World watch – Wednesday

Tuesday GMT


For posting on events, news, opinions and anything of interest from around the world.


  1. Missy

     /  January 31, 2018

    A Laobur Student organisation is being investigated by the police for a tweet advocating Regicide.

    The group deleted the tweet and posted this apology.

    However, the deletion and apology appear to have been done at the request of the University, not as an act of remorse on the part of those that posted the tweet.

    An apology that is the result of being spoken to is not really a convincing apology, so it is hard to know exactly how much remorse they have for the original tweet. Of course they could be covering their backs once it was pointed out that wishing harm on the monarch is technically (and legally) high treason, (not that anyone has been charged with that in over 150 years).

    It has also been reported to the police who are looking into it.

    And here is the original tweet as a screenshot in another tweet.

    • Ray

       /  January 31, 2018

      Talk about PC, Charles 1 deserved to go and there is no reason to believe his namesake may not deserve the same fate when he acquires the throne.
      Let’s keep our options open!

      • MIssy

         /  February 1, 2018

        I am not quite sure what you consider PC about people being upset this. A student group affiliated to Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition advocated Regicide, something that is a crime. Whilst no-one has been charged or convicted of the crime in over 100 years, it still remains treason to advocate the murder of the monarch, something you also appear to be doing.

        It is one thing to campaign for a republic and abolishing the monarchy, quite another to advocate for the murder of the monarch.

    • NOEL

       /  January 31, 2018

      Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (b. 1948) B D W
      (2) Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982) B D W
      (3) Prince George of Cambridge (b. 2013) B D W
      (4) Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (b. 2015) B D
      (5) Prince Harry of Wales (b. 1984) B D W
      (6) Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b. 1960) B D W
      (7) Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988) B D W
      (8) Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990) B D W
      (9) Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (b. 1964) B D W
      (10) James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn (b. 2007) B D W
      (11) Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (b. 2003) B D W
      (12) Princess Anne, Princess Royal (b. 1950) B D W
      (13) Peter Phillips (b. 1977) B D W
      (14) Savannah Phillips (b. 2010) B D W
      (15) Isla Phillips (b. 2012) B D W
      (16) Zara Tindall (née Phillips; b. 1981) B D W
      (17) Mia Tindall (b. 2014) W

      With that lot in line it would have to be more than regicide.

  2. Blazer

     /  January 31, 2018

    still waiting for your evidence of this National coalition you mentioned yesterday…Missy…the thread where you wanted me to quit..while I was ..behind.Intercourse with you is fun.You always end up with…egg..on your..face.

    • MIssy

       /  February 1, 2018

      Whatever Blazer, maybe when I have some time to look up all the news reports of the agreements made before the elections you will get it, until then maybe you could do your own research…

  3. Joe Bloggs

     /  January 31, 2018

    Would any of the golfers who comment here please help me understand why someone who’s passionate about the game cheats so much and so brazenly

    How do golfers feel about this? Would you look the other way if this were one of your playing partners?

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  January 31, 2018

      Golfing partner jokes about playing with Trump. Loony Left media run it on the world’s front pages.

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  January 31, 2018

        troll from Northland adds nothing…Find your legs then maybe you’ll have something to stand on.

  4. Joe Bloggs

     /  January 31, 2018

    Jed Shugarman on the Nunes Memo and what might happen next:

    The House Intelligence Committee (oxymoron) voted to release the Nunes Memo that attacks the FBI and DOJ. Others have suggested that it seems to be a hatchet job directed at Rosenstein and his re-application for a FISA warrant to continue surveillance of Carter Page. Nevermind that such facts mostly backfire (the memo would thus confirm that Trump appointees found that there was probable cause that Trump campaign aide Carter Page was indeed a Russian agent committing crimes). My question is what comes next?

    My understanding is that the next step is for FBI Director Christopher Wray to review the memo, but the DOJ will not have the same chance. The DOJ should have been given this opportunity, but it also important to acknowledge that the DOJ leadership is in a very awkward position. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is recused from the Russia investigation. Deputy AG Rosenstein is the acting AG on this investigation, but his conflicts (as the subject of the memo) should lead him to recuse on any decision to release it. The next in line is Associate AG Rachel Brand. From what I’ve read, she is a solid professional and trustworthy. But the problem is that if she were to significantly redact the memo or block its release, the partisans in the Trump world would demonize her, too. It’s a no-win situation for the DOJ. This is a bizarro world, because both Rosenstein and Brand were nominated by Trump and confirmed by a Republican Senate.

    It seems as if the only check on the memo’s content and release is FBI Director Christopher Wray. I have some concerns about Wray, but the reports that he intervened to protect Andrew McCabe are reassuring, and I want to believe that Wray will do the right thing in the middle of another awkward situation. My guess is that Wray will make a good faith effort to redact the memo to protect confidential sources and surveillance methods, and he will approve the release of such a redacted memo. And I think that’s the right outcome, because now that the Trumpers have weaponized this memo, blocking its release would have its own downsides. Trump World would say, “Look! We’re right that the Deep State is biased against Trump!” Meanwhile, they will simply tell the media their own version of what the memo says, without any chance for the media or officials to read and critique the actual memo.

    From what I’ve read, it seems implausible that the Rosenstein-Dossier-FISA story will hold up. It’s a tin-foil hat conspiracy. At this stage of the Trumpers’ tragic attacks on law enforcement, it seems like a responsibly redacted memo will be released, and that’s probably the least-bad result in a bad situation. Eventually, the counter-memo written by Congressman Adam Schiff will be released, but even if its release is delayed, my guess is that analysts will still be able to pick apart Nunes’s memo.

    For more, Asha Rangappa has a must-read on the Nunes Memo and what it must address.

    Update: The Schiff counter-memo is apparently an “extraordinarily detailed, point-by-point rebuttal of unbelievably shoddy allegations,” Rep. Himes, the number two Democrat on the House Intel Committee, tells the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent. So if Schiff can’t release it, why can’t Schiff fight reckless fire with careful fire? Can the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has access to the same documents, draft its own memo? Can they meet with Schiff to get his assistance and guidance? Can the DOJ or FBI issue its own response?

    And a link to Rangappa’s blog