Shayler - talk in Brixton - Wed. 2nd Nov.

[TeeJay]

Or perhaps providing a free speech platform is more important than electoral success?

The point is that unless a local green party does something really out of order/against the rules, the national party can't step in and dictate what theyh should and shouldn't do.

This is different to some organisations, who tend to read everything off a centrally approved script and simply follow central office instructions in everything they do.

I don't think that anyone in lambeth green party is organising events purely for the sake of free speech - my understanding is that there isn't any desire to endorse everything Shaylor has said or done, simply the view that Bush et al have cynically exploited 9-11 and have been talking up the whole 'war on terror'. Maybe Shaylor et al are planning to say all sorts of stupid things tonight, but the impression I get is that they happened to offer to do a talk and the issue happened to be one in which some lambeth green party people also have a view on (albeit more of a 'war on terror is being manufactured as a pretext for middle east oil grabbing' rather than 'invisible missiles' type view).

I suppose we will only be able to say exactly who thinks (and says) what if someone actually goes to the talk tonight and reports back here. Sadly I am not in London today so I won't be going.

 

[HAL9000]

Did anyone go to this talk

Looney?

or

Some perls of wisdom? (something the guardian might print)

 

[bristol_citizen]

Looney?

or

Some perls of wisdom? (something the guardian might print)

It only started 27 minutes ago...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Somebody didn't put their watch back!

 

[bristol_citizen]

Somebody didn't put their watch back!

Yeah. But is it cock-up or conspiracy?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

If you look at the seismic records they CLEARLY show the big hand hitting 8pm when it was ACTUALLY 7pm. But will you hear this from the mainstream media? I don't think so!

 

[TeeJay]

Looney?

or

Some perls of wisdom? (something the guardian might print)

Which one is this: Michael Meacher's famous 9-11 article in the Guardian

"Mr Meacher, a leftwinger who is close to the green lobby, also claims in an article in today's Guardian that the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings."

 

[bristol_citizen]

If you look at the seismic records they CLEARLY show the big hand hitting 8pm when it was ACTUALLY 7pm. But will you hear this from the mainstream media? I don't think so!

But was it really a big hand that hitt this so-called 8pm. I've got a DVD that proves it WAS IN FACT A MISSILE!!!!

 

[Larry O'Hara]

No, i was speaking for you.

No you weren't--now go and play with your train set why don't you.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Which one is this: Michael Meacher's famous 9-11 article in the Guardian

"Mr Meacher, a leftwinger who is close to the green lobby, also claims in an article in today's Guardian that the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings."

Foreknowledge by elements of the US security apparatus re 9/11 I can certainly envisage--but its a long way from that to saying they organised 9/11 themselves.

 

[DaveCinzano]

model aeroplanes, shurely?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

model aeroplanes, shurely?

I was anticipating he'd have broken those by now, having thrown them out of his pram.

 

[bristol_citizen]

Foreknowledge by elements of the US security apparatus re 9/11 I can certainly envisage--but its a long way from that to saying they organised 9/11 themselves.

He doesn't even really prove they had foreknowledge though. His main argument is that 9/11 was used as a pretext for launching a new US foreign policy. This is nowhere near organising 9/11 themselves.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

He doesn't even really prove they had foreknowledge though. His main argument is that 9/11 was used as a pretext for launching a new US foreign policy. This is nowhere near organising 9/11 themselves.

I do remember the Meacher article--I wasn't saying he proved it (how could you in that unreferenced rag) merely that the possibility I wouldn't rule out: and as stated above I intend to examine 9/11 in some detail over the next few months.

 

[editor]

and as stated above I intend to examine 9/11 in some detail over the next few months.

Be sure to check out this site during your research: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Be sure to check out this site during your research: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

I certainly will, indeed for my sins I will (among other sources) trawl all past U75 debates on this. Anybody who has helpful pointers (either way) as to books/articles PM me. I'm even going to read the Official Report of Enquiry

 

[fela fan]

I was anticipating he'd have broken those by now, having thrown them out of his pram.

I'll take that on the chin since i've more than likely somehow antagonised you.

But since you're up for reading about this rather important topic (and it's a crying shame no-one posting on urban went to shayler's talk, i'd loved to have heard a summary of it), will you allow me to point you the way of the following web site?

I provide this particular link (and you'll need a lot of time if you are interested: it's absolutely exhaustive and goes well beyond the immediate context) because it is compiled exclusively through the researching of mainstream media. Everything is sourced and lots is linked to.

The first link is their main page:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

And this link takes you specifically to the 911 timelines, take your pick.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

 

[Pickman's model]

So how many times have you been you stopped and searched in, say, the last two years, then?

2003 - now? five or six.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah, the post was meant to be one post higher (ie before PMs).

And to answer your question, if it were the case that PM does have lots of chats (which I'm sure he actually doesn't) with policemen, it may go some way to explaining why he regularly agrees with them on, for example, estimates of demonstration sizes.

It was also a cheap dig and I said to myself I'd make an effort not to post them, so I take back the post, and the implicit criticism.

could you please post a few examples of what you mean? because i don't believe i've ever posted anything along the lines of "i agree with the police estimate because it's the police estimate".

 

[Larry O'Hara]

I'll take that on the chin since i've more than likely somehow antagonised you.

But since you're up for reading about this rather important topic (and it's a crying shame no-one posting on urban went to shayler's talk, i'd loved to have heard a summary of it), will you allow me to point you the way of the following web site?

I provide this particular link (and you'll need a lot of time if you are interested: it's absolutely exhaustive and goes well beyond the immediate context) because it is compiled exclusively through the researching of mainstream media. Everything is sourced and lots is linked to.

The first link is their main page:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

And this link takes you specifically to the 911 timelines, take your pick.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Will do so, as & when.

 

[editor]

2003 - now? five or six.

And each time these cops have chatted about "wacky backy" to you?

Yeah, sure.

I've had tons of hassle from the police and - funnily enough - I can't recall a single instance of them ever using the phrase!

 

[Larry O'Hara]

And each time these cops have chatted about "wacky backy" to you?

Yeah, sure.

I've had tons of hassle from the police and - funnily enough - I can't recall a single instance of them ever using the phrase!

Perhaps they thought you are such an outstanding pillar of the community it would be too risky of them to talk about recreational drugs in your presence?? (Howard Marks aside that is...)

 

[Pickman's model]

And each time these cops have chatted about "wacky backy" to you?

Yeah, sure.

I've had tons of hassle from the police and - funnily enough - I can't recall a single instance of them ever using the phrase!

as i've mentioned, i haven't chatted to the constables searching me - and i didn't say that every cop who has ever searched me has mentioned drugs. but over the past fifteen years, i'd say that about 30 cops have enquired whether i had any "wacky backy" on me. i've never heard a cop i've encountered refer to marijuana by any other term in this country. perhaps that's a cultural difference between cops north of the river and cops south of the river - i can only report my experiences.

what sort of hassle have you had from the police? it may be that because of the nature of your dealings with the police the term never cropped up...

 

[editor]

what sort of hassle have you had from the police? it may be that because of the nature of your dealings with the police the term never cropped up...

I'm a travelling Cardiff City fan who's also attended a load of protests, some of them rather lively.

So, ample opportunity and excuses there to be stopped and searched by the police. I've been searched loads of times and have never, ever had a chat about "wacky backy."

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm a Cardiff City fan who's also attended a load of protests, some of them rather lively.

So, ample opportunity and excuses there to be stopped and searched by the police. I've been searched loads of times and have never, ever had a chat about "wacky backy."

the luck of the draw, i suppose.

is being a cardiff city fan then grounds for the cops to search you?

 

[Zonk]

I'm a travelling Cardiff City fan who's also attended a load of protests, some of them rather lively.

So, ample opportunity and excuses there to be stopped and searched by the police. I've been searched loads of times and have never, ever had a chat about "wacky backy."

Come on Norwich, come on Norwich!

 

[neilh]

i've found the term tends to get used in my experience anyway, by older folk who aren't the type to hang about wi folk that smoke dope, and kind of are trying to sound cool but in a kind of joking way, iyswim, thinking it a bit more kind of risque(sp?) than the term "pot"

 

[editor]

is being a cardiff city fan then grounds for the cops to search you?

You don't know much about policing football games or Cardiff City, do you?

http://www.urban75.org/football/rights.html

 

[Pickman's model]

You don't know much about policing football games or Cardiff City, do you?

http://www.urban75.org/football/rights.html

yeh yeh yeh, i'm aware of policing at football matches.

but that doesn't answer my question: is being a cardiff city fan sufficient grounds for a copper to search you? you haven't mentioned your regular attendance at football matches; i've always suspected you were more of an armchair supporter now you live so far from cardiff. do you find your support for cardiff often brings you into contact with the met?

 

[editor]

i've always suspected you were more of an armchair supporter now you live so far from cardiff. do you find your support for cardiff often brings you into contact with the met?

Having you call me am "armchair supporter" really is taking the fucking piss.

I was at Brighton two weeks ago and it cost me 23 fucking quid to get into the shittiest ground in the league.

How about you? When was the last time you saw your football team?

And, once again, if you knew anything about football and Cardiff City's away reputation, you'd know that the police tend to turn out in force, and with the (perceived) increased danger of trouble, arriving fans are far more likely to searched as they enter the ground and in the surrounding area.