web analytics

A Word from Mr. Vance

By Patrick Van Roy On July 11th, 2019

185 Responses to “A Word from Mr. Vance”

  1. His only crime was ‘journalism’ (and almost collapsing a sex offender trial).

  2. I don’t understand the support for Robinson here.

    The defendendants weren’t escaping prosecution, they were on trial at that moment for the serious charges on which they were soon to be convicted.

    You may or may not like the British protocols for coverage of the accused and of trials. But they are what they are.

    How was Mr. Robinson aiding the cause of journalism or justice here?

  3. Tom Thug supporters attack police outside the Old Bailey:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-tommy-robinson-jailed-nine-17891331?fbclid=IwAR2wJAAVSKivsMjBUKTeuraX0tom38rO_zXoxbdjLX7f53OTlEkloffKxUQ

  4. Completely unhelpful, should be prosecuted.

    The cops and their management deserve strong condemnation for their intentional inaction before, but they’re doing nothing wrong here.

    The Robinson supporters are hurting any cause that they seek to benefit by this stuff.

  5. As I’ve pointed out before I’m not a supporter of Tommy Robinson.
    But he was treated completely differently, to other journalists who reported in a similar way, on trials like this in the past.
    And reporting restrictions placed on this trial, concern me greatly.

  6. Is Tommy Robinson a card carrying journalist or is everyone with a mobile phone a journalist now?

  7. I’m not aware of other journalists flagrantly breaching reporting restrictions. And when other journalists have breached them, even accidentally, they have been prosecuted. Former Sun editor David Dinsmore was convicted because a heavily obscured picture of a rape victim was found to have inadvertently identified her to those who were familiar with the original photo. Journalist Brian Aitken was convicted after his paper named the school where a teacher was convicted of grooming a female student, breaching reporting restrictions which he did not know were in place.

    “And reporting restrictions placed on this trial, concern me greatly.”

    Everyone, even paedophiles (maybe even especially paedophiles), are entitled to a fair trial. Prejudicing the jury of that trial ends that fair trial. So not only should these reporting restrictions be in place they should be more widely used.

  8. smcgiff

    Citizen journalists are a thing, they will sometimes report things that the official guys will not

    This may be especially true in the UK where the pros are organized in an organization that has ” standards “, the concept of which is troubling.

    The press shouldn’t be regulated by the government…or by any other organization. In the UK, they are regulated by an organization. That to me is not OK.

  9. https://www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/

  10. Phantom, which of the principles in the link do you object to?

  11. I object to their authority to set any standard in the first place. Esp if it is an organization that all reporters are expected to belong to.

    I think that there will be cases where people will disagree as to what is fair

    Some here ( Sean Hannity ) do blur fact and opinion every day. I don’t have a problem with that being allowed

    Condition No. 9 can be used to discourage reporting all sorts of things. The rape gang story was under reported, perhaps because of such concerns

  12. “The rape gang story was under reported, perhaps because of such concerns”

    Was it under reported? I seem to remember it being front page news, news alerts on online etc…

  13. At a certain point it was a huge story.

    I will ask all those there – not just Paul and Seeamus, whose opinions can be predicted – did the liberal or left leaning press shy away from such stories in the past? Do they do so now?

  14. Seamus mis-spell is unintentional

  15. Phantom, do you have the concept of innocent until proven guilty in the US?

    Tommy is all about the attention.

    He should try having a pub brawl. That’s worked in the past for agitators like him.

  16. “At a certain point it was a huge story.”

    At what other point would you have wanted it to have been a huge story? Not least as it was subject to reporting restrictions to ensure a fair trial.

    “whose opinions can be predicted”

    Excuse me? I don’t put words in your mouth. I kindly ask for the same basic level of common courtesy.

    And in terms of your question here is a report from the Guardian.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/19/yorkshire-grooming-gang-jailed-rape-abuse

    Published immediately after the reporting restrictions were lifting, following a legal challenge post-trial by a number of media groups, including the Guardian. They would fall into your liberal or left leaning press group.

  17. Phantom,

    //I will ask all those there – not just Paul and Seeamus, whose opinions can be predicted – did the liberal or left leaning press shy away from such stories in the past? Do they do so now?//

    Yes they have, and to some extent still do shy away from these stories.
    These rape and abuse cases in the Pakistani community were ignored and hushed up by both police and press alike.

  18. Press rights to report on accuseds and trials are really different here.

    There, you haven’t AFAIK reported on who is accused of attacking the two women on a London bus. That would never happen here in a million years here.

    You can id someone without jeapardizing their rights IMO

  19. Phantom, everyone can (and everyone seems to) report everything and anything within the law. But, professional organisations have rules. Such as doctors, lawyers and accountants etc. It’s good they are regulated.

    By all means report that tour Aunt’s second favourite cat had a litter of all male kittens, but don’t call yourself a journalist.

  20. Phantom, everyone can (and everyone seems to) report everything and anything within the law. But, professional organisations have rules. Such as doctors, lawyers and accountants etc. It’s good they are regulated.

    By all means report that tour Aunt’s second favourite cat had a litter of all male kittens, but don’t call yourself a journalist.

  21. “You can id someone without jeapardizing their rights IMO”

    I would disagree broadly speaking. Pre-identification of suspects in trials can often lead to trial by media. It is why I am also broadly in favour of anonymity of offenders in serious crimes until conviction. When high profile cases, especially involving celebrities for example, the media become a circus.

    “Press rights to report on accuseds and trials are really different here.”

    And victims for that matter. Newspapers in the United States have regularly reported the identity of rape victims for example. Something that wouldn’t be allowed in most other countries.

  22. Seamus

    Everyone, even paedophiles (maybe even especially paedophiles), are entitled to a fair trial. Prejudicing the jury of that trial ends that fair trial. So not only should these reporting restrictions be in place they should be more widely used.

    To give just one of many, many examples, how come the police not only didn’t enforce restrictions on the Damilola Taylor trial, but actually protected protesters outside the court before the accused or even convicted?

    As I understand it, the cases Tommy Robinson was reporting on had actually already been found guilty and returning to court to be convicted. How could that prejudice the trial?

  23. Where there reporting on the Damilola Taylor trial? I can’t find anything about that.

    In terms of the case that Robinson filmed there were multiple trials involving the multiple defendants. Some had already been found guilty and in the others the jury were considering their verdicts.

  24. sm

    We don’t have an equivalent to the National Union of Journalists here.

    That IMO is a very good thing.

    There should be self regulation, as all quality media do, but there should never be any national organization that regulates what a person may write or say.

  25. The job of a free press is not to be regulated from outside, to be a thorn in the side of the powerful.

  26. “There should be self regulation, as all quality media do, but there should never be any national organization that regulates what a person may write or say.”

    As long as it is not compulsory (which it isn’t) there is no problem.

  27. Are all BBC / ITV/ Sky / big newspaper reporters members of it, without any exception?

  28. I have absolutely no idea. It is seen as a mark of quality so I would doubt that many are not members.

  29. “I don’t understand the support for Robinson here.”

    He hates Muslims

  30. Did the liberal or left leaning press shy away from such stories in the past? Do they do so now?

    It depends how you define ‘liberal or left leaning press’ but a cursory Google search reveals that if you take the BBC, Independent and Guardian as examples the answer is no and no.

    As I understand it, the cases Tommy Robinson was reporting on had actually already been found guilty and returning to court to be convicted. How could that prejudice the trial?

    It’s my understanding that some had been found guilty and some hadn’t and that TT was live streaming his ‘report’ on Facebook continuously for almost two hours before he was arrested.

    There should be self regulation, as all quality media do, but there should never be any national organization that regulates what a person may write or say

    There isn’t any national organization that regulates what a person writes or says. There’s a watchdog organisation where the public can complain when they feel they’ve been treated unfairly by the Press and that complaint will be investigated:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Press_Standards_Organisation

    Meanwhile, it seems TT was wearing a Para/ Soldier F badge at court this morning:

    https://images.app.goo.gl/JmTNVux85Tee284YA

    Fuck him.

  31. //Condition No. 9 can be used to discourage reporting all sorts of things. //

    I agree that No. 9 (from Phantom’s link to the NUJ principles above) is a bit dicey and could be abused.

    But apart from that they are all very sound, and journalists everywhere, especially in the US, would be well advised to look at them and at least try to live up to them.

    There is no question that NUJ members operate according to higher standards of journalism than their average American counterparts, and the world would be a better place – and a very uncomfortable place for some – if their standards were followed everywhere.

  32. –There is no question that NUJ members operate according to higher standards of journalism than their average American counterparts–

    I question that.

    I hope that you don’t think that the opinionated politically regimented Fox / MSNBC stuff is what the average journalist does here.

  33. I hope that you don’t think that the opinionated politically regimented Fox / MSNBC stuff is what the average journalist does here

    Likewise I hope that you don’t think that the IPSO regulates what a person writes or says

    There is no question that NUJ members operate according to higher standards of journalism than their average American counterparts

    Interesting one. What would happen in the US were a newspaper to publish a blatant lie abot the average 5’8? What access to redress does he have?

  34. ?

  35. –We are IPSO, the independent regulator of most of the UK’s newspapers and magazines.–

    From their website.

    -No- to regulation of the press. -No-

  36. If a newspaper were to publish a blatant lie about your average US Joe what redress does Joe have to rectify it?

  37. An honest newspaper would retract it when challenged on a wrong story ( it happens often, if you write many stories every day you will get some wrong)

    If it were not retracted, the wronged person could sue for libel.

  38. //I hope that you don’t think that the opinionated politically regimented Fox / MSNBC stuff is what the average journalist does here.//

    No, but we also don’t think that the NYT is what the average journalist does either.

    Take a look at the independent channels or the BBC in Britain; all American TV “news” that I’ve ever seen is very poor in comparision.
    I know that there’s a lot of trash in Britain too, but there’s also very much good stuff.

  39. Also from IPSO’s website:

    What is IPSO?

    The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is the independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. We hold newspapers and magazines to account for their actions, protect individual rights, uphold high standards of journalism and help to maintain freedom of expression for the press

    It’s quite obvious that IPSO doesn’t regulate what the Press write or say but regulates on Press standards as regards complaints.

    .

    If it were not retracted, the wronged person could sue for libel.

    And if the person can’t afford the legal costs?

  40. Noel

    There are many newspapers in the US that are of high quality

    The Epstein affair was busted open because a woman reporter at the Miami Herald did some sustained high quality reporting. At a newspaper that gave her the time and resources to do it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/business/media/miami-herald-epstein.html

  41. Some of the best reporting is done at papers that are not in the media centers.

    https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staff-press-democrat

    https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staff-cincinnati-enquirer

  42. And if the person can’t afford the legal costs?

    Clearly an un-American commie 😄 and deserving of his predicament. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  43. The atrocious British libel system is one of the worst in the developed world, for reasons discussed at length before.

    It’s not a model for anything.
    /
    On the issues of press regulation / or not and libel law, give me the US over the UK any day.

  44. And if the person can’t afford the legal costs?

    What would happen Phantom?

  45. It is common practice in the US for an attorney to take on a case at no up front cost in return for a larger piece of whatever the settlement is.

    No system is perfect, but IMO the British system is generally the worst among the western nations.

    What if a person can’t afford legal costs in the UK if someone libels him?

    What if? What if?

    No to regulation.

  46. What would happen to him if he couldn’t afford the legal costs is he’d be thrown to the wolves.

    What if a person can’t afford legal costs in the UK if someone libels him?

    Then he may have access to some redress through a IPSO complaint? That’s what it’s there for, to help the small guy.

    No to regulation.

    Entirely disingenuous as it’s already been explained to you above they regulate in complaints as opposed to the Press itself.

  47. “No system is perfect, but IMO the British system is generally the worst among the western nations.”

    The Press Freedom Index is developed by the Reporters Without Borders. It ranks countries based on a series of contributing factors to press freedom. The UK ranks 40th on the list, compared to the United States, which is ranked 45th.

    Freedom of the Press rankings by Freedom House have the US as 33rd, the UK 39th.

    So broadly speaking neither country are particularly better than the other, and neither are particularly great in the first place.

  48. Who died and put them in charge?

    Do they have an agenda?

    They talk about ” corporate influence ” – a bad thing, maybe, but another matter altogether from press freedom

  49. The UK is ahead of the US, when the exceptionally dominant media – the BBC – is all government employees?

    That ranking sounds preposterous

  50. “Who died and put them in charge?”

    Yeah because Reporters Sans Frontières know nothing about press freedom.

    “They talk about ” corporate influence ” – a bad thing, maybe, but another matter altogether from press freedom”

    Not necessarily. As you said the job of a free press is not to be regulated from outside, to be a thorn in the side of the powerful. That includes being a thorn in the side of major corporations. If those corporations own the press then it is less likely that they will do so.

    “Do they have an agenda?”

    Press freedom is their agenda.

  51. “The UK is ahead of the US, when the exceptionally dominant media – the BBC – is all government employees?”

    Are you suggesting that the BBC are biased in favour of the government?

    “That ranking sounds preposterous”

    Last time I checked the British Prime Minister hasn’t declared the press the enemy of the people. Last time I checked the British Prime Minister hasn’t repeatedly dismissed legitimate coverage as “fake news”. Last time I checked a gunman didn’t go into the offices of a British newspaper and open fire.

  52. That ranking would have been the same back when we had a real president.

    You can’t criticize corporate power in the press when your country’s news is entirely dominated by people who are paid by the government.

  53. A) It isn’t my country. B) The UK isn’t that shit hot either. C) The BBC do not dominate the news in the UK. There is substantial competition. Even on TV you have, in addition to BBC, Channel 4, Sky etc… And obviously the BBC has no presence whatsoever in print journalism. D) The BBC are required by law to be impartial. That means if they don’t criticise the government when the government need criticising they are breaking the law. If Fox News don’t criticise Rupert Murdoch are they breaking the law? If MSNBC don’t criticise Comcast are they breaking the law?

  54. You seem to forget that some of us have been to Britain

    The BBC ( which is very good most of the time ) is by a hundred miles the dominant source of national and local news there.

    Not as much as before, there are other strong news voices, but the BBC is exceptionally dominant, in a way that no single source of news dominates in the US.

  55. The BBC is astonishingly dominant

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/290866/bbc-news-viewers-reached-quarterly-uk/

    The average American never reads the NY Times, never watchers Fox News or MSNBC or CNN

    But a percentage of British adults listen to BBC news radio, television or internet.

  56. //The BBC is astonishingly dominant//

    Not really. The BBC also includes BBC2 and other things that are not news oriented, but even still it is eclipsed in terms of audience share by ITV and Channel 4 together.

    And of course there is a vast newspaper landscape in Britain.

  57. The face heavy competition, and on occasion lose the ratings battle:

    https://www.marketingweek.com/bbc-and-itv-fight-on-in-news-at-ten-ratings-war-2

    And even if one was to accept that the BBC is dominant are you suggesting that BBC dominance hurts the free press?

  58. I only say that they are dominant, that they are the government, and that they basically are funded by a form of taxation.

    The above has no bearing on press freedom, any more than corporate ownership of Fox News harms it here.

  59. Is it illegal if Fox News refuse to criticise Rupert Murdoch?

  60. Bogus diversion

    And Fox reporters ( Shep Smith, Tucker Carlson ) have been strongly critical of the Trump / Murdoch / war machine message at times, and they have not been slapped for it.

  61. But they could be and there is nothing that could prevent that from happening. As such it is not a bogus diversion. There is literally nothing stopping Rupert Murdoch, Comcast etc… from having undue influence on their media companies and the news they produce. There is plenty stopping the UK Government from doing the same on the BBC.

    As such, because safeguards are in place with regards to the BBC, UK Government ownership of the BBC is not a threat to press freedom. Corporate ownership of the media, without those same safeguards in place, is a threat to press freedom.

  62. I never said that the BBC is or that it has been a threat to press freedom. But it has dominated British media since it was founded in 1922. Less every year now, but its still the most enormous influence.

    In the US, there’s almost too much competition. Big TV channel ratings go down every year, print media declines every year, as a thousand streaming channels proliferate. Fox News gins up the angry white males, but the average person never watches them.

    The average young college student barely knows what over the air radio or TV is, and they think that buying cable TV is expensive and stupid. The gatekeepers are dead companies walking. They increasingly are less dominant, not more, other than ISPs themselves. There is little competition in that space in most geographies.

    I quite like where we are on press freedom. The fake president would like to make libel laws more like the bad British ones, but there is zero chance that this will happen.

  63. It looks like twitter is down at the moment

    https://twitter.com/DVATW

    “Something is technically wrong.

    Thanks for noticing—we’re going to fix it up and have things back to normal soon.”

    I wonder what David will do with himself now.

  64. You can never have to much competition….

    Print Media is dead as it should be and if FOX is just for angry white males I guess I don’t dare say what CNN/MSNBC riled up for two years o telling lies as they foamed at the mouth over the attempted frame job

    he uroweenies don’t know or understand what freedom really is because they have no understanding of FREE SPEECH and until they do whether they accept it or not they are serfs.

  65. Print media ain’t dead yet.

    It was great reporting by the woman from the Miami Herald that led to the current prosecution of Epstein.

    Wasn’t Fox, wasn’t CNN, wasn’t MSNBC.

    The Miami Herald, still influential in south Florida, and nationally

    https://www.miamiherald.com/

  66. The New York Times Co. Reports $709 Million in Digital Revenue for 2018
    By Jaclyn Peiser
    Feb. 6, 2019

    The New York Times Company generated more than $709 million in digital revenue last year, growing at a pace that suggests it will meet its stated goal of $800 million in digital sales by the end of 2020.

    The results prompted the company to set another lofty target: “To grow our subscription business to more than 10 million subscriptions by 2025,” Mark Thompson, the chief executive, said in a statement announcing the company’s fourth-quarter financial results.

    More than 3.3 million people pay for the company’s digital products, including its news, crossword and food apps, a 27 percent jump from 2017. The total number of paid subscriptions for digital and print reached 4.3 million, a high.

    Online subscription revenue gained nearly 18 percent to reach $400 million in 2018, while digital advertising rose 8.6 percent, to $259 million. In the last three months of the year, digital subscription sales grew at a slower pace, about 9 percent, to $105 million. That slowdown was partly the result of an extra week in the fourth quarter of 2017 and partly the result of marketing efforts such as introductory discounts for online access. Those offers attract new readers who bring in less revenue — but the company expects many of them to become full subscribers over time.

    Print media is dying, but paid digital circulation doing very well for NYT, WSJ, Washington Post.

  67. Paper print is dying

    Digital print thriving – for some publications

  68. twitter took a crap

  69. *cough* channel 4 is government owned AFAIK. But I do think both them and the BBC are impartial. The US network media is very polarised, playing to their specific biased audiences. I don’t doubt the US print journalism is of a very high integrity.

  70. Phantom the miami herald has a circulation of less than 150,000 in a country of 350 million I would not call that influential local or nationally…..

    now online 1-2 million may read one special story, but as medium they are reading it online not in print.

    The NYTs is sold nationwide it has a circulation of 2 million and the only other nationwide paper is USATODAY which also only has a circulation of 2 million.

    Print media is dead no one reads papers except people stuck on trains and that s a very very small percentage of Americans.

  71. 150,000 paid probably means at least 300,000 readers. And that doesn’t count those who read the certain number of free articles that are allowed. It’s a big deal in Florida still.

    The national papers would be the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, quality papers that have a large international readership also, with a high percentage of readers in the college educated or executive sector.

    Each of those three papers are increasingly successful in getting people to pay for the digital edition, which is growing extremely rapidly for each of them.

    When Trump speaks of ” the failing NY Times ” it shows that he has no idea what he’s talking about. The NYT has revenue of over $1.7 billion, they’ve made money in all recent years, their profit has spiked sharply upward.

    NYT stock has appreciated over 150% over the past five years.

    USA Today is lightweight, but yes its national too. But it’s not influential.

    The big three papers, two based in NYC, will be around for a very long time. You guys will be whinging about them ten years from now.

  72. If you invested $10,000 in News Corp ( NWS, the company that owns Fox News ) stock five years ago you would have lost 21%.

    If you invested $10,000 in NYT stock five years ago, you would have more than doubled your money.

    You tell me who’s failing.

  73. where do they read those “free” stories…… is someone cutting them out and handing them out on the street?

    I forgot WaPo it’s circulation is less than 500,000, seems I’m not the only one who’s forgotten about it… the WSJ is a different category.

    To you these papers mean something and they play to elitists like you and like you they feel their views and opinions are “the right views and opinions”

    Both the NYTs and Wapo have had some great reporting, but those days are long gone. Both papers spent the last two years lying to people. Now you disagree with that, but the majority of people don’t.

  74. Free stories on the web.

    The Washington Post has a paid circulation of 500,000. That’s huge.

    You guys and your president worship Drudge, Breitbart and Infowars, which have a combined paid readership of zero.

    If these media weren’t important, your president wouldn’t have frittered away his first term complaining about them.

    Trump complains about the NYT but he reads it every day, and always has.

  75. “Both the NYTs and Wapo have had some great reporting, but those days are long gone. Both papers spent the last two years lying to people. Now you disagree with that, but the majority of people don’t.”

    It isn’t a question of disagreeing with it or not. It isn’t a question of opinion. Either they lied or they didn’t lie. It is a question of fact not opinion.

    And if they lied could you show us one example of where they lied?

  76. No Seamus it’s not a matter of opinion they lied, and the pushed a narrative of the lie while suppressing facts that showed it was a lie because they weren’t REPORTING they were engaging in Journalism which is when a person takes circumstances and folds them into stories not to inform but to influence which is not the job of a free press.

    You guys and your president worship Drudge, Breitbart and Infowars, which have a combined paid readership of zero.

    If these media weren’t important, your president wouldn’t have frittered away his first term complaining about them.

    no one watches or reads info wars. I don’t read Breitbart since Andrew died and as for Drudge…..

    VISITS TO DRUDGE 7/12/2019

    031,109,047 PAST 24 HOURS
    816,483,103 PAST 31 DAYS
    10,425,999,774 PAST YEAR

    The numbers speak for themselves.

  77. Paid viewership: zero.

  78. Original reporting: zero.

  79. as for this….

    If these media weren’t important, your president wouldn’t have frittered away his first term complaining about them.

    He hasn’t frittered anything he has spent two years fighting a frame job which HE WON that both WaPo and NYTs were heavily involved in the frame….

    You’re delusional.

  80. “No Seamus it’s not a matter of opinion they lied, and the pushed a narrative of the lie while suppressing facts that showed it was a lie because they weren’t REPORTING they were engaging in Journalism which is when a person takes circumstances and folds them into stories not to inform but to influence which is not the job of a free press.”

    It isn’t a matter of opinion. That is what I said. You made accusation that they lied – show the evidence. Show me a single news story where either the Washington Post or the New York Times lied.

  81. keep lying to yourself Phantom, it feels good but it doesn’t produce anything.

    There is a word for that.

  82. The sage of Pennsylvania has no idea what the NYT writes, or who writes it.

    He is parroting a party line.

  83. It isn’t a matter of opinion. That is what I said. You made accusation that they lied – show the evidence. Show me a single news story where either the Washington Post or the New York Times lied.

    Seamus if you can sit there and type that the NYTs and WaPo have been honest well then god bless you, you hang on to that belief.

    I’ll keep laughing at you.

  84. “Seamus if you can sit there and type that the NYTs and WaPo have been honest well then god bless you, you hang on to that belief.”

    You are the one making accusations.

    Show me a single news story where either the Washington Post or the New York Times lied. Or I probably just conclude that this is just another one of your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. You are becoming very Aberdonian.

  85. //I’ll keep laughing at you.//

    Patrick, just show us where the NYT lied and then we’ll all be able to laugh at Seamus.

  86. no I’ve cast my pearls

  87. So we can conclude that you have no examples of either the Washington Post or the New York Times lying. Ergo you were making shit up.

  88. He says that the NYT has lied all the time, but has no idea what those lies are

    He heard Trump say that Rafael Cruz killed JFK, and promptly voted for Trump for president, based on Trump’s superior command of the truth.

  89. So tell me guys

    where’s the collusion ?

    where are the indictments ?

    Indictments are coming, but not for Trump…. The next two years as the perp walks of former Obama officials are going to be fun to watch and even more fun watching how you heads full of mush try to spin them.

    Time and THE LAW are on my side, all I have to do is sit back and watch… occasionally rubbing salt into the wounds. 😉

  90. Is this more tinfoil hat conspiracy theory shit that you are just making up Patrick?

  91. Hannity spread Seth Rich conspiracy yarns, tormenting the man’s bereaved parents, and Pat was cool with it.

    Pat hates the truth, and never reads any quality publications.

  92. yep…. all tinfoil Seamus….. keep watching this site as the tinfoil is pealed off of you and Antifa boys head as the indictments come rolling in…..

    You two and others refuse to see the shitstorm that these past two years of lies as they tried to overturn an election has caused…..

    me I’m stocked up on popcorn

  93. If they were lies can you show the evidence? One piece of evidence, one story where the New York Times or the Washington Post lied? Can’t be difficult if there are so many.

  94. The British and Aussie intel guys tried to frame the great man too, right?

    They should all be executed with Crocodile Dundee’s knife, right?

    Everyone’s a traitor except for honest Donald Trump

  95. Acosta now resigns over brokering a plea bargain for financial loser, sex fiend and Trump buddy J. Epstein.

    I’m so glad Mr. Trump has Drained the Swamp.

  96. Phantom please provide a list of what YOU consider “quality publications”

  97. Noel, on July 12th, 2019 at 3:02 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Acosta now resigns over brokering a plea bargain for financial loser, sex fiend and Trump buddy J. Epstein.

    I’m so glad Mr. Trump has Drained the Swamp.

    proves Noel’s head is full of mush…..

  98. Phantom, on July 12th, 2019 at 2:44 PM Said: Edit Comment
    The British and Aussie intel guys tried to frame the great man too, right?

    They should all be executed with Crocodile Dundee’s knife, right?

    Everyone’s a traitor except for honest Donald Trump

    We have proof FACTS that both Aussie and British intel were involved…. I know facts don’t count.

    Why are you promoting Knife Violence? Have you decided then to move to London?

    Trump was just Proven by a two year investigation of being NOT GUILTY… once again facts mean nothing to the mush brained antifa boy.

  99. “We have proof FACTS that both Aussie and British intel were involved”

    Involved in what? They had intelligence which the passed onto American intelligence. Should they not do that?

  100. When facts are spelled FACTS chances are they’re not facts

  101. Investigations don’t find people guilty or not guilty – they aren’t empowered to do so. Secondly an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So a lack of evidence is not proof that Trump didn’t collude – just that there is no evidence to suggest that he, or his campaign, illegally colluded with Russia. Thirdly, even if Trump didn’t collude it is not evidence to suggest that any accusation of him doing so was made up.

  102. the fall back of the mush brained is always to attack punctuation and spelling because they can’t use reason.

  103. Where are the lies?

    Enquiring minds want to know

  104. Seamus, on July 12th, 2019 at 3:23 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Investigations don’t find people guilty or not guilty – they aren’t empowered to do so. Secondly an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So a lack of evidence is not proof that Trump didn’t collude – just that there is no evidence to suggest that he, or his campaign, illegally colluded with Russia. Thirdly, even if Trump didn’t collude it is not evidence to suggest that any accusation of him doing so was made up.

    roflmao…… and passing FALSE INTEL is not procedure unless of course you’re trying to frame someone.

  105. Who told you that it was false intel?

    Who told you that the evil brits and satanic Aussies knew it to be false intel

  106. Prove that it was false. There is no evidence that the intelligence was false.

  107. Phantom, on July 12th, 2019 at 3:27 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Where are the lies?

    Enquiring minds want to know

    on this site the lies are all labeled with a byline…. of Phantom

  108. !!

  109. “on this site the lies are all labeled with a byline…. of Phantom”

    Patrick,

    You are the conspiracy theorist who keeps making stuff up. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

  110. He voted for Alex Jones’s sidekick for president

  111. Seamus, on July 12th, 2019 at 3:28 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Prove that it was false. There is no evidence that the intelligence was false.

    The “intelligence” all said he “colluded” which has been proven to be a lie. There’s your proof.

  112. “The “intelligence” all said he “colluded” which has been proven to be a lie. “

    Where was it proven it was a lie?

  113. Patrick,

    You are the conspiracy theorist who keeps making stuff up. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    please link to one thing I’ve made up.

  114. Where was it proven it was a lie?

    The SC headed by Mueller

  115. “please link to one thing I’ve made up.”

    Your cultural Marxism in education conspiracy theory. Just to go by a recent example where you lost your shit at the merest hint of challenge.

    https://www.atangledweb.org/?p=78825#comment-746603

  116. “The SC headed by Mueller”

    Show me where in the Mueller report it said the collusion accusations were a lie.

  117. The president and the AG flunky lied about the Mueller report.

  118. The terribly befuddled Patrick has called Mueller a dirty cop, the worst guy who ever lived. Not true at all, but its fun to say

    Now he’s saying that Mueller has exonerated Trump in his report. Which also isn’t true at all but listen…

    Why would you be happy about being exonerated by a supposedly dirty cop?

    Its fine that he doesn’t pay attention to what others say, but this guy doesn’t pay attention to what he himself says

  119. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/devin-nunes-christopher-steele-dossier-fbi-questioning

    Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday he believes the public will soon see that much of the Trump-Russia dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele was “made up.”

    According to a New York Times report, FBI officials questioned one of Steele’s sources and “came to suspect that the man might have added his own interpretations to reports from his own sources that he passed on to Mr. Steele, calling into question the reliability of the information.”

  120. Your cultural Marxism in education conspiracy theory. Just to go by a recent example where you lost your shit at the merest hint of challenge.

    https://www.atangledweb.org/?p=78825#comment-746603

    that’s true your lack of knowledge an inability to grasp facts doesn’t make it false…. keep trying

  121. Why would you be happy about being exonerated by a supposedly dirty cop?

    because even with a dirty cop they couldn’t find anything…. maroon

  122. “that’s true your lack of knowledge an inability to grasp facts doesn’t make it false…. keep trying”

    It isn’t true. It is a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. It has been shown to be a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. And when it was shown to you as a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact your went fucking mental.

    Charles,

    If the report is true it would suggest that one of Christopher Steele’s sources made up, or at least embellished, some of the claims against Trump. That doesn’t prove that the dossier in its entirety is false. It also doesn’t prove that intelligence agencies acted inappropriately. All it suggests is that this source may have acted inappropriately.

  123. PVR, Allan, Mr President

    How come none of you conspiracy guys will admit that you’re conspiracy guys?

  124. look keep going guys all your doing is proving my point.

    The NYTs/WaPo/CNN/MSNBC all lied, all peddled false information.

    The crooked cop Mueller and the dirty DNC Lawyers he assembled couldn’t even fabricate any connection between Trump his campaign and the Russians.

    For over two years the DOJ/NSA/CIA/DNC and Obama and the Clintons tried to Frame Trump. They failed. They used Aussie and Brit spies as pawns in the Frame and the next two or more years are going to be spent prosecuting those involved.

    Face it the broke the Law, and they’ve been caught. Now hopefully Justice will prevail.

    You can keep defending and spinning all you want, but bottom line is all of you baught this fake collusion story hook line and sinker.

    It’s truly sad that none of you able to admit you were wrong, but don’t worry I’m gonna sit here and keep ridiculing you all for it 😉

  125. “The NYTs/WaPo/CNN/MSNBC all lied, all peddled false information.”

    Show me a single news story where either the Washington Post or the New York Times lied.

  126. The only conspiracy I have ever supported on these pages is the one that really happened, the one against Trump.

  127. You believe in the Monica Missiles conspiracy and in the Uranium One conspiracy yarn too, if I am not mistaken

    As well as the Clinton Foundation conspiracy nonsense

  128. lol Mueller testimony “postponed”…..

    He doesn’t want to be questioned by the Republicans…..

  129. Uranium One bribery is another fact that you refuse to accept because a corrupt justice dept refused to investigate and prosecute… those that blocked that criminal investigation are about to go to jail.

    And you can’t prove it was coincidence that Clinton blew up an aspirin factory the same time a stained dress was revealed.

    Keep trying antifa boy

  130. Who was bribed

    What problem do you have with the way that the Foundation spent its money

    Be very specific

  131. Patrick doesn’t support any conspiracy theories, except for all the conspiracy theories he supports (which tends to be most of them – at least if they are done by his political opponents).

  132. Seamus, on July 12th, 2019 at 4:13 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “The NYTs/WaPo/CNN/MSNBC all lied, all peddled false information.”

    Show me a single news story where either the Washington Post or the New York Times lied.

    skull full of mush…… believe what you believe Like I said I got a big bag of popcorn as my “imaginary” conspiracists get indicted over the next two years.

    If they don’t get indicted or are proven that they didn’t try to frame him unlike the rest of you I will admit I was wrong.

    The whole Mueller investigation I said repeatedly if they found anything I’d hand out the pitchforks and torches.

    Trump was proven innocent and not one of you can accept it and admit you were wrong.

    That says everything about YOU!

  133. So you have no examples of either the Washington Post or the New York Times lying. Those accusations were just more of your bullshit?

  134. Everyone of YOU are still pushing the “conspiracy” that Trump broke some Law….. lmao

  135. Patrick and Allan

    Two sides of the same conspiracy coin

  136. Seamus, much of the Steele Dossier is made up, according to Rep Nunes. That Dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrent which led to Mueller. Fruit of the poison Tree??

  137. Two sides of the same conspiracy coin

    so says the man behind the ANTIFA mask…..

  138. “Seamus, much of the Steele Dossier is made up, according to Rep Nunes. That Dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrent which led to Mueller. Fruit of the poison Tree??”

    According to Devin Nunes, a former member of the Trump transition team, and who has been Trump’s congressional attack dog on all matters related to the investigations. So I would take what Nunes says with a pinch of salt.

    The actual reports, which come from Patrick’s hated New York Times, are that FBI investigators interviewed one of Steele’s sources, a Russian. After the interview “officials came to suspect that the man might have added his own interpretations to reports from his own sources that he passed on to Mr. Steele, calling into question the reliability of the information”.

    That is very different from “much of the Steele Dossier is made up”.

    In terms of fruit of the poisonous tree – unless the defendants can prove (under a preponderance of the evidence) that the information is false then the warrant stands.

    Then, after proving that the information is false they must also prove (again under a preponderance of the evidence) that the FBI and DOJ either knew the information was false, or had a reckless disregard for the truth. If not the warrant stands.

    After that the defendants must also prove (again under a preponderance of the evidence) that a warrant wouldn’t have been issued without those incorrect pieces of information. If not the warrant stands.

    So for all of this stuff to be thrown out it would need to be proven that the information was false, the FBI/DOJ knew it was false (or had a reckless disregard for the truth), and that the warrant wouldn’t have been issued should you remove the incorrect pieces of information.

    So one source maybe embellishing his sources likely fails to meet the burdens the defendants would need to meet in order to exclude any information gained from it, or from further investigations that relied on it.

  139. Seamus, then FISA is too powerful, and a danger to our liberty!

  140. quoting spin from the Lying NYTs….. lol

  141. According to Devin Nunes, a former member of the Trump transition team, and who has been Trump’s congressional attack dog on all matters related to the investigations. So I would take what Nunes says with a pinch of salt.

    Spot on.

    Nunes is about as credible as Tiffany Trump.

    ” Trump is victim, everyone else is evil “

  142. Seamus, slight change of subject. Is Ireland’s president a figure head, a head of state, or does he hold any constitutional power?

  143. Trump Tower, the Manhattan landmark home to the president and his namesake real estate company, has seen commercial occupancy fall to 84% from close to 100% in 2013, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

    While the lease for the largest tenant, Gucci America Inc. with 48,667 square feet, doesn’t expire until 2026, about 90,000 square feet — or 37% of the skyscraper’s commercial space — is up for renewal over the next 12 months, the data show.

    Anyone want to rent some NYC real estate real cheap?

    That’s one of the hottest neighborhoods in the world, and no one wants any part of that address.

  144. “Seamus, then FISA is too powerful, and a danger to our liberty!”

    Quite possibly. Post 2001 use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has exploded (averaged 594 uses per year before 9/11, and has averaged 1,687 since). There is also substantially more data available for a snooping government.

    ” Is Ireland’s president a figure head, a head of state, or does he hold any constitutional power?”

    He’s a ceremonial figure. Constitutionally the President of Ireland was designed to replace the British Monarch’s role in Ireland. Theoretically the President holds emergency powers but they have never been used, and there is some constitutional issues over the President’s exercise of functions (the English language translation of the constitution would grant him certain powers but the Irish language version of the constitution does not – as a point of law the Irish language version holds dominance).

  145. “Nunes is about as credible as Tiffany Trump.”

    I don’t know. Tiffany Trump seems to go out of her way to be seen and not heard. Which is probably what she should be doing. Nunes seems to be doing the opposite of what he should be doing.

  146. Thanks Seamus. I’ve been reading that book. Ireland is one of the countries that predominates a parliamentary system, but also has a president. I didn’t know the extent of his or her power. Israel is another case, as you know.

  147. “Ireland is one of the countries that predominates a parliamentary system, but also has a president. I didn’t know the extent of his or her power. Israel is another case, as you know.”

    It is quite widespread. This map is a good indication:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-presidential_system#/media/File:Forms_of_government.svg

    Red are parliamentary constitutional monarchies, where you have a parliamentary government but a ceremonial monarch.

    Orange are parliamentary republics, where you have a parliamentary government but a ceremonial President.

    Green are quite interesting (and what Ireland was during the revolutionary period). Green have an executive President elected by the Parliament – effectively a parliamentary government but where what would be the Prime Minister is also the President.

  148. Thanks Seamus. One thing I didn’t realize is all the variations between and inside each system. For instance I didn’t know that the Nigerian President must win both a majority of the people’s votes, but must also win 2/3 of the Nigerian states to be elected. That may be part of the reason that Nigeria is relatively stable by African standards.

  149. After two judges jailed him on Thursday, 200 protesters took to the streets of London to riot, shouting ‘we want Tommy out.’ They set fire to European Union flags , hurled bottles and smoke bombs at police officers in riot gear, who then retaliated by raising batons. BBC journalists filming around Parliament Square were also verbally abused, physically intimidated and had their equipment attacked before police arrived

    https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/12/tommy-robinson-fans-set-target-prison-former-edl-leader-jailed-contempt-court-10213738/

    So, TT is sentenced in a Brit domestic court by Brit judges under the Brit domestic judicial system for breaking Brit law and these moondogs burn EU flags and attack ‘lefty’ journalists?

    Very Harrified.

  150. What is the difference between a moondog and a mooncat

  151. I don’t think he has to win 2/3rds of the states but must win at least 25% of the vote in at least 2/3rds of the states.

    And ultimately while Nigeria has been more stable by African standards it hasn’t really been stable. The Fourth Republic only took hold in 1999. Since independence a military junta has taken over twice. In 59 years of independence Nigeria has been a dictatorship for 29 of them.

  152. A moon dog will be baying at the moon tonight, but a mooncat will be lighting the bonfire.

  153. I stand corrected as your humble student! 😉

  154. Very good Charles

    If you have $28,000 lying around you can buy this domain name

    https://mooncat.com/

  155. “I stand corrected as your humble student! 😉”

    🙂

    Africa tends to be messed up politically (not least because most of the countries aren’t homogeneous areas. A group of white guys drew lines on the map 150 years ago and it is still causing problems. Because they aren’t homogeneous units there is no underlying support or unity of purpose that is needed for political union. Nigeria, for example, has more than 250 ethnic groups, with varying languages and customs. How do you unify them? Probably the only way you can is by force. Without an underlying shared sense of purpose (people unifying as a single people) then it is unlikely that any country will succeed. It is the fundamental flaw of a federal Europe (certainly one without high buy-in from its constituent elements).

  156. There is this idea that borders shouldn’t change.

    But Africa would have benefited by major change in the artificial borders ages ago, would benefit now.

    But how? Don’t ask me.

    Each of Nigeria’s ethnic and religious groups can’t get their own country.

    Of course, the English and French set artificial borders in the Arab world, causing great problems also

  157. Nigeria has much ethnic violence between Christian and Muslim.

  158. Of course, the English and French set artificial borders in the Arab world, causing great problems also

    I’d imagine Cameroonians would agree too:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/cameroon-language-french-english-military-africa-ambazonia-a8770396.html

  159. This map shows part of the problem (but doesn’t even begin to show all the problems – for example it has the Tutsi and the Hutu as the same people):

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Africa_ethnic_groups_1996.jpg

  160. Speaking of rioters burning the EU flag and bon fires.

    A Virginia man was arrested for burning an American flag in a Walmart parking lot. It seems Virginia has a law banning the burning of anything to cause intimidation of any group. I presume this law came about from the burning of crosses.

  161. It will be interesting if that stands up in court or not.

  162. Indeed, Seamus. The Supremes have spoken on the issue of flag burning. But it begs the question, then why not cross burning?

  163. //” Is Ireland’s president a figure head, a head of state, or does he hold any constitutional power?”//

    All three, Charles.

    The President is supreme commander of the army and, I believe, the police.

    He formally appoints the Taoiseach (head of government) at the bidding of the parliament, and he dissolves parliament and calls a new election on foot of a similar request.

    All laws passed by the parliament can become law only whew signed by the president. He also scrutinises (or is supposed to) legislation and refer any doubtful laws back to the Supreme Court to test their constitutionality.

  164. The Supreme Court have also ruled on cross burning, finding it separate to the likes of flag burning (in a case ironically called Virginia v Black). Justice Thomas put it as “just as one cannot burn down someone’s house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point”. So I think the distinction is the intimidation. To be able to punish speech you must be able to prove intent to intimidate. In the absence of proof of intention to intimidate it is an act of free speech and can’t be criminalised.

  165. To be able to punish speech you must be able to prove intent to intimidate. In the absence of proof of intention to intimidate it is an act of free speech and can’t be criminalised.

    by jove I think he gets it…..

  166. A flag burner is a bum, but being a bum isn’t a crime, no matter how contemptible the act and actor.

  167. question just for fun…..

    When the Levee’s break in New Orleans this week will it be because Time Bombs were left by GW or will Trump be accused of blowing them up?

  168. and reading assignment for the global warming cultists…..

    https://brooks.house.gov/media-center/news-releases/congressman-brooks-bipartisan-panel-scientists-confirms-humans-are-not

  169. A flag burner is a bum, but being a bum isn’t a crime, no matter how contemptible the act and actor.

    Indeed. This should put a bit more context on Pete’s celebrate diversity post.

    https://twitter.com/molloy1916/status/1149434854741872641/photo/1

  170. “and reading assignment for the global warming cultists…..”

    Yes. Humanity was not responsible for global warming 20,000 years ago. It is responsible now. That you think this is some sort of revelations shows how scientifically illiterate you are.

  171. so what is the difference between when man didn’t cause it and man causing it?

    Because it got warmer and the oceans rose at a faster rate in the past than they are now…. please explain if man is responsible why did the ice melt faster and the water rise faster before the use of fossil fuel?

  172. “Because it got warmer and the oceans rose at a faster rate in the past than they are now…. please explain if man is responsible why did the ice melt faster and the water rise faster before the use of fossil fuel?”

    Because of natural variation of the Earth’s climate. What we are seeing now is man-made (ie not natural) variation of the Earth’s climate.

  173. Climate change is another of your Aberdonian tinfoil hat conspiracy theories isn’t it?

  174. What caused the natural variation to stop?

    Did the Earth stop rotating around the sun?

  175. Seamus, on July 12th, 2019 at 7:22 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Climate change is another of your Aberdonian tinfoil hat conspiracy theories isn’t it?

    No Seamus that’s your tinfoil hat…….

  176. Man can not effect the Climate.

  177. “No Seamus that’s your tinfoil hat…….”

    Are you not the one who likes to pretend that all the scientists who say global warming is real are actually a secret cabal of communists who want to take over the economy?

    “What caused the natural variation to stop?”

    Natural variation will always continue. What we are seeing now is unnatural variation.

  178. “Man can not effect the Climate.”

    97% of climate experts say you are full of shit. But they are all part of that secret cabal of communists…

  179. Mueller the dirty cop and Clinton Foundation paid them off

  180. ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00165

  181. please keep your cult babbling on nthe post about it… thanks

  182. “please keep your cult babbling on nthe post about it… thanks”

    You are the one who brought it up on this post. You seem to want to peddle your conspiracy theory nonsense on multiple posts.

  183. I created a post just for you warming cultists…..

  184. I spent my day driving around Bordeaux as a good EU citizen… let me see Well, what have ye have been up to today?

    Jeeze, is this the longest ATW thread ever?

    Anyway, I think you’re all a bunch of Marons! 😀

  185. far from even close to one of the longest….. but we do appreciate you adding to it 😉