OT Corrupt BBC at it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if you thought that was a one-off, there's more

https://www.instagram.com/p/DPdx_IhDv9X/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mygiddypant

Eternal Mill quoting Grist the Optimist. Good bit of trickery there!...

---

You're at a huge advantage to me and I'm jealous. It appears I haven't consumed anywhere near as much alcohol as you. Is that what's causing your continuous delusion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mygiddypant

Have you considered that whoever edited Donny's speech might have been doing him a favour?

---

Not really, but I do consider the guilty party/parties at the BBC to be full-weight sh*ts who should be unceremoniously fired on the spot. Hope that clears it up for you :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John2

Sorry frog, but you're gullible and you've been sucked in by misinformation.

Nancy Pelosi was referring to security preperation in advance of the insurrection.

The critique of Trump is that during the event, litterally as an angry mob was attempting an insurrection, he refused to call the national guard.

Your source misleadingly attempts to imply that during the event Nansy Pelosi was offered this support and refused it.

---

Started with an insult John. Well done!!

Did I write during or did someone else? You was the first in our little conversation not me!

Who was president at the time of the so called insurrection?

If it was Trump then he was busy having his speech changed 😂

If Biden was the president during the so called resurrection then he could have called for the national guard surely!

It is crazy how so many have deflected the bad behaviour of the BBC to nit pick the other points of a situation to justify the wrong doing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animallittle3

The problem with Reform and the Greens in my opinion is that they are what I'd call " One Ticket Party's " , Reform campaign on the affects of mass immigration whilst the Greens are predominantly environmentalists .

So with respect raging you aren't quite so opposite to Reform as you may imagine , it's often perceived that the good guys and people of higher education would support the Greens , you only need to read the Guardian comments on the topics of today to see they have significant support .

Reform supporters are deemed to be of less intelligence and are often accused of racism , xenophobia or anti Islam .

Except there's nothing particularly intelligent about the ongoing destruction of the European chemical industry for instance which is becoming uncompetitive mainly due to Green legislation pushed by the Green party's of Europe .

Here's the kicker , the Chinese are the major benefactors and to service the world with the chemicals we need they are building more and more factories and are free from environmental legislation , we've basically handed Europe's chemical manufacturing capability to the Chinese with the subsequent loss of jobs whilst making not a scintilla of difference to the planet other than shift it to another part of the world and compounding an area of the world who already pump more cr@p in to the atmosphere than anyone else even if they didn't manufacture chemicals .

Clearly you don't need to go to university or read the Guardian to work out the absolute nonsense that's occurring , so who are the intelligent good guys now ? .

---

I had to double take and re read that animal. "mainly due to Green legislation pushed by the Green party's of Europe" At the last count, there is not one Green Party in governence in the whole of Europe, and they only form small but significant minorities in 4 EU countries, all of whom they are working with majority centre left/right parties so making much compromise.

The EU have of course been pushing envoronmental policies in a bid to keep a world going for our Grandchildren (another big difference between me and reform, I tend to side with proven science but that's a different debate) and that has had some impact on pushing chemical industries to Chine but to say that is the sole issues, and to not point to the bigger driver of energy prices spiking in Europe since the war in Ukraine just smells of Reform regurg. It doesn't say anything also of China's advantage (competitively, not for the poor workers) in terms of cheaper labour, it doesn't say anything about how the EU have amended their stance on this with their "Plan for stronger EU chemical industry," which includes a simplification package for key EU chemicals legislation to enhance the sector's competitiveness and reduce administrative load on member countries.

And in China, far from being "free from environmental legislation", not a lot of research actually tells us that the Chinese leaders are pushing through a large range of climate legislation (Environmental and Ecological Protection Code I think it's called) and contrary to popular unchallenged belief, have actually worked to reduce their immissions, which they have done in some cities and target more to come. This would seem to indicate that in terms of legislation only, there is a more even playing field to come, that the EU are right to persist with amendments and play the long game - and this is without even going into the business and economic benefits of green energy.

You're right in that you don't need to go to University or read the Guardian to read through a lot of **** in the world. But even some basic internet research from 2 or 3 relatively reliable sources would lead you to challenge your conclusions here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogmiller

Started with an insult John. Well done!!

Did I write during or did someone else? You was the first in our little conversation not me!

Who was president at the time of the so called insurrection?

If it was Trump then he was busy having his speech changed 😂

If Biden was the president during the so called resurrection then he could have called for the national guard surely!

It is crazy how so many have deflected the bad behaviour of the BBC to nit pick the other points of a situation to justify the wrong doing!

---

Not sure if it was a rhetorical question Frog but Trump was President before, during and immediately after the insurrection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAMiller

Not sure if it was a rhetorical question Frog but Trump was President before, during and immediately after the insurrection.

---

He has all the power until the 21st jan.

Could Donald trump have unilaterally ordered the national guard to protect the capitol on j6?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogmiller

Could Donald trump have unilaterally ordered the national guard to protect the capitol on j6?

---

ChatGPT said:No, Donald Trump could not have unilaterally ordered the National Guard to protect the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. While the president has the authority to call in the National Guard, there are certain legal and procedural checks involved in that process. Here's a breakdown of how it works:


Posse Comitatus Act: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The National Guard is not considered active-duty military, so this restriction doesn't apply to them directly, but their deployment still involves several layers of authority.


Role of the National Guard: The National Guard is generally under the control of state governors unless activated by the president. If the president wants to federalize the National Guard, he can do so, but this requires a formal order.


Decision-making authority: On January 6, 2021, the National Guard was under the control of Washington, D.C.'s local authorities, and the deployment of the Guard was not a simple, unilateral decision by the president. In fact, the process of calling in the National Guard in Washington, D.C. is more complicated than in the states due to the District's unique status. The deployment required approval from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army, who were the key decision-makers in this case.


Chain of Command: On the day of the Capitol riot, there was a significant delay in deploying the National Guard. Reports indicate that while requests for Guard assistance came from local officials (including the Capitol Police Chief and the mayor of D.C.), it was ultimately up to the Department of Defense, led by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and acting Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, to authorize the deployment. This process involved consultation with the White House, but Trump, at that point, did not directly give the order for the Guard to be sent in right away.


Trump's Role: While the president can issue an order to deploy the National Guard under certain conditions, his role in this situation was more indirect. Trump could have, in theory, ordered the Guard to respond more quickly, but the approval process had to go through the Department of Defense, which had its own considerations. There's no indication that Trump made a direct order to deploy the Guard on January 6, though he did later approve the eventual deployment after a delay.


So, to sum up: No, Trump could not have unilaterally ordered the National Guard to protect the Capitol on January 6. The process involved multiple levels of command and decision-making, including the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army, and was subject to procedural delays that were central to the events of that day.

This could be very costly.Trump threatens legal action against BBC as chairman apologises for 'error of judgement' on speech edit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

I had to double take and re read that animal. "mainly due to Green legislation pushed by the Green party's of Europe" At the last count, there is not one Green Party in governence in the whole of Europe, and they only form small but significant minorities in 4 EU countries, all of whom they are working with majority centre left/right parties so making much compromise.

The EU have of course been pushing envoronmental policies in a bid to keep a world going for our Grandchildren (another big difference between me and reform, I tend to side with proven science but that's a different debate) and that has had some impact on pushing chemical industries to Chine but to say that is the sole issues, and to not point to the bigger driver of energy prices spiking in Europe since the war in Ukraine just smells of Reform regurg. It doesn't say anything also of China's advantage (competitively, not for the poor workers) in terms of cheaper labour, it doesn't say anything about how the EU have amended their stance on this with their "Plan for stronger EU chemical industry," which includes a simplification package for key EU chemicals legislation to enhance the sector's competitiveness and reduce administrative load on member countries.

And in China, far from being "free from environmental legislation", not a lot of research actually tells us that the Chinese leaders are pushing through a large range of climate legislation (Environmental and Ecological Protection Code I think it's called) and contrary to popular unchallenged belief, have actually worked to reduce their immissions, which they have done in some cities and target more to come. This would seem to indicate that in terms of legislation only, there is a more even playing field to come, that the EU are right to persist with amendments and play the long game - and this is without even going into the business and economic benefits of green energy.

You're right in that you don't need to go to University or read the Guardian to read through a lot of **** in the world. But even some basic internet research from 2 or 3 relatively reliable sources would lead you to challenge your conclusions here.

---

Overall rating China.
HIGHLY INSUFFICIENT
Policies and action
against fair share
INSUFFICIENT
< 3?C WORLD
NDC target
against modelled domestic pathways
HIGHLY INSUFFICIENT
< 4?C WORLD
NDC target
against fair share
INSUFFICIENT
< 3?C WORLD
Climate finance
NOT ASSESSED
Net zero target
year
2060
comprehensiveness rated as
POOR
Land use & forestry
NOT ASSESSED
Country summary