Did somebody just try to buy the British government?(antipope.org)
antipope.org
Did somebody just try to buy the British government?
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/11/conspiracy-theories.html
65 comments
Apparently he's quoted as saying it's not the OITC.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/lor...
Although why a more mainstream news organisation hasn't picked it up, I do not know (too wacky?)
Although why a more mainstream news organisation hasn't picked it up, I do not know (too wacky?)
Ah, and there's a connection, too: the OITC and David James were both involved in bidding to rescue MG Rover. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4681369.stm)
It seems to me that the simplest explanation is that Lord James of Blackheath is barking mad. One commenter at Stross's blog remarks that he's had a stroke, which may or may not be relevant.
Well, seems to me the reason you'd think that is because you're stupid. It's not your fault - you were probably just treated roughly as an infant.
Wait, what's that, you don't think casting aspersions on someone's mental capacity is a valid counterargument? Well then.
Wait, what's that, you don't think casting aspersions on someone's mental capacity is a valid counterargument? Well then.
I wasn't offering a counterargument. I was taking it as read that what he says probably isn't true because (1) it sounds very very implausible and (2) if you read what he actually said, it looks like the kind of thing deranged people say; and offering an explanation for how it might be that he came to say such strange things.
(There is further reason for suspecting LJoB's mental state; his most recent other speech in the Lords is pretty weird too.)
If you think that my suggestion that LJoB might be off his head is so ridiculous that no sensible person would make it, or that the way I expressed it is so incoherent that no normal person would write what I did, and if you happen to want explanations, then you absolutely should be considering the possibility that I'm stupid or crazy. [EDITED to add: Especially if you know that in fact I was treated roughly as an infant in a way that would tend to damage my brain. Which, as it happens, doesn't appear to be the case.]
(There is further reason for suspecting LJoB's mental state; his most recent other speech in the Lords is pretty weird too.)
If you think that my suggestion that LJoB might be off his head is so ridiculous that no sensible person would make it, or that the way I expressed it is so incoherent that no normal person would write what I did, and if you happen to want explanations, then you absolutely should be considering the possibility that I'm stupid or crazy. [EDITED to add: Especially if you know that in fact I was treated roughly as an infant in a way that would tend to damage my brain. Which, as it happens, doesn't appear to be the case.]
His speeches may be weird, but he has an eloquence and a rhetorical flair which seem most at odds with any experience I have had with stroke-sufferers, admittedly not a lot.
Well, I guess I disagree with how implausible it sounds. I suppose not too many foundations are offering billions for anyone who asks, obligation free. Then again, I do wonder what a lot of the money is doing around the world. There are hundreds of individuals and organisations capable of making the offers referenced in the speech. It just doesn't immediately ring of "CRAZY" to me.
Well, I guess I disagree with how implausible it sounds. I suppose not too many foundations are offering billions for anyone who asks, obligation free. Then again, I do wonder what a lot of the money is doing around the world. There are hundreds of individuals and organisations capable of making the offers referenced in the speech. It just doesn't immediately ring of "CRAZY" to me.
It seems perfectly reasonable to consider madness when discussing the possible reasons for that speech having been made.
It's not like the parent comment is trying to make a counterargument against anything, he's just wondering what's happening here.
It's not like the parent comment is trying to make a counterargument against anything, he's just wondering what's happening here.
According to his Wikipedia entry he apparently tried to buy MG Rover in 2005 - which arguably supports your explanation.
The sheer eccentricity of the British never ceases to amaze me…
Lord James is small fry. This is a country where, in 1976, the former [thanks, zb] Prime Minister summoned 2 journalists to his office, and declared to them:
"I see myself as a big fat spider in the corner of the room. Sometimes I speak when I’m asleep. You should both listen. Occasionally when we meet, I might tell you to go to the Charing Cross Road and kick a blind man standing on the corner. That blind man may tell you something, lead you somewhere."
"I see myself as a big fat spider in the corner of the room. Sometimes I speak when I’m asleep. You should both listen. Occasionally when we meet, I might tell you to go to the Charing Cross Road and kick a blind man standing on the corner. That blind man may tell you something, lead you somewhere."
Whilst this initially sounds like a hilarious anecdote Harold Wilson did suffer from Alzheimer's disease which causes a sustained and permanent mental deterioration once it sets in. Also there are severe question marks over the veracity of this particular quote, suggesting it was made up in order to promote the sales of a book called 'The Pencourt File.'
Former Prime Minister.
Hearing you say that stirs the kind of flag-waving patriotism in my British mind that is usually reserved for Americans watching live sports.
Right, just Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism
I think all nationalities can go a little crazy over sportball.
I think all nationalities can go a little crazy over sportball.
I would think that flag-waving nationalism is almost entirely unrelated to tearing up the stadium and eating the seats.
The poster above mentioned that US sports spectators get patriotic, not crazy. I've watched people watch Baseball. You'd have to add 1000s of them together to get the calorie burn of one Dutch/English/German hooligan. Calorie intake on the other hand…
I'm afraid you may have missed my point...
Voted you up, since it seems apparent to me that every Western country has sportsball fanaticism.
Hear! Hear!
The House of Lords is to eccentricity as Silicon Valley is to software.
The House of Lords is the one thing I think the Founders ditched from the monarchy which had real value. We got the Supreme Court instead, which resembles a HoL from a dystopian future where only lawyers are trusted to remember the spirit of the nation.
This function of the House of Lords has recently been replaced with a newly created Supreme Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kin...
Isn't the senate supposed to be the American counterpart to the House of Lords?
Not really, but kinda, when Senators were elected by the State legislatures.
The guy is a comic -
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/t...
"They decided to devote the words to the most obscene account of Hermann Göring having sexual congress with a lady kangaroo, which ultimately proved fatal to him because it would not stop jumping. After that, the Reverend Wynn decided that there should be no more of that."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/t...
"They decided to devote the words to the most obscene account of Hermann Göring having sexual congress with a lady kangaroo, which ultimately proved fatal to him because it would not stop jumping. After that, the Reverend Wynn decided that there should be no more of that."
There seems to be a misunderstanding in this article that Lord James is a member of the government.
As far as I can tell from his Wikipedia page he is a member of one of the houses of parliament, but has never been a member of government.
As far as I can tell from his Wikipedia page he is a member of one of the houses of parliament, but has never been a member of government.
He is a member of the House of Lords. This is our unelected upper house. Their actual role in legislative government is somewhat complex (though they do have a role, some of which is not exercised by convention, some of which lacks power).
But you are right; from a practical "man on the street" perspective he is not a member of "the government".
But you are right; from a practical "man on the street" perspective he is not a member of "the government".
I'm an American living in Canada and the political focus seems to always be on the government (PM and cabinet) and the House of Commons. I never really hear mention of the Senate (basically the House of Lords of Canada), and being unelected, I assume it's not really taken too seriously. In the US, the converse is true, where the Senate is more powerful than the House and Senators are considered to be more important in pretty much every way.
In such an environment where people have little power but have the air and outward appearance of having a lot, I would suspect bizarre speeches aren't uncommon.
In such an environment where people have little power but have the air and outward appearance of having a lot, I would suspect bizarre speeches aren't uncommon.
In Canada, it is exceedingly uncommon to hear bizarre speeches - or anything whatsoever, for that matter - from the Senate.
You are 100% right in that it is not taken exceptionally seriously, as they are lifetime appointments and most often bestowed as an honour. There is an element of power, as at least from a technical standpoint, the Senate in Canada could block the passage of legislation. It is a "rubber stamp" element of government, yes, but only out of tradition. If for some spectacularly weird reason the Senate decided to wield their power, it would have just as much weight - from a technical standpoint - as the US Senate.
You are 100% right in that it is not taken exceptionally seriously, as they are lifetime appointments and most often bestowed as an honour. There is an element of power, as at least from a technical standpoint, the Senate in Canada could block the passage of legislation. It is a "rubber stamp" element of government, yes, but only out of tradition. If for some spectacularly weird reason the Senate decided to wield their power, it would have just as much weight - from a technical standpoint - as the US Senate.
It's not totally a rubber stamp. There have been a few outright rejections in the previous decade. In addition, they often force bills that have been passed in the house of commons to be reviewed/changed before it evens comes to the Senate. Over the course of the review, the law almost always get changed into something the Senate agrees with and so it gets passed.
But you are correct in the broad sense typically, once a bill passes the house of commons, it will become a law.
But you are correct in the broad sense typically, once a bill passes the house of commons, it will become a law.
Apologies for lack displaying my lack of knowledge regarding Canadian politics, but what why would it be "spectacularly weird" for the Senate to wield their power, when groups with power nearly always wield it? What holds them back from doing so? As an American, it is very odd to hear that a body exists with power technically equivalent to our (very powerful) Senate, but with lifetime appointments, and yet they do nothing, and are not taken seriously.
In addition to what jat850 said, there's also the fear of jeopardizing their positions. Right now the senators receive a significant salary ($132,300/a) for not much work. The Senate has notoriously low attendance.
If they do something to piss off the Canadian public, the Prime Minister could use that as an opportunity to push through legislation to change or even abolish the Senate. Harper, our current Prime Minister, talked about Senate reform in his election campaign, and he's not the first to do so, but it's never been urgent enough to actually do anything about.
If they do something to piss off the Canadian public, the Prime Minister could use that as an opportunity to push through legislation to change or even abolish the Senate. Harper, our current Prime Minister, talked about Senate reform in his election campaign, and he's not the first to do so, but it's never been urgent enough to actually do anything about.
First, I erred on one point. Lifetime appointment is almost, but not quite true. Senators must retire at age 75.
A big portion of it is the demographic of the Senate. As senate seats are typically honourary appointments, rather than partisan decisions (though there are exceptions), there is typically little reason or desire to rise up and exert their power. Senators include former career politicians, but also public personas of various origin - athletes, entertainers, and others of non-political origin.
I would speculate that is almost out of a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts that senators respect and recognize their role and place in Canadian politics. Another is attendance - only 15 senators out of 105 are required to make quorum, and many senators are almost never found in their seats.
I shouldn't make it seem as though the Canadian senate is merely an automatic stamp of approval; there have been past examples of dissent, discussion, debate, reform, and rejection of bills arriving in the Senate. However, it is generally understood among the public that the Senate acts primarily in a nearly ceremonial capacity, rather than one of actual weight and importance.
A big portion of it is the demographic of the Senate. As senate seats are typically honourary appointments, rather than partisan decisions (though there are exceptions), there is typically little reason or desire to rise up and exert their power. Senators include former career politicians, but also public personas of various origin - athletes, entertainers, and others of non-political origin.
I would speculate that is almost out of a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts that senators respect and recognize their role and place in Canadian politics. Another is attendance - only 15 senators out of 105 are required to make quorum, and many senators are almost never found in their seats.
I shouldn't make it seem as though the Canadian senate is merely an automatic stamp of approval; there have been past examples of dissent, discussion, debate, reform, and rejection of bills arriving in the Senate. However, it is generally understood among the public that the Senate acts primarily in a nearly ceremonial capacity, rather than one of actual weight and importance.
They do actually sometime use this for very controversial laws. I can't remember that last time it happened but it does happen occasionally hence why every party in power tries to stuff as many of their own in there. It provides longevity to the parties in power.
They do actually have real power in the UK and shape the laws, including sometimes putting a break on some that might be a bit harsh.
> In the US, the converse is true, where the Senate is more powerful than the House and Senators are considered to be more important in pretty much every way.
especially by themselves
especially by themselves
By this logic you wouldn't call a US Senator a member of the US Government?
The usage of the term "government" in commonwealth countries, following the Westminster System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system), refers more specifically to the executive branch (prime minister and cabinet) currently in power and not the state in general. Since the Prime Minister and his/her cabinet are merely MPs in high positions, the division between executive and legistlative in terms of personnel is not nearly as clear-cut as it is in US politics.
>The usage of the term "government" in commonwealth countries, following the Westminster System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system), refers more specifically to the executive branch (prime minister and cabinet) currently in power and not the state in general.
That's very interesting, I don't think Scottish, English or Welsh people use "government" it that way though FWIW. What word does one use for the government if the word government is co-opted for the Cabinet & PM?
That's very interesting, I don't think Scottish, English or Welsh people use "government" it that way though FWIW. What word does one use for the government if the word government is co-opted for the Cabinet & PM?
>I don't think Scottish, English or Welsh people use "government" it that way though
Well, you'd be wrong. That's exactly how we use it when we're talking about people. I won't pretend you don't hear the same word used to refer to 'the State' (which is the term we use for the overall apparatus of the State) colloquially, but you can always distinguish from context.
Well, you'd be wrong. That's exactly how we use it when we're talking about people. I won't pretend you don't hear the same word used to refer to 'the State' (which is the term we use for the overall apparatus of the State) colloquially, but you can always distinguish from context.
I know it's a single data point but I've lived for several years in each region and worked in government (note I've never been part of the cabinet nor PM, sorry for my apparently uncommon usage).
I'm not arguing that the more intellectual echelons such as political scientists don't use it in the described manner however; don't move in those circles.
I never hear people refer to our country [the UK] as "the state" either. I perceive state as including the people (but ours is a [pseudo] democratic state so I'm coloured by that.
It's strange that I've not heard this usage, isn't it?
I just jumped to the first newspaper I thought of (well the 2nd, but paywall ...) and the first story in the UK Politics section that mentioned government (Ctrl+f search on the UK Pol' page).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-...
"The Government's immigration cap should not affect inter-company transfers for global firms, David Cameron said today. "
Well it's not the "cabinet and prime ministers immigration cap". The immigration cap is that [on some level] agreed in parliament, passed by the Lords and implemented by the relevant civil servants. I'm still not seeing it.
Whereabouts in the UK are you all (upvoters) from, what occupations are you in?
I'm not arguing that the more intellectual echelons such as political scientists don't use it in the described manner however; don't move in those circles.
I never hear people refer to our country [the UK] as "the state" either. I perceive state as including the people (but ours is a [pseudo] democratic state so I'm coloured by that.
It's strange that I've not heard this usage, isn't it?
I just jumped to the first newspaper I thought of (well the 2nd, but paywall ...) and the first story in the UK Politics section that mentioned government (Ctrl+f search on the UK Pol' page).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-...
"The Government's immigration cap should not affect inter-company transfers for global firms, David Cameron said today. "
Well it's not the "cabinet and prime ministers immigration cap". The immigration cap is that [on some level] agreed in parliament, passed by the Lords and implemented by the relevant civil servants. I'm still not seeing it.
Whereabouts in the UK are you all (upvoters) from, what occupations are you in?
"The Government's immigration cap should not affect inter-company transfers for global firms, David Cameron said today."
That's a really good example. He's defending a policy of the current PM and Cabinet. Of course this has been passed by the parliament - that's how the Westminster system works. If parliament stops passing the policies of the cabinet then the government falls.
"The Government" refers to the Prime Minster and his/her Cabinet. It is supported by other parliamentary members of the ruling parties.
Colloquial usage of the phrase "the government" to refer to the civil service, and to ministries etc (eg, "I work in government" or "you'll need government approval to build that there") is common. As soon as politics is involved, though "The Government" refers to those who actually hold power.
That's a really good example. He's defending a policy of the current PM and Cabinet. Of course this has been passed by the parliament - that's how the Westminster system works. If parliament stops passing the policies of the cabinet then the government falls.
"The Government" refers to the Prime Minster and his/her Cabinet. It is supported by other parliamentary members of the ruling parties.
Colloquial usage of the phrase "the government" to refer to the civil service, and to ministries etc (eg, "I work in government" or "you'll need government approval to build that there") is common. As soon as politics is involved, though "The Government" refers to those who actually hold power.
I see a couple more upvotes, would be really interested in my last question, thanks.
The parliamentary system is rather different from the US political system. Notably, there is "the government" and "the opposition", which are usually (but not necessarily) the two largest parties in the parliament.
(Disclaimer: I'm Canadian. This is how it works in Canada. There are differences between the Canadian and British systems, but they are much smaller than the differences between the American and British systems).
(Disclaimer: I'm Canadian. This is how it works in Canada. There are differences between the Canadian and British systems, but they are much smaller than the differences between the American and British systems).
I have no idea how the terminology is applied in the US, but in the UK, it does not include every Tom, Dick or Harry that manages to get themselves a seat in Parliament.
In the US we would. The equivalent term would be Administration.
I can somewhat see your point, but the house of lords is primarily aimed at redrafting/refining legislation, and can be overruled under the Parliament Acts[0]. So it is possible to pass legislation without the permission of the House of Lords, but it isn't possible to pass legislation without it passing through the Senate afaik. Obviously legislation thats passed the senate can still be vetoed or stopped by the House, but thats a different thing.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949
I think despite all the differences between systems I would still call someone who is a member of the legislative body a member of the government in general terms.
Link to the recording: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/t...
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6811
Video from 22:42:30
Video from 22:42:30
My personal banker's indiscretions are bubbling up to daily light. I told Morty to keep his personal business apart from mine and leave any trails pointing away from my accounts.
This draws the line and he will be fired for this airing of my account's balances in plebeian circles. My apologies to the fine people of England and the circle of Lords unfortunate enough to have been bothered with the matter.
This draws the line and he will be fired for this airing of my account's balances in plebeian circles. My apologies to the fine people of England and the circle of Lords unfortunate enough to have been bothered with the matter.
Keep in mind that by Billion he means 10^12, so it is actually a huge amount of money.
Are you sure? In Britain billion always means 10^9 these days; it may have been different decades ago.
It must, otherwise the argument about there not being 5 billion worth of gold in the world is silly. Baron Blackheath was born in the 30s and worked in banking in the 60s, so he certainly grew up with the 10^12 usage.
The UK government switched to the 10^9 usage in the early 70s.
The amount of gold is irrelevant. The scammers have none.
The amount of gold is irrelevant. The scammers have none.
Cryptonomicon anyone? This sounds like a Neal Stephenson book, not Robert Ludlum.
Serco?
Context (since I had no idea what Serco meant): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serco_Group
"The Guardian has called Serco "probably the biggest company you've never heard of." "
"The Guardian has called Serco "probably the biggest company you've never heard of." "
Holy crap. These are the guys who run my driver's testing? I had no idea that the guy checking my eyesight was part of a group that supports the British Armed forces.
Talk about bizarre.
Talk about bizarre.
[deleted]
Significant excerpt:
"The OITC proposed to invest US$150 million in a hydro-electric project in the region, subject to Ullauri placing $20,000 in a bank account in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia as a deposit. She paid in the money as requested in December 2005 but several months later there was no sign of the promised millions from the OITC.[11] In mid-April 2006 Ullauri publicly denounced the OITC as a fraud and lodged a complaint against its principal, Ray Cchat Dam, and two Ecuadorians said to be its local agents.[12]"