Monday, September 24, 2012

Andrew Mitchell has to go for the good of the Conservative Party

When the axe falls, it is important to let it. Any attempt to dodge the inevitable only results in a botched blow to the shoulder blade, and so more screaming pain and blood. Instead of a swift, precise decapitation, death is agonisingly drawn out: the victim is tortured by his own squirming; the watching crowd traumatised by the barbaric spectacle.

Not since the incomparable Francis Urquhart has an enthralling story of the Chief Whip so dominated the nation's television screens. But Gate-gate, or Pleb-gate-gate has also travelled half-way round the world. It is a distasteful episode, involving a senior member of HM Government, who reportedly blew his top when a police security officer refused to open the main Downing Street security gates for his bike, instead asking the Chief Whip to exit via the side gate.

Mr Mitchell is alleged to have sworn at the police office involved (using the procreative 'f' word) and to have called her (for it was a WPC) a 'moron' and a 'pleb'. Further threats apparently included 'You haven't heard the last of this', with an exhortation to 'know your place'.

All patronising, pompous and sneeringly classist, consistent with the 'little posh boys' narrative which is slowly retoxifying the Tory brand under David Cameron.

His Grace is troubled that The Sun has managed to obtain a copy of the police officer's notebook, for there is no logical explanation for that other than collusion. One might have thought, in the wake of phone-hacking complicity, that the police would have been more cautious before once again collaborating with agenda-driven journalists.

And speaking of agendas, it is apparent that the Metropolitan Police Federation is a trade union in all but name, and that John Tully, its leader, is a union boss in all but name; and that this union boss, like all of them, is distinctly anti-Conservative with a particular dislike of Tory posh boys.

But there's a problem.

The police officer made contemporary notes of the incident before Mr Tully managed to seize the agenda. In a court of law, a contemporary written account carries far more weight than vaguely-recalled facts recounted some days or weeks later.

Andrew Mitchell has apologised, but in this instance an apology is simply not enough. For this is politics, and politics is rarely concerned with the truth. By staying in his job, the Chief Whip is inflicting damage upon the Conservative Party and the Government. By keeping him in his job, the Prime Minister is once again displaying poor judgment. It no longer matters what Mr Mitchell actually said: 'pleb' has captured the narrative, and 'know your place' echoes the manner and attitude of Cameron as 'Flashman', the public-school bully. However the police officer may have embellished the account (which, rationally, is not likely, for the police notebook tends to record facts), people will believe what they want to believe, and few will question the veracity of police sacred writ over a politician's redaction as he squirms to keep his job - especially a posh Tory one.

If Andrew Mitchell does not permit the axe to fall very soon, we will hear about nothing but 'Tory toffs' throughout this conference season. If he cared about his party and the Government, he would resign. Awfully unfair and unjust, maybe. But that's politics. His friends will rally round and make sympathetic phone calls; his colleagues will put out supportive Tweets and tell Facebook what a really good egg he is. But the reality is that if this had been Peter Bone or Douglas Carswell, the Prime Minister would have sacked them on the spot with a concerted effort to end their political careers. Look what happened to Patrick Mercer.

But Andrew Mitchell is a mate. Whether or not the word 'pleb' passed his lips, he must go for the good of the Conservative Party. And he would not be the first who with best meaning has incurred the worst.

105 Comments:

Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

The real point of this is that 30 years ago he would have been sacked by whatever party for disrespect to authority and bringing his party into public disrepute through pathetic childish petulance that believes 'one' does not have to heed rules or regulations which us poor plebs must.

"And he would not be the first who with best meaning (?) has incurred the worst." Perhaps but he will have been the first for what seems a very long time chastised (well meaningfully) for being an arrogant plonker!

Blofeld

24 September 2012 at 10:49  
Blogger Tony B said...

Unfair and unjust? You must be joking.

24 September 2012 at 10:56  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

WRONG

Mitchell has found out what most of us already know.
THE PLOICE ARE OUR MASTERS, & arrogant with it .....

They are our servants, not jobsworth petty bullioes.

Support Mitchell!

24 September 2012 at 11:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

G. Tingey said...

"Mitchell has found out what most of us already know." Whereo is your empiriocal eviodence that this is correcto and not just well meaniong conjecture/beliefo.

Blofeld

ps

What's with the 'o's? *chortles*

24 September 2012 at 11:14  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

And a hey nonny nono Blofeld!

My view: Mitchell is a prat.

24 September 2012 at 11:22  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

Mr Mitchell has probably revealed his true nature in his recent behaviour. However, I would suggest that punching a voter is infinitely worse than losing one's temper - even if it was a policeman. But I don't recall that Mr Prescott was forced to resign. In fact that abomination, Mr Blair laughed off as 'John being John'; so that's all right then.
It might be better if the media concentrated on important matters rather than assisting vested interests (the socialists, the police for example) in scoring points.

24 September 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

AIB

The sad Ballad of Tingey the Doubtful.

"They bore him barefaced on the bier,
Hey, non nonny, nonny, hey, nonny,
And in his grave rained many a tear.

They carried him uncovered in the coffin,
Hey non nonny, nonny, hey nonny.
And tears poured down into his grave."

Perhaps Tingey is having an Orphelia like insane scene on the thread.

Please remove all sharp implements!

With a hey, and a ho, and a hey-nonny-no.

Blofeld

ps

My view: Mitchell is a prat.. INDEED!!!

24 September 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger TigerO said...

Any night of the week anyone of us can watch programs which show us the wonderful work our front line Bobbies do everyday. The dialogue ensures that we are left in no doubt as to the real quality of Bobbies on the beat. Wretch if you feel that these programs don't quite match reality.

None the less in virtually every single one we are treated to the average very inebriated Joe Public voicing his displeasure at being interrupted by the Bobbies in very colourful language. The response is always; do not use foul language because if you continue I will arrest you and you will be charged with a public order offense and fined.

Andrew Mitchell, as well as being an MP, is also a Joe Public. As a higher profile Joe Public he is required to be better behaved than ordinary Joe Public.

The question is; if Mitchell used abusive language to this policewoman, was he warned? If he continued why was he not arrested and charged like every other member of the public. If not, then why not? No one is above the law.

Most people of good background and education that I have ever encountered has been polite and very good mannered. Only people who think they are from good backgrounds but are really jumped up, self opinionated turds behave in this way.

24 September 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Honour seems to have left the cabinet these days. Mr.Mitchell comes across today as a dissembler with a good patter. Humpty Dumpty would be proud of him!

David Cameron needs to face facts. And those are that the country believes, rightly or wrongly, that he and his team are elitist toffs. Public school boys do OK in other fields, such as winning Emmy awards, and nobody much cares about their background. But somehow Cameron has got people upset.

And it does no good trying to blacken the name of a police officer who says he distinctly heard Mitchell shouting the words "plebs" and "morons". I have not heard anyone use the word pleb for years. I thought it was obsolete. Thanks Mitchell, you've just resurrected it!

24 September 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Tiger O

"The question is; if Mitchell used abusive language to this policewoman, was he warned? If he continued why was he not arrested and charged like every other member of the public. If not, then why not? No one is above the law." Precisely!!!

"Most people of good background and education that I have ever encountered has been polite and very good mannered. Only people who think they are from good backgrounds but are really jumped up, self opinionated turds behave in this way." Or the feral scumbags who believe the judiciary will protect them from their disgusting behaviour such as seen with the hand wringing from the left after last summer's rioting..

Blofeld

ps

Excellent comments.

24 September 2012 at 12:40  
Blogger Berserker said...

I don't hink Tingley is wrongy tirely and apoloogetics to oldy comedio now gono Stanley Unwin.

Deep joy and thorkus for great laugh'n tittery. O yes.

But the new James Joyce, he ain't and the wholo busy lizzy bout Mitchell is stormey in cuppo tee pee!

24 September 2012 at 12:41  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Just watched Daily Politics conference special with the Lib Dems.

After watching Jeremy Blah Blah Brownenoser and some silly old f*rt talking guff about 'we need to change the message' (how do you change the message that someone has cancer and make it not so?), I am more convinced than ever that we will end up with no minority government next time let alone a majority. Utterly depressing!

Blofeld

24 September 2012 at 12:58  
Blogger JimS said...

If Mitchell is sacked then that is another victory for the 'intolerant of intolerance' activists, another notch on the ratchet where no one dares say what they think in case it will be picked up by the professional offence seekers.

24 September 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Blofeld:

(With apologies to Edward Lear, and G. Tingey - forever my muse)

There once was a fellow called Tingey,
Whose flat was incredibly dingy,
When the police came to call,
He took a great fall,
And now he's a little un-hingey.

24 September 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger Disgusted Grange over Sands said...

Lets get down to basics - opening gate would have compromised security of Downing Street.

Was Mitchell acting to help terrorists to mount raid?

How would officers know?

To make issue shows lack of security training! by those in charge.

Some years ago MP's left Chamber when they could have been contamined by powder dropped on them - drill is to stand fast until possible contamination declared safe.

Rest is just fluff clearly the clown should resign or officers disciplined for making false report

What a mess we are in!

24 September 2012 at 13:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

AIB @ 24 September 2012 13:18

The Poorio Chappio.

*Guffaws and Chuckles*

Blofeld

24 September 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger John Chater said...

Is Mitchell the villain he is being made out to be?

I used to work in an office with him and he was always polite and cheerful, not at all aloof (and I'm far more the plebeian than aristocrat, in case I should be confused with Lord Lavenson, who definitely knows his Bordeaux from his Burgundy).

I remember once, in the Houses of Parliament, being shouted at by a policeman because I has forgotten to take my hat off (I was in a hurry carrying papers to a minister who was at the box and forgot that I was wearing it). To be honest, I could have told him where to go, as his manner was unnecessarily abrupt. Not excusing anything that Mr Mitchell may have said, but we all have our off days and most of us, I suspect, would think it unfair if we were sacked for one regrettable outburst.

We also do not know what was said. Is it really the case that he, as a politician, must be a liar, but a policeman can never tell a lie? Hmmm, have to think about that one.




24 September 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger The Lakelander said...

The one thing that makes me think the word "Pleb" could have been used is that if the policeman or woman wanted to lie about what was said to them by Andrew Mitchell, "Pleb" would not be very high on the list of insults they would quote.

And most policemen and women have heard them all in their time.

24 September 2012 at 13:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

AIB

To Tingey all faith was deploring.
His opinions about life were quite boring.
You'd find his reasoning crude
And terribly rude
And you might fall asleep, and start snoring.

Ernsto Stravroo Blofeldo

24 September 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

What a vivido descriptio of a bothedo beheadingo, Your Graceo.

Makes one shudder and appreciate Dr Guillotin's service to mankind. Must have seen a few chop-ups in your time? Perhaps as an urchin in the shadow of the Tower, hanging off some scaffolding, snacking on mystery-meat pies and wolf nipple chips.

You need to have a word with Mr Tingey about his gratuitous use of o's methinks, Your Grace. Might lead to riots on this thread.

24 September 2012 at 14:31  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, Messrs Blofeld and Belfast rise to amuse us with the old AABBA rhyme scheme. Chuckles, snickers and chortles, gents.

24 September 2012 at 14:50  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Mitchell seems to believe we still live in a feudal society and he sits high on the ladder. Time to disavow that BS.

It is they who serve us. And they better not forget it.

24 September 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Avi

Forgive the gentle ribbing of Tingey but he comes on here all fairy god damnit bluster but never answers the questions put to him.

He refuses to answer which came first; DNA or Protein or ATP Synthase or RNA... and we are supposed to take his thread filibustering seriously.

Ernsty

24 September 2012 at 15:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Alright, alright, a pale attempt by me, if you all insist:

Poor Mr Tingey-o,
Blogging whilst sprawled on his patio.

But he got all excited,
His passions ignited,
And tangled his keyboard with his mustachio.

24 September 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I've noticed, Mr Bloeld, and perhaps he can kick that can down the road a bit by claiming panspermia.

24 September 2012 at 15:09  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Erratum. That would be Blofeld...Bloeld sounds like an Afrikaaner name of a Boor.

24 September 2012 at 15:13  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

All these "o"s make me feel like I've wandered into a Kenneth Williams appreciation society.

Alright me dearios?

24 September 2012 at 15:23  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Our Belfast Boy
is quite jolly these days
perhaps he has joined the ranks
of Drs Strangelove and Craze

This august body will accept
him with enthusiastic applause
Unless he start whining and
gnashing his jaws

24 September 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What’s this all about ! A party official, a member of the government no less, has an off moment.

He does a demanding job, and he’s only flesh and blood you know !

But he’s also a right winger, so the blasted liberals want to shaft him…

The man has apologised. The only thing he hasn’t done is kiss the damn gate.

It’s over, done with. Leave the man in peace !



24 September 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

On yer bike

24 September 2012 at 19:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Meanwhile in a somewhat hotter country…

Peace be upon you brother, but you cannot ride that out through there. Push it through here.

Go f___ your camel, infidel !

{Bang}

{Bang, Bang}

{Bang,Bang,Bang}

{BOOM!}

24 September 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger IanCad said...

A small point, perhaps; but I have always thought the word was "Plebe" not "Pleb."

24 September 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Having worked, in my time, in market research, I am quite aware of the flaws in the ABCDE classification system. But it is what there is. And if offers Labour to seize the present opportunity to demand that we plebeians be guaranteed representation on public bodies. That is vastly more important than anything to do with sex, or ethnicity, or disability.

NHS Trust Boards, school governing bodies, Police Authorities, and so on: when it comes to the appointed members rather than councillors or senior staff, the number should always be three or divisible by three, with equal numbers, by law, from the local AB, C1C2, and DE populations. Since juries are already divisible by three, and since there are three on a Bench of Magistrates, the same principle ought also to apply. Again, by law.

Where necessary, which is everywhere where it is possible, there should also be guaranteed parity within each of the three class categories, at least in public body appointments, between rural and urban areas, or between rural and suburban areas, or between suburban and urban areas, or among all three, as the locality necessitates. For that matter, there are places such as here in the old Derwentside District, still used for some purposes, with countryside and towns, but no suburbs. Again, there must be balance and parity: an equal number in each class from each of the rural and the urban areas.

Ed Miliband, and even more so Jon Cruddas and Maurice Glasman, over to you.

24 September 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

The man should be sacked and prosecuted for an act of public hooligaism!

A gentleman does not treat public servants as if they were one's own personal footmen. A true gentleman would not even treat his own servants this way. One of the first rules of cricket is to respect the umpire and officials regardless of their 'rank' in society.

In Russia he would be facing a sentence of up to 7 years for disprepecting the institutions of society, motivated by snobbery and and a sense of self-importance.

Give him 200 hours of 'Community Payback' and have him polish the boots and buttons of those f*cking plebes in uniformed who risk their lives to protect him and his way of life.

John Prescott, on the other hand, did what every red blooded male from his background would do if assaulted in public. He acted, like Mitchell, instinctively. He was true to his class and his way of life.

24 September 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. You are taking the piss of course ?

24 September 2012 at 21:20  
Blogger len said...

Any bloke who rides a bike with a huge basket on the front should certainly be stopped by the police if only to take a look inside.

Wonder what he keeps in it?

24 September 2012 at 21:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector said ...

"Dodo. You are taking the piss of course?"

You're an Edwardian gentleman, what do you think?

It just wasn't cricket, my man.

24 September 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Doingoff topicfor a moment, I've been giving this 'cat controversy' careful thought.

My conclusion is that cats are the frontline assault troops used by women against men. It's purpose is to weaken the male gender. Just look at the sentimental nonsense being posted by male 'cat lovers'! Pope Benedict's compassion for cats is not the same as the effiminate fawning we have been subject to on here.

It is surely another sign the 'end times' are drawing near?

24 September 2012 at 21:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Doingoff topicfor

Should be:

"Going off topic for ..."

(Bl**dy keyboard!)

24 September 2012 at 21:40  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace,

In the old days the father or second of this Police Lady would have demanded satisfaction from this so called gentleman. I say so called, because again in the olden days a member of Her Majesty’ s government would automatically be considered a gentleman, even though he may not be a gentleman. Is Mr Mitchell a gentleman?

Personally I find it the welcome of one's household which defines one as a gentleman as well as chivalry towards ladies, a sense of honour, a desire for broad knowledge based upon faith, reason and tradition, as well as being rooted in the thoroughness of the natural sciences; a man who knows how to command authority, without the need to make use of his apparent status or which University he attended, a man who uses his good fortune and power for the better .

I like wit, good company, tolerance and gaiety [old fashioned meaning], regardless of their religion, social status or skin colour; there is nothing like a funny story, a good anecdote, or a tidbit of gossip (properly presented) and of course I think we can do without snobs, prudes, prigs and bores. Indeed that is the rule of my own club.

Indeed to quote one of the famous Southern Gentleman and generals of all time Robert E Lee :

“The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.

The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly — the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light.

The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past.

A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.”

24 September 2012 at 21:41  
Blogger len said...

Dodo

Your aversion to cats seem to be related a denial of your feminine side perhaps even a fear of it?.
Afraid of what might be released if you lost your grip.

Just wondering like?.

24 September 2012 at 22:07  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

To be fair to Cameron, how can he possibly be expected to know who is the bigger liar? A politician or a police officer?

24 September 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

No len, its actually an aversion to people like you who collect cats and assign them human attributes.

24 September 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The cat is women’s aid to emasculate men. “Why can’t you be more like the cat” is the shrill cry of todays women. And there is worse, the cat in many instances is beholden as a substitute for a human baby. Not fulfilling her natural role and using this bastard substitute is the reason so many women have become inwardly insane. It is particularly noticeable with women in politics, don’t you find ?

Len. Only a fruit talks about his feminine side. A 'bender' as they are known...

24 September 2012 at 22:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Wise words, my friend.

One only has to recall George Galloway's pathetic emasculation playing the part as a cat to appreciate the wisdom of your words.

24 September 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Lord Lavendon

Have you stumbled across the webblog 'The Art of Manliness'? I think you might enjoy it. It is American so must allow for this.

Just Goggle: artofmanliness.com

24 September 2012 at 23:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Lord Lavendon asks: Is Mr Mitchell a gentleman?

Ha! He's not even a Mister! I didn't know that the constable in question is a lady. Lucky this pedestrian Mitchell cad is to shame himself before a calm, resonsible officer of the law rather than, let's say, a tired trucker out of ciggies and overdue for his cup of coffee.

25 September 2012 at 00:19  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I don't like the way this cat conversation is going, boys. Kitties are our betters, our masters and leaders. We honour them with songs of praise:

Cat Owner's Prayer
Anonymous


Because I'm only human,
It's sometimes hard to be
The wise, all-knowing creature
That my cat expects of me.

And so I pray for special help
To somehow understand
The subtle implications
Of each proud meowed command.

Oh, let me not forget that chairs
Were put on earth to shred;
And what I like to call a lap
Is actually a bed.

I know it's really lots to ask
But please, oh please, take pity;
And though I'm only human,
Make me worthy of my kitty!

25 September 2012 at 00:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

You're not helping your cause. Really, you're not!

"Men say they like cats but when women aren't watching men kick cats."

It took an hour to bury the cat. Damn thing kept moving.

25 September 2012 at 01:11  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

You're trying my patience, Dodo. Remember that you're the last survivor of an extinct avian species. I wonder if cats had anything to do with that. And the Inspector? Must have been ditched once for frightening his lady friend's cat, I'm betting. Probably right after spending a hefty lump of his salarium on a posh dinner too. Bitter, bitter men....

25 September 2012 at 01:22  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Avi is right . You are a very bitter unhappy man Dodo. The cruelty you espouse by burying a cat alive is not only criminal but anti Christian and would be abhorrent to decent people.
You should seek some form of counselling (apart from yourself)

25 September 2012 at 03:24  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Independent counselling I mean.

Physician heal thyself before thou can cure others

25 September 2012 at 03:36  
Blogger len said...

Inspector,
You hate what you see inside yourself?.

25 September 2012 at 07:15  
Blogger len said...

Dodo You have finally 'come out'!.

You are a mean bitter twisted man who hides behind a religious front.Not any more.

25 September 2012 at 07:16  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo:

It is my experience that people who don't like cats fall into two Categories;

The sick

The fearful.

25 September 2012 at 08:12  
Blogger len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 September 2012 at 08:13  
Blogger len said...

Perhaps if Andrew Mitchell had been totally honest about this encounter with the police office the public would have forgiven him.
But the attempt to throw the blame onto the police officer(if it is so)is cowardly.
If this Government wants to retain any credibility with the 'plebs' then the axe must fall!.

25 September 2012 at 08:17  
Blogger IanCad said...

YG,

The man seems something of a twerp, but, as Cameron appointed him, that is to be expected.

A high-ranking member of the government should be able to control his tongue.

However, why he was restricted from going through the main gate, as was his choosing, is unclear. Also, what he actually said remains doubtful.

The police should not be granted unlimited power to control members of HMG.

25 September 2012 at 08:57  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...


In respect of the cats thread, perhaps the ancient Egyptians got the balance correct- the cat was considered to be the guardian of the underworld, whereas the journey to the underworld itself(along with embaling and being a Lord of the Underworld) was done by a chap who was a half dog/ half man like god called Anubis. Looks like the Egyptians had the Anglican via media, long before it was thought up in the west (a little chortle).

25 September 2012 at 10:22  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah,Dodo

No as it happens. But I did glance at it yesterday and was intrigued, so good show.

25 September 2012 at 10:23  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 September 2012 at 10:32  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Avi,

Indeed. If Mitchell knew anything, he would know not to call some-one an "f'ing" Plebeian.

I am sure that by the definition I gave above that you, yourself are, in fact, a gentleman of high standing and indeed by the grasp of information you have on various topics here you clearly have a first class intellect.

I trust that you obtained your coffee and cigarettes in the end. I alternate between pipe tobacco (some of the family on my wife's side, have been known to chew and spit tobacco leaf -uhhh!) and fine Cuban Cigars. Although I have been known to smoke Marlbro Lights in the past (good Virginian tobacco).

25 September 2012 at 10:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

Avi,


Thanks so much for posting The Cat Owner's Prayer."

On a prior thread you said one of your cats was a calico.
One of our three is also a calico. Much different from the others.
We all of flew over together last year from the US.
They've all settled in nicely.
With the weather getting chilly we are enjoying "Three Cat Nights."

25 September 2012 at 10:39  
Blogger Jon said...

I'm afraid I'm confused, Your Grace.

Is it that Mitchell should resign because his actions confirm an underlying narrative about the "poshness" of the government?

Or is it that he should resign because he has lied?

Or is it that he should resign for insulting and make rash threats against a woman police officer, thereby showing a disregard for common decency?

If this first one is a legitimate reason for dismissal, I'm afraid the Coalition is going to have trouble finding an MP able to sit on the front benches, losing it's leader, deputy leader and chancellor at the least. For that matter, Labour would lose its fearless leader, to retire to his inherited mansion in North London.

Numbers two and three merely confirm what we all suspected about most politicians anyway - especially in the wake of the expenses scandal - that they consider themselves above the law. For this, much of both houses should resign, but I see no unique pressure on Mitchell aside from his clear idiocy to have been caught so publicly by one whose version of events is likely to be more believable than his.

25 September 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Jon:

Hit the nail on the head there.

25 September 2012 at 12:50  
Blogger The Justice of the Peace said...

What is also disturbing is the refusal of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to hold an inquiry into the substantive issue whilst concerning himself only with how the notebooks` contents reached The Sun

25 September 2012 at 14:53  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

The crime of course is one of getting caught. Public school twits of course regularly behave in a similar manner - surprised that he didn't call the police man a chav which is the insult of choice for the lower orders at present.

Rather ironic that Mitchell is an old boy of Flashman's alma mater.

25 September 2012 at 15:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said...

"You're trying my patience, Dodo. Remember that you're the last survivor of an extinct avian species. I wonder if cats had anything to do with that ... Bitter, bitter men...."

Patience? Do you possess this?

You do know the Hebrew story of the creation of cats?

Apparently, before the flood there were no cats. But there was a pair of lions and there was fear that the shaggy beasts would attack the other animals. So Noah prayed to God for a solution. God answered by putting the lions into a deep sleep. Suddenly the Ark was overrun with mice. Noah prayed for a solution. God suggested that Noah whack the sleeping male lion on the nose. He did, the lion sneezed, and out of his nostrils came the first pair of cats. The rodent problem was solved.

Second rate creatures and a poor substitute for the Lion. It was 'Christian' rats that resulted in the demise of my species - the cats did nothing.

It is known that the Jews distrusted everything associated with the Egyptians. The fact that the Egyptians held cats in such high esteem (they picked this up in Babylon) encouraged the occupied population to despise them almost as much as they hated the occupiers.

Are they mentioned in the Talmud?

Cressida de Nova said...

"The cruelty you espouse by burying a cat alive is not only criminal but anti Christian and would be abhorrent to decent people."

Not at all, it is a long standing Christian practice.

In the Middle Ages the true nature of the cat was understood. Cats - especially black cats - were KNOWN TO BE mystical spirits of evil. Witches wereaided by cats in their mischief-making. Sometimes a witch took on the shape of a cat to slink around unnoticed. Cats were deliberately hunted down and killed. Sometimes cats were formally executed. The cat was accussed of a multitude of sins, including the encouragement of humans to do wrong. And if the cat's owner was convicted of witchcraft and condemned to die, there was a good chance that he/she would be accompanied to the gallows by the cat.

So you see, I was following tradition!

You should seek some form of counselling

Yes, maybe. I am haunted by the look in the creatures eyes as I buried it - it did blink though!

The Vatican has now informed me it was wrong to bury the cat alive - especially the part where I tied its claws together.

I have asked to buy an indulgance but, alas, cannot afford the going rate. The sin has been confessed and forgiven but a full indulgance for the temporal punishment due for it in purgatory will require many acts of good works and prayers in this life. The Stations of the Cross have been recommended.

len said...

Dodo You have finally 'come out'!.
You are a mean bitter twisted man who hides behind a religious front.Not any more.


Such passion from a wimp! You carry on playing with your pussy, there's a good chap.

For an adherent of 'sola scriptura' you have a strange take on this. Where in scripture is the cat mentioned?

I have had a private revelation that they come directly from Babylon!

There is a little known Christian tradition. Apparently the devil, in one of his periodic attempts at creation, was trying to make a man. As usual he failed miserably and, through his bungling, ended up creating the first cat. The poor creature was hairless. One cold day St. Peter (you know, the first Pope) happened upon the unfortunate animal shivering in a doorway. He had pity on it and gave it a fur coat. This act of kindness is why Benedict offers comfort to strays in the Vatican. This was not an infallible act, however, and is not binding doctrine on Catholics.

IanCad said...

"It is my experience that people who don't like cats fall into two Categories;
The sick
The fearful."


Strangely, my experience is quite the opposite.

Actually,I do rather 'like' cats. Thet taste a bit like chicken but there's not much meat on them. So best barbequed with plenty of sauce.

25 September 2012 at 16:26  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Rosemary West is looking for someone exactly like you to be her pen pal. You can exchange ideas on effective excruciating torture.

25 September 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cat a l'Orange Recipe

2 Cat Legs or Breasts (with Skin left on)
Feshly ground Salt & Pepper
1 oz (25g) Butter

For the Orange Sauce...
1 Large Orange
4 fluid oz (100ml) French Red Wine
4 fluid oz (100ml) Fresh Orange Juice
2 fluid oz (50ml) Duck or Chicken Stock
1 Tablespoon of Honey or Brown Sugar

Tomorrow. Ginger cat with ginger

Yum !





25 September 2012 at 18:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

”That was delicious mum, any more ?”

“Sorry son, there’s only 4 legs on a cat.”





25 September 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Correction
You can exchange ideas on how to implement effective ezxcruciating torture.
You know Dodo I knew you had flaws but I had no idea you were this twisted and cruel. You certainly had me fooled. It is binding on you as a Catholic not to inflict pain gratuitously. You are the sort that make people hate Catholics.Or is that your intention?

25 September 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Cressida old thing. An attack of the vapours, what !

Now, how about some housework out of you...



25 September 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

You don't get to write to Rosemary, Inspector ,as we all know you spend most of your time muzzled in a straight jacket with a security guard.

25 September 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

A friend of mine (he has since died) once told me how to kill a cat. You place a small piece of meat in the back of a soup can. The cat will stick his head into the can but will not be able to withdraw it. The cat will suffocate as it futily struggles to extricate itself. This isn't funny. It's vicious and cruel. It's nothing but mindless savagery imposed on a helpless animal that for the sake of human amusement - an animal that at least has the good sense to obey its Creator - something man cannot say.

I understand what you were doing, Dodo. But it isn't funny. A cat is first a companion animal, and so has earned a little more respect then that. They trust us and look to us for care and support. We have an obligation to them that makes your attempts at humor miss the mark by a wide margin.

Did I just agree with Cressida? I am sure she is re-evaluating her position as a result. I shall re-double my efforts to avoid such an unfortunate occurance in the future.

carl

25 September 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Calm down Cressida. It’s merely some jolly. But you must admit you’d be hard pushed to find any of God’s creatures that will play with it’s victim before smiling as it kills it...





25 September 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Strewth ! Carl’s cat has posted. Does it matter what type of meat you use, creature of Baal ? {...AHEM...}



25 September 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ian Cad, I'm guessing your calico adjusted to its new environment faster than the others. A strange, garrulous breed that one. Ours was always in a great mood and was such a social butterfly, that she enjoyed visits even to the vet's, where she greeted personnel and visitors alike with tail high up in the air, loud meows and purring. Unlike most cats who avoid small children, she would play chasing games with ours and allow herself to be dressed in...tutus and tiaras..... Pink tutus, with frilly stuff. Hear that, Dodo and Inspector?

I note that we, the cat people, are coming out of the woodwork as a significant moral majority on this blog, but that thedastardly aliurophobes (and aliurophagi as well), quaking with superstitious terror and writhing in their putrefying hatred, are giving their best. I wonder if His Grace will declare his stand or at least grace us with a hint on this very polarizing issue.

You flatter me, Lord Lavendon, but on the question of gentlemanly status, standing and intellect, to which I shall of course eagerly bop my head up and down in agreement with you, it would be best not to seek supplementary evidence or anecdotal confirmation from my wife. 'Nuff said on that.

I see that your honourable family has missed snuff tobacco, M'Lord. Not a favourite of mine, but I have availed my self of it in the past on Yom Kippur in my younger days when I smoked more than I do now. Chewing tobacco ...not pretty to watch, but surprisingly pleasant and effective... was for the Sabbaths.

Just as I keep to a personal rule of 24 hrs of alcohol abstinence before getting behind the wheel of my rig (air pilots do 12 and as little as 8!), I avoid smoking in my cabin altogether, whether driving or resting. As much as I enjoy an American brand, and lately a light but flavourful pipe tobacco blend conconcted by my tobacconist, I can't rest properly or fall asleep with the acrid smell of smoke. Also, with periods of tension, tiredness or boredom on the roads, and no spouse about to catch me at my private vice and provide negative reinforcement in uncomfortable frequencies and decibel levels, there would be no end to the light-ups, as is the case among many of my fellow knights of the freeways.

Amusing anecdotes, Dodo, never heard of them, though. I imagine every community has their own and most are borrowed and altered from neighbouring nations. I recall cats being mentioned here and there in the Gemarrah, but nothing substantial, lengthy or profound...something about cats being an example of modesty. I don't think the rabbinic source which came up with this off-hand comparison had witnessed a cat with her legs splayed, head down, eyes closed in concentration, whilst licking her unmentionables with exemplary vigour and dedication.

25 September 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, you had a good thing going there with the KKK bit the and cat-hater reputation and you're ruining it. The longing of respectability and social acceptance with old age?

Anyway, back in Europe, in the late 60s, it was not uncommon for kids to catch and torture cats, dogs, mice or frogs and parents saw this as "natural." I was glad to find that in Canada not only will joking about such stuff get you a look of sheer horror and disgust, but a kid discovered mistreating a cat or an animal can look forward to years of psychotherapy and monitoring imposed by child welfare agencies.

Alright, enough of this tomfoolery; I can hear the family pulling up in the driveway. Time to get ready for Yom Kippur. A shanah tovah and an easy fast to whom it may apply.

25 September 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi
Cats are mentioned in the Talmud. It refers to them as an example of modesty for the way they cover their droppings.

Rabbi Yochanan: "If the Torah had not been given, we could have learned modesty from the cat, honest labor from the ant, marital fidelity from the dove, and good manners from the rooster."(Talmud: Eruvin 100b)

Cressida
You have an extremely vivid imagination and you are also very quick to pass judgement.

Carl
Once again you remind me just how dour Calvinists are. This from a man who would have no compunction whatsoever in dropping a nuclear weapon on a whole nation, killing innocent and guilty alike, to teach the world a lesson! (And you were jesting!)

Still, continuing with the Jewish theme, Shimon Ben Azzai used to say: "Do not disparage any person and do not reject anything, for there is no man who does not have his hour, and nothing that does not have its place."
(Mishna: Avos 4:3).

Commentary: "Everything has its place in the world. Even creatures that seem to be ugly, hateful, painful, and harmful, such as insects, snakes, and scorpions, were created by God and serve His will."
(Tiferes Yisrael, ad loc.)

Presumably this includes sensitive poets and over serious Calvinists.

25 September 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi's cat would allow herself to be dressed in "tutus and tiaras..... Pink tutus, with frilly stuff".

I say, there's some ideas in there for DanJ0's and len's pussies. However, I doubt carl agrees with such indecent treatment.

25 September 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Avi,


I've never really been one for snuff. Prefer cognac ( of at least a Vieille Réserve grade) and a cigar myself (Romeo y Julieta).

PS -Tzom Kal.

25 September 2012 at 21:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

you had a good thing going there with the KKK bit the and cat-hater reputation and you're ruining it. The longing of respectability and social acceptance with old age?


Nah. It was probably triggered by the fact that I came across a dead cat on my way to work this morning. Anytime I see such a thing I can't help but imagine some seven-year old girl sitting on her porch watching anxiously for her friend who isn't coming home. Think of it as a moment of weakness. I will now go back to complaining about the fact that the house cat deigns to breathe my air.

carl

25 September 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

This from a man who would have no compunction whatsoever in dropping a nuclear weapon on a whole nation, killing innocent and guilty alike, to teach the world a lesson!

Yes, that's right. If some nation (*cough* Iran *cough*) decides to annihilate Israel, then said nation should die. I said that. I stand by it. And let the nations fear.

carl

25 September 2012 at 23:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

South Korea is a more likely future target, wouldn't you say? Iran's capacity to actually succeed in delivering a bomb anywhere is next to zero at present. And you really think America and Israel will allow this situation to change?

I take it you would support the bombing and annilhilation of North Korea and hang the international consequences?

Or is it not so much a matter of principle and more that American interests are at stake in the Middle?

25 September 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

South Korea is a more likely future target, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't. The most likely place a nuclear weapon could be used is in the Middle East by an Arab power against Israel. NK is closely packed in with China and the US. No one has any interest in NK lobing nukes. It is far too dangerous. NK has nukes solely to secure itself from military invasion.

I take it you would support the bombing and annilhilation of North Korea and hang the international consequences?

The level of response is determined by the magnitude of the destruction imposed. But see above. NK would involve a possible war with China. No one wants that. However, the problem I originally presented was a response to the intentional annihilation of Israel. If I was given authority, I would not personally stand by and let that happen without imposing a parallel consequence on the attacking nation.

Or is it not so much a matter of principle and more that American interests are at stake in the Middle?

It's more about our responsibility to American allies, and the special responsibility the West should feel for Israel.

carl

25 September 2012 at 23:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Carl

"It's more about our responsibility to American allies, and the special responsibility the West should feel for Israel.

Now you've shifted your position. Previously you've maintained a nation should only go to war if it is in its own interests. What's this about a "special responsibility" of the West? And is there a bi-lateral treaty between Israel and USA that makes them "allies"?

"NK is closely packed in with China and the US. No one has any interest in NK lobing nukes. It is far too dangerous. NK has nukes solely to secure itself from military invasion."

Military invasion from whom? So an independant nation has the right to arm itself with nuclear weapons for self0-defence? All of them, or just some? Only those we feel a "special responsibility" towards, maybe? Afterall, you grant no authority to the UN in these matters.

"The level of response is determined by the magnitude of the destruction imposed. But see above. NK would involve a possible war with China. No one wants that."

Whereas annililating Iran would not involve a reaction from China or Russia? You think not? So, its realpoliks afterall and not principles.

"However, the problem I originally presented was a response to the intentional annihilation of Israel. If I was given authority, I would not personally stand by and let that happen without imposing a parallel consequence on the attacking nation."

Israel in unlikely to be annililated by Iran. If Jerusalem or another city was TO BE bombed a considered response should be made, I agree. But randomly bombing an entire nation because of the actions of its fanatical leaders? What you're suggesting strikes me as a touch meglomanical. By this standard, some 15 million Germans (plus) should have been executed after WW2 for the industrialised murder of Jews and others - to teach the world a lesson.

26 September 2012 at 01:18  
Blogger Tory Boy said...

Whilst in no way wishing to excuse the conduct of Mr. Mitchell, the one unasked question in this affair is why, after apparently being able to cycle through the main gates of Downing Street on previous occasions, did the police suddenly refuse to open them and insist on his going through the pedestrian gate?

26 September 2012 at 10:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Now you've shifted your position.

No, I haven't.

Previously you've maintained a nation should only go to war if it is in its own interests.

The US gives guarantees to it's allies in its own nation interest and it is in the interest of the US to honor those guarantees. Think Britain and Chechoslovakia.

What's this about a "special responsibility" of the West?

The US has special relationships with a few countries. The UK is one. Israel is another. Those countries can expect support above and beyond from the US because of past events and common heritage. We will do more for those countries that we would others. The "special responsibility" reference is obvious. It was western influence that established Israel and western support that sustains it. That responsibility procedes from the Shoah. The US feels it. Europe should feel it. nations collect responsibilities and must fulfill them.

And is there a bi-lateral treaty between Israel and USA that makes them "allies"?

Don't make ridiculous arguments. France was not a part of NATO. Was France therefore not an ally? Do you think it would have sat out a Soviet invasion of Europe? Israel is one of the few countries in the world for which the US would go to war without any significant internal opposition.

Military invasion from whom?

The US, obviously. I didn't say it was a rational fear.

Nuclear weapons raise the risk of war. Little nations acquire them to secure their existance from powerful nations. If the US decided to invade Korea, it would have to calculate the risk that NK would burn (say) Tokyo. That's why NK has nukes.

Your NK analogy is extraordinarily bad. In the first place, the NKs would not attack SK to annihilate it. They would want to conquer and rule it. The Koreans aren't looking to destroy the Korean people. In addition, an attack on SK immediately becomes an attack on the US. There are US forces in SK for just this reason. NK isn't going to start a nuclear war with the US. And third is the whole China connection. None of this parallels Israel and (say) Iran.

So an independant nation has the right to arm itself with nuclear weapons for self-defence?

Nations don't have 'rights.' They do what they have the power to do. It is in the US interest to prevent certain nations from acquiring these weapons, so we seek to do so. It has nothing to do with fairness or rights.

Afterall, you grant no authority to the UN in these matters.

The UN has no authority in the first place, so how could it receive the grant?

Whereas annihilating Iran would not involve a reaction from China or Russia?

Not a military response, no.

You think not? So, its realpoliks afterall and not principles.

You seem to think these are different things. They aren't. The principle is this. "If you annihilate an ally of the US, we will annihilate you in return." Can that principle be universally apllied? No, it can't. The US is not the guarantor of every nation in the world. Nor is it capable of imposing its will on every nation. That doesn't mean we ingore the destruction of Israel.

Israel in unlikely to be annihilated by Iran.

I agree. But mostly because of the certainty of the response. It is the fear of annihilation in return that provides the best protection for Israel from such an attack.

If Jerusalem or another city was TO BE bombed a considered response should be made, I agree.

The case study presumes that has already happened. So what the hell is a "considered response?" How do you account for the destruction of an entire nation? You didn't answer that question before. You won't answer it now either.

carl

26 September 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Carl Jacobs said :

"The US has special relationships with a few countries. The UK is one. Israel is another. Those countries can expect support above and beyond from the US because of past events and common heritage."

Amen to that.

26 September 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Carl

"Nations don't have 'rights.' They do what they have the power to do. It is in the US interest to prevent certain nations from acquiring these weapons, so we seek to do so. It has nothing to do with fairness or rights."

Or morality? So, basically its the law of the jungle? If you're strong enough to impose your will and promote your own interests, then that's acceptable.

"The US gives guarantees to it's allies in its own nation interest and it is in the interest of the US to honor those guarantees."

The interest in the Middle East being economic and the preservation of a liberal-democratic state in a globally strategically significant location?

"Those countries (Britain and Israel) can expect support above and beyond from the US because of past events and common heritage. We will do more for those countries that we would others."

Subject, of course, to this remaining in the US's interest in Europe and in the Middle East. The Falkland Islands presumably do not meeting this criteria.

"The "special responsibility" reference is obvious. It was western influence that established Israel and western support that sustains it. That responsibility procedes from the Shoah. The US feels it. Europe should feel it. nations collect responsibilities and must fulfill them."

Both Britain and US were committed to the establishment of an Israeli State in Palestine before the Holocaust.

(Iran's fear of invasion from)... "The US, obviously. I didn't say it was a rational fear."

You think? I suspect its more likely it fears this from it Arab neighbours or wants a bomb for reasons of prestige.

"The principle is this. "If you annihilate an ally of the US, we will annihilate you in return." Can that principle be universally apllied? No, it can't. The US is not the guarantor of every nation in the world. Nor is it capable of imposing its will on every nation. That doesn't mean we ingore the destruction of Israel."

Fair enough and thankfully, if your views are representative, you are not capable of imposing your will on every nation - in your own national interest.


(Israel in unlikely to be annihilated by Iran.) "I agree. But mostly because of the certainty of the response. It is the fear of annihilation in return that provides the best protection for Israel from such an attack.2

Maybe. However, some argue the nation is ruled by irrational, religious fanatics seeking confrontation to trigger the return of the Mahdi.

"The case study presumes that has already happened. So what the hell is a "considered response?" How do you account for the destruction of an entire nation? You didn't answer that question before. You won't answer it now either."

Firstly, I don't accept Israel would or could be annililated by strikes from Iran. They are too well prepared and protected. Seconly, if it were, you have not answered my question about collective responsibility. Should a whole nation be destroyed because of the actions of its leaders?

A "considered response" would be conventional - to destroy all religious, government and military infrastructure whilst minimising civilian deaths, and then invasion to bring those responsible to face the consequences.

"Israel is one of the few countries in the world for which the US would go to war without any significant internal opposition."

Sonot resistance there then as there was in joining the First and Second World Wars.

26 September 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Another way of looking at it, is that Israel apparently has lots of home made nukes (like the French), so if Obama continues his appeasement line, then Israel will act in her own self defence and interest, which would be a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities via "conventional" methods. I think that Obama would rather allow a nuclear armed Iran as a form of cold war "MAD", but the flaw with this is the fact that Iran is, um mad quite literally.

I am sure if North Korea ever became extremely, extreme, then Japan would enter the fray and out build North Korea, ship for ship, aircraft for aircraft and nuke for nuke (being the globe's third largest economy). Although it seems that China and Japan would rather go to war over a bunch of uninhabited islands than North Korea.

26 September 2012 at 23:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Hannah

I tend to agree with you about the regime in Iran.

America is following its own agenda and seeking to promote its own interests. If Israel truely believes Iran poses a threat through the development of a nuclear bomb, as opposed to developing nuclear power for energy purposes, then it should do what it believes it needs to do - openly.

However, and here's the dilemma, if it acts in the way you suggest it could unite the Islamist extremists against Israel. The fractions in Islam might then become even more apparent and who knows how this might unfold.

The 'cloak' of UN and/or action by the USA to some extent mitigates against this.

26 September 2012 at 23:39  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

I think part of the problem is that if Israel were left alone to destroy Iran's facilities, it would be something of a miracle to achieve.

Hence why Israel needs American support, diplomatic and technological, but Obama would rather snub the PM of Israel at the UN.

If Israel is to survive, she will carry out a preemptive strike, between now and 6th November (American election), because the Israelis worry that a re-elected Obama won't care or have a reason to support Israel.

If Israel strikes now then Obama will be forced to show his hand and be pressured by Mitt Romney to act. And there is the coalition Armada in the Gulf, which could be used to stop Iran's WMD.

Don't forget the whole purpose of Israel is to be a safe refuge for the Jewish people and to make sure that 'never again' will the fate of Jews be in the hands of others... although it seems that in some ways that Israel's fate is indeed in the hands of the worst President of the US since Lincoln- Madonna has come out to support "a black Muslim in the White House.... "

Yes there will be consequences- Iran will launch rockets into Israel via her terrorist organisations. There could be a war on several fronts, especially if Hamas gets its hands on Syria's Chemical weapons...

But what else can Israel do? Allow a regime run by fundamentalist genocidal maniacs, who wish to wipe the Jews from the face of the earth, to develop nukes which could turn Tel Aviv into a burning cinder within seconds, or fight for survival, by every means possible, like Britain did in 1940?

27 September 2012 at 00:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Hannah

"Don't forget the whole purpose of Israel is to be a safe refuge for the Jewish people and to make sure that 'never again' will the fate of Jews be in the hands of others..."

Surely in Judaic thought it has a higher purpose which, if fulfilled, will ensure its survival and the survival of the Jews?

However, if what you say is true, then reliance on the USA, who acts in accordance with its own interests, and the internal politics of that nation, seems somewhat contradictory.

Personally, I very much doubt Israel will herself launch an open attack on Iran in the next few months.

27 September 2012 at 13:40  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I continue to be amazed at the ostrich response of the West regarding Iran. The Iranians are not stupid, they know that if they frame the issue as a threat to Israel only, it will be left to continue its program unhindered...which is exactly how things pkaying out with useless sanctions, and dozens of fruitless "negotiations." The Obama administration is now playing a game with Bibi, implying that this is strictly Israel's issue and the State Department has telegraphed that a nuclear Iran is manageable under a MAD doctrin. On the latter, Miss Kavanaugh says it beatifully, "Obama would rather allow a nuclear armed Iran as a form of cold war "MAD", but the flaw with this is the fact that Iran is, um mad quite literally."

The reality is quite different. Iran is a far bigger threat to its neighbours and to South-Eastern Europe, assuming it will confine itself to using missile capabilities it already has. If it decides to use ship or submarine born weapons, "suit-case" bombs or starts handing out nuclear material to the many terror groups and the terror states it sponsors, then its reach is worldwide. Why is this so hard to understand and why have not all the hand-wringers acted sooner and more energetically to stop Iran through diplomatic and economic options available to them?

Dodo, your academic musings regarding Iran's aims or Israel's capacities may be interesting, but are of little consequence. A savage, fanatical government which kills and oppresses its own people and has threatened Israel with annihilation is sufficient cause to wind up with a nuke over its nuclear facilities. A popular, competent Israeli government has determined that it faces clear and present existential danger. The fallout from a unilateral or Israel-US limited action that everyone worries about is far, far more preferable to an Iranian nuclear attack against Israel.

27 September 2012 at 14:38  
Blogger non mouse said...

Ian Cad 24.9 @ 19:45 -
Actually, it's plebs, plebis [f.] and means "the people" as opposed to patricians and senators. By extension it came to mean "the common people, the lower orders, the masses". (Cassell's Latin Dictionary

So, by its root sense, this biker was simply being accurate, if gratuitously pointing out the difference in status -- between himself and the officer.

How words like that have become as "unacceptable" as obscenity used to be is one of the miracles wrought by PC Marxists. And very useful too.... no wonder they don't see fit to offer us "Plebiscites"!

27 September 2012 at 16:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...

"The fallout from a unilateral or Israel-US limited action that everyone worries about is far, far more preferable to an Iranian nuclear attack against Israel."

Of course, if it is limited, and far better than " a nuke over its nuclear facilities".

There's a big qualification in there.

You really think Iran would launch a nuclear attack against Israel or Europe? Apparently it will take until next summer for it to have sufficient material for just one bomb. And the chances of a successful delivery are zero.

"If it decides to use ship or submarine born weapons, "suit-case" bombs or starts handing out nuclear material to the many terror groups and the terror states it sponsors, then its reach is worldwide."

As my mum used to say:

"If 'ifs' and 'ands' were pots and pans, there'd be no need for tinkers."

Why it is Israel will not publicallt state it has nuclear capability?

27 September 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Right, Dodo, let's not wory and be happy. Nothing can happen. Iran will stop with making a single bomb just to show it can, and would never use one, because it enjoys tanking its economy on making them. I can sleep now.

28 September 2012 at 08:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh, yes, your question: Why it is Israel will not publicallt state it has nuclear capability? Who says that it has? ;)

28 September 2012 at 08:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 September 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

You really think Iran would launch a nuclear attack against Israel

Well, not if people like me are capable and willing to respond. But what would you do with your "considered" conventional response to (say) thirty nukes detonated on Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem? Bomb Kharg Oil terminal? That would impose a severe cost. No, I suppose you would postulate some sort of invasion to arrest the guilty, and liberate the innocent.

And how are you going to do that? The Muslim world from Casablanca to Karachi would erupt in penultimate celebration at the news of Israel's destruction. Where do you think you would stage this invasion from? The Middle of the ocean? Because you certainly aren't going to get land bases in the Muslim world to avenge the death of the Zionist state.

And how do you prevent Iran from detonating a nuclear weapon over your staging area even if you managed to get one? The war is already nuclear. You don't get to fight a conventional war against an opponent who has already show the will and ability to use them.

You haven't thought this through at all. You are striking a moral pose. But it's not moral. It's just weak. Tel Aviv and Haifa alone contain some 60% of Israel's population. How viable would Israel be if just those two cities were destroyed?

carl

28 September 2012 at 13:30  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl,

The Tel Aviv area attack with a disabled US due to Muslim partying and "unrest" is the most realistic threat scenario I've come across in literature and conversations and you got it dead-on. I should add, though, that the partying in the Arab world would be brief, as Israel would exercise one of its many downsday response options which will not include appeals to the UN, arrest warrants and drawn-out cases at the international court.

28 September 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You go to it boys, dream your dreams of nuclear war. Iran hasn't got a single bomb at present and you're talking of 30 being dropped! Do get real and stop hyping this up.

And if Israel seriously considers it necessary now to stop Iran's uranium enrichment programme, for God's sake get on with it and stop looking to the West to agree and displaying silly diagrams.

You're grown-ups. Take responsibility. Israel has the nuclear bomb and it seems somewhat hypocritical to deny it - ah, but then Israel doesn't, does it?

29 September 2012 at 00:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

You go to it boys, dream your dreams of nuclear war.

I had one nightmare about nuclear war. I had several nightmares about Two-Officer Policy violations. The fact that I know what the later means without appealing to Google says everything about who is being sober and who is dreaming.

carl

29 September 2012 at 03:56  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older