.

 

[butchersapron]

How do you know who these aides were? Did Henshall break Chatam House rules?

Q. Can a list of attendees at the meeting be published?
A. No - the list of attendees should not be circulated beyond those participating in the meeting.

 

[existentialist]

I am pointing out the utter ridiculousness of discussing 'evidence otherwise' where none exists. As for the parliamentary meetings, I know at least two aides went along because I phoned them up myself. As for the 48 or so other chaps, why should we not take Ian Henshall's word for it?

tell me, what did you have for breakfast? doubtless you will easily answer one very simple question, as you chide me for 'evasiveness'.

*isn't disappointed*

 

[Jazzz]

*isn't disappointed*

So you chide me for evasiveness, and yet you are unable to reveal what you had for breakfast!

 

[Jazzz]

How do you know who these aides were? Did Henshall break Chatam House rules?

Where did I say I knew who they all were?

 

[existentialist]

So you chide me for evasiveness, and yet you are unable to reveal what you had for breakfast!

*smirks happily*

 

[butchersapron]

Where did I say I knew who they all were?

No one said that you knew who they all were - you said that you knew who two of them were. I asked you how you knew this as you had helpfully pointed out that Chatam houses rules prevent participants being identified. How do you know two of them? Did Ian Henshall break the rules?

 

[Jazzz]

No one said that you knew who they all were - you said that you knew who two of them were. I asked you how you knew this as you had helpfully pointed out that Chatam houses rules prevent participants being identified. How do you know two of them? Did Ian Henshall break the rules?

I already told you.

 

[butchersapron]

Did, you then i must have missed it, i do apologise - can you point out to me where or tell me once again?

 

[Jazzz]

Did, you then i must have missed it, i do apologise - can you point out to me where or tell me once again?

"I know at least two aides went along because I phoned them up myself"

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[butchersapron]

How did you know who to phone up? Or did you just randomly ring numbers? Who told you who to ring? That's what i'm asking you. It's not especially complicated. Not enough that i need to walk you through it in this manner anyway.

 

[butchersapron]

But answer came there none

Ok let's see where we've got to. Jazzz posts up a link to a meeting somewhere in parliament in which CM gave a brief talk. When questioned as to who attended he claims he's unable to tell us due to Chatam House Rules which protect participants anonymity, and asks us to take his word and the word of IH as to who attended - and that he personally knows the names of at least two participants despite not attending the meeting. Then, when further questioned as to how he knows who these people are it appears that he has colluded with IH to break these same Chatam House rules on participant anonymity. Congrats jazz, not only have you managed to dig a hole for yourself through your need to appear as ITK and at the centre of these things (for the second time on the thread, see the earlier refs to the Paris meeting etc) but this time you've also managed to dig a hole for IH as well!

 

[Jazzz]

How did you know who to phone up? Or did you just randomly ring numbers? Who told you who to ring? That's what i'm asking you. It's not especially complicated. Not enough that i need to walk you through it in this manner anyway.

You are walking me through this?

okay, imagine you are running a political campaign, and you want MPs and their aides to come along to your gig. What steps might you take to achieve this, and can you do it all yourself?

I trust that provides enough hints for you to solve 'Jazzz and the mystery of the telephone calls'

 

[butchersapron]

I've had to walk you through my question yes.

Right, so you don't know that they attended then? Because that would involved IH breaking the CH rules and telling you they attended wouldn't it?

 

[Jazzz]

But answer came there none !

Here's a tip - wait for the next post, lest you make a fool of yourself.

Obviously in your case, that is hard

 

[butchersapron]

And your claim btw is most emphatic that you knew they had attended - not that they were just invited along.

"I know at least two aides went along because I phoned them up myself"

 

[Jazzz]

I've had to walk you through my question yes.

Right, so you don't know that they attended then? Because that would involved IH breaking the CH rules and telling you they attended wouldn't it?

No. Try again, and see if you can solve the mystery by yourself with the copious clues on offer.

 

[butchersapron]

Here's a tip - wait for the next post, lest you make a fool of yourself.

Obviously in your case, that is hard

No need, the case has not altered - take your own tip.

 

[butchersapron]

No. Try again, and see if you can solve the mystery by yourself with the copious clues on offer.

No, you ringing them up before the meeting inviting them along does not square with your claim that you knew they had attended. You stretched too far on too small a footing once more.

 

[Jazzz]

No need, the case has not altered - take your own tip.

I'm sorry but you are the only one who has made any point of a brief posting silence. 0/10

 

[Jazzz]

No, you ringing them up before the meeting inviting them along does not square with your claim that you knew they had attended. You stretched too far on too small a footing once more.

oh you got there! hurrah!!!! clap clap clap.

So, you change tack of course, rather pathetically too!

I knew they went along because Ian Henshall confirmed it. As I was the one that booked them anyway as part of the campaign, this is hardly any confidentiality breach. Them telling me they were going, together with confirmation that they went from someone present, is enough for me to conclude that they did actually go. But you are right, I do not actually have hard evidence of this.

Are we done with this conundrum?

 

[butchersapron]

So exactly as i said in post #347 then - thanks for the confirmation. I suppose it's entirely fitting that this meeting under these rules which are thrown in our face by jazz but disregarded so easily by when he feels like breaking rules was held in parliament.

Jazzz, you've missed the whole point of this - i wasn't disputing whether they had actually attended the meeting or not. I was highlighting you hiding behind CH rules when questioned on here but happily breaking them when it personally suited you to do so. Catch up.

 

[Jazzz]

So exactly as i said in post #347 then - thanks for the confirmation. I suppose it's entirely fitting that this meeting under these rules which are thrown in our face by jazz but disregarded so easily by when he feels like breaking rules was held in parliament.

Jazzz, you've missed the whole point of this - i wasn't disputing whether they had actually attended the meeting or not. I was highlighting you hiding behind CH rules when questioned on here but happily breaking them when it personally suited you to do so. Catch up.

The point seems to be you looking like a fool as you try more and more desperately to claim some inconsistency in my approach.

Nowhere have I broken any rule. Did I reveal who the aides I helped get down were?

your post 347 remains a load of garbage.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh my god you still don't get it do you? IH revealed who a number of the participants were to you - expressly against the CH rules. The same rules you were hiding behind in your oh so principled refusal to say who had attended earlier on this very thread!

 

[Jazzz]

Oh my god you still don't get it do you? IH revealed who a number of the participants were to you - expressly against the CH rules. The same rules you were hiding behind in your oh so principled refusal to say who had attended earlier on this very thread!

You claim it is a breach of confidentiality to know they attended even when they told me they were booked to attend themselves?