Ambassador Farage

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
# 1
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:32 pm

AndyClaret wrote:For context, he'd spent the previous 2 hours blaming Boris for it.

Other clips where he trys to get guests to blame Boris.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwjDcsj ... e=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J66TBYWIWFY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYOC-w2yOk0


You seriously expect me to listen to other clips you claim are of JoB trying to induce an accusation of blame after you've previously linked a video claiming does that which i spent 6 minutes listening to and it did nothing of the sort? Your credibility here is shot, as is the credibility of that shitty little youtube channel.

# 2
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:33 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:Has he ********.


Have you missed the entire story McGreal?

He didn't say anything that wouldn't have been known in Downing Street. He's essentially "bitching" in the email.

Let's get this straight - it's not his fault but he has been unwise. It's his own words which have made his position untenable. He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms and none of this would have happened.

Do you imagine a humdrum, dull email would have been leaked or made headlines?

His language was undiplomatic and, given his role, borders towards unprofessional. It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.
This user liked this post: Stayingup

# 3
Burnley Ace
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 227 times
Has Liked: 1177 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Burnley Ace » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:34 pm

Rowls wrote:

He's meant to be diplomatic at all times.

He has a reasonable expectancy that confidential emails remain confidential (and the real villain here is whoever leaked) but at the same time he really ought not to be putting down that kind of language in writing. It's careless and there are plenty of euphemistic terms he could have used..


No he does not need to be diplomatic at all times, in fact that’s exactly opposite of what he needs, he is there to give his frank opinion.

As for his expectancy that the confidentiality of information sent in his capacity as ambassador should be “reasonable” I think extremely high should be closer to the mark.

# 4
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:35 pm

Rowls wrote:Doesn't look like a report to me, looks much more informal than that.

As I've already covered in post 80 - although it's not his fault he would have been wiser to choose more discreet phrases. It's not as though our political classes aren't aware of the nature of President Trumps entourage or his governing style.

Nothing in the leaks would have been "news" to the PM, so it could have been left unsaid.

As I said, I covered all this in post 80.

I feel a bit for Sir Kim, but he's been unwise and I doubt he'll suffer too much for it.

As for the civil servants learning their place again:

They're the ones under investigation.
They're the ones who have leaked the information.

They need to re-learn their jobs. There has been far too much political interference from the CS and it's something which needs eradicating from our political system.


"Doesn't look like a report to me, looks much more informal than that."

Who ever leaked it is going to jail if they're caught. This "informal" diplomatic cable being leaked is a pretty serious violation of the official secrets act.

# 5
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:35 pm

Spijed wrote:As an Ambassador they have to have a certain degree of impartiality. Can you see that with Trump & Farage working together?


Like I say Spijed, I find it highly unlikely that Farage will become an ambassador (in the diplomatic sense).

He doesn't appear at all suited to it.

He could negotiate a trade deal perhaps but the idea of Nigel Farage as an ambassador is an incongruous one. Ambassadors are meant to be tight-lipped, diplomatic and discreet.

# 6
Devils_Advocate
Posts: 3799
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1271 times
Has Liked: 219 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Devils_Advocate » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:35 pm

AndyClaret wrote:I listened to it live you pr!ck, and listened to the recording afterwards.

Let it go son, let it go

# 7
martin_p
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1488 times
Has Liked: 372 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:37 pm

Rowls wrote:If he's been "politically neutral" then how can he branded a "Remainer" without any rebuttal?


Because as a diplomat he wouldn’t get involved in such a conversation. I haven’t a clue whether he voted remain or not, but unless you can point out where it’s affected his judgement if he is I’m not sure what the relevance is.

# 8
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:38 pm

AndyClaret wrote:I listened to it live you pr!ck, and listened to the recording afterwards.


Then provide a link to the part of the clip where he tries to induce the accusation.

Spoiler: You won't, because you can't, because no inducement exists.

# 9
Erasmus
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 317 times
Has Liked: 25 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Erasmus » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:38 pm

His job was to give an opinion of Trump and his administration to be used by the British government. The fact is that all such communications are deemed to be entirely confidential and hence he should use the type of language that is most effective in conveying his views. Nothing unprofessional at all. Trump's response is of an entirely different order because it was deliberately made public. That is unprofessional and why one feels that he is not fit to hold the office of President.
These 2 users liked this post: Burnley Ace nil_desperandum

# 10
Burnley Ace
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 227 times
Has Liked: 1177 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Burnley Ace » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:40 pm

Rowls wrote:It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.


So now you are saying that an ambassador should be supporting of or accepting the policy and practices of the government of whichever country they are sent to?

Do you understand what the ambassador actually does? It’s not all Ferraro Roche!

# 11
martin_p
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1488 times
Has Liked: 372 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:43 pm

Rowls wrote:Have you missed the entire story McGreal?

He didn't say anything that wouldn't have been known in Downing Street. He's essentially "bitching" in the email.

Let's get this straight - it's not his fault but he has been unwise. It's his own words which have made his position untenable. He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms and none of this would have happened.

Do you imagine a humdrum, dull email would have been leaked or made headlines?

His language was undiplomatic and, given his role, borders towards unprofessional. It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.


You really don’t have much of a clue about the role of an ambassador if you think being asked for and offering an opinion is bitching. Part of his job is to understand how a foreign and its leader operates and therefore what the best tactics are for dealing with that government.

# 12
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:44 pm

Rowls wrote:Have you missed the entire story McGreal?

He didn't say anything that wouldn't have been known in Downing Street. He's essentially "bitching" in the email.

Let's get this straight - it's not his fault but he has been unwise. It's his own words which have made his position untenable. He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms and none of this would have happened.

Do you imagine a humdrum, dull email would have been leaked or made headlines?

His language was undiplomatic and, given his role, borders towards unprofessional. It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.



Jesus Christ. How can someone be this ******* ignorant and yet so absolutely certain?
These 3 users liked this post: Greenmile Bordeauxclaret Swizzlestick

# 13
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:44 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:So now you are saying that an ambassador should be supporting of or accepting the policy and practices of the government of whichever country they are sent to?

Do you understand what the ambassador actually does? It’s not all Ferraro Roche!


A healthy scepticism can work, especially in rotten places like the countries in the middle east or states with whom we have many cultural, economic or political disputes (Russia, for example).

But Sir Kim was the ambassador to the United States of America. That's the kind of sentence that I could finish off with "for crying out loud" and not feel bombastic.

# 14
martin_p
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1488 times
Has Liked: 372 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:45 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Jesus Christ. How can someone be this ******* ignorant and yet so absolutely certain?


You forget Turtle, voting for the winning side in a referendum has given those voters the right to be right about everything...... forever!

# 15
martin_p
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1488 times
Has Liked: 372 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:46 pm

Rowls wrote:A healthy scepticism can work, especially in rotten places like the countries in the middle east or states with whom we have many cultural, economic or political disputes (Russia, for example).

But Sir Kim was the ambassador to the United States of America. That's the kind of sentence that I could finish off with "for crying out loud" and not feel bombastic.


So he should lie to his employers?
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

# 16
JohnMcGreal
Posts: 1448
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 932 times
Has Liked: 315 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby JohnMcGreal » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:48 pm

Rowls wrote:Have you missed the entire story McGreal?

He didn't say anything that wouldn't have been known in Downing Street. He's essentially "bitching" in the email.

Let's get this straight - it's not his fault but he has been unwise. It's his own words which have made his position untenable. He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms and none of this would have happened.

Do you imagine a humdrum, dull email would have been leaked or made headlines?

His language was undiplomatic and, given his role, borders towards unprofessional. It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.


That is complete guff, Rowls.

It's not the ambassadors job to try and work out what Downing St may or may not already know about the U.S. administration. His job is to report his findings with complete honesty, which he did.

His words have not made his position untenable. The leaking of those words to the world has made his position untenable. That is a huge difference.

As for the humdrum, dull email you speak of, I think any negative report of the U.S. administration would have been seized on by the people who have seized this, no matter how dull and diplomatic the language. There is a dark motive at play here, and the language used by the ambassador wouldn't have made a difference.

This story ought to concern every UK citizen.
This user liked this post: ngsobob

# 17
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:48 pm

martin_p wrote:So he should lie to his employers?



No no no, it's even better. He should disobey his employers by not being completely frank with them.

# 18
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:48 pm

Erasmus wrote:His job was to give an opinion of Trump and his administration to be used by the British government. The fact is that all such communications are deemed to be entirely confidential and hence he should use the type of language that is most effective in conveying his views. Nothing unprofessional at all. Trump's response is of an entirely different order because it was deliberately made public. That is unprofessional and why one feels that he is not fit to hold the office of President.


There's a fine line here.

Downing Street will have been well aware of the kind of administration that Trump is running. These "revelations" reveal nothing. I think he ought to have been more discreet in his language given that it was written.

But it goes without saying that this is not his fault. The blame lies squarely with whoever leaked the information and they will hopefully be caught and punished.

Sir Kim seems like a dull establishment type and it's best for our country that he gets moved on quietly. The PM and her team have poured petrol on the flames with their petty-minded intransigence and refusal to acknowledge the leak made his position untenable.

In doing so they've lowered themselves to the level of Trump and needlessly damaged our relations with his administration.

# 19
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:49 pm

martin_p wrote:So he should lie to his employers?


For the Nth time Martin, I've covered this in post 80.

I'm not going to re-phrase it again for you.

# 20
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:50 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:His words have not made his position untenable. The leaking of those words to the world has made his position untenable. That is a huge difference.


The two are kinda connected though, aren't they?

# 21
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:52 pm

Rowls wrote:There's a fine line here.

Downing Street will have been well aware of the kind of administration that Trump is running. These "revelations" reveal nothing. I think he ought to have been more discreet in his language given that it was written.

...


Then he wouldn't have been doing his ******* job properly. It his literally his job to tell us what the **** is going on over there without attempting to polish any turds. If he tries to polish any turds then he is not doing his job, and the effectiveness of the UK government in dealing with the host country's government is harmed. You are literally suggesting that Darroch shouldn't have done his job as well as he did.
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

# 22
martin_p
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1488 times
Has Liked: 372 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:54 pm

Rowls wrote:For the Nth time Martin, I've covered this in post 80.

I'm not going to re-phrase it again for you.


You can get to the Zth time, it won’t make it any more sensible. The information he provided will have been for a number of people and stored in a growing ‘file’ of information about the US administration. Ministers change on a regular basis and any new minister would be referred to said file for an inside view of the US administration. If you think this information shouldn’t have been written down you are (still) failing to understand its purpose.
Last edited by martin_p on Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

# 23
AndyClaret
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
Been Liked: 120 times
Has Liked: 468 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby AndyClaret » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:05 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You seriously expect me to listen to other clips you claim are of JoB trying to induce an accusation of blame after you've previously linked a video claiming does that which i spent 6 minutes listening to and it did nothing of the sort? Your credibility here is shot, as is the credibility of that shitty little youtube channel.



Ahh didumms :mrgreen:

# 24
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:07 pm

AndyClaret wrote:Ahh didumms :mrgreen:


You're the one trying to convince me of something. If you want people to agree with you then you have to demonstrate credibility in what it is you're trying to convince them of.

# 25
martin_p
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1488 times
Has Liked: 372 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:10 pm

AndyClaret wrote:Ahh didumms :mrgreen:


I listened to your clip as well. It isn’t what you said it was. Bit of an own goal!

# 26
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:10 pm

martin_p wrote:You can get to the Zth time, it won’t make it any more sensible. The information he provided will have been for a number of people and stored in a growing ‘file’ on information about the US administration. Ministers change on a regular basis and any new minister would be referred to said file for an inside view of the US administration. If you think this information shouldn’t have been written down you are (still) failing to understand its purpose.


:roll:

OK martin_p let's do it! Let's address your question from another angle...

martin_p wrote:So he should lie to his employers?


Heck sure! Why not? You raise the most valid of straw men ever!

But if we're playing the straw man game, why stop there?

The *real* straw man question should be even more outrageously "controversial".

Should he have bitten off his fingers to prevent himself from writing the email?

Should he have swallowed a cyanide pill and leapt out of a tower?

# 27
AndyClaret
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
Been Liked: 120 times
Has Liked: 468 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby AndyClaret » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:11 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're the one trying to convince me of something. If you want people to agree with you then you have to demonstrate credibility in what it is you're trying to convince them of.


I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you have your world view, and view everything through your lens.

# 28
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:11 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Then he wouldn't have been doing his ******* job properly. It his literally his job to tell us what the **** is going on over there without attempting to polish any turds. If he tries to polish any turds then he is not doing his job, and the effectiveness of the UK government in dealing with the host country's government is harmed. You are literally suggesting that Darroch shouldn't have done his job as well as he did.


The stars are back, I see.

# 29
Hapag Lloyd
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:24 am
Been Liked: 79 times
Has Liked: 74 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Hapag Lloyd » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:12 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You seriously expect me to listen to other clips you claim are of JoB trying to induce an accusation of blame after you've previously linked a video claiming does that which i spent 6 minutes listening to and it did nothing of the sort? Your credibility here is shot, as is the credibility of that shitty little youtube channel.


A full 6 minutes eh, it’s a good job you’ve nowt else to do.

# 30
martin_p
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1488 times
Has Liked: 372 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:15 pm

Rowls wrote::roll:

OK martin_p let's do it! Let's address your question from another angle...



Heck sure! Why not? You raise the most valid of straw men ever!

But if we're playing the straw man game, why stop there?

The *real* straw man question should be even more outrageously "controversial".

Should he have bitten off his fingers to prevent himself from writing the email?

Should he have swallowed a cyanide pill and leapt out of a tower?


Rather than trying to be smart (it’s not working) why don’t you explain what you were implying in post #13 on this page if it isn’t that he should be less than truthful with his employers just because this was the POTUS?

# 31
aggi
Posts: 4122
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1027 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby aggi » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:16 pm

Rowls wrote:Have you missed the entire story McGreal?

He didn't say anything that wouldn't have been known in Downing Street. He's essentially "bitching" in the email.

Let's get this straight - it's not his fault but he has been unwise. It's his own words which have made his position untenable. He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms and none of this would have happened.

Do you imagine a humdrum, dull email would have been leaked or made headlines?

His language was undiplomatic and, given his role, borders towards unprofessional. It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.


So basically what you're saying is the ambassador should refrain from briefings where they think the UK may already know and use euphemisms rather than being candid. I can't see any confusion arising from that.

I mean there is a chance that you know how to do the ambassador's job better than a hugely experienced diplomat I guess but it seems slim.

# 32
Devils_Advocate
Posts: 3799
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1271 times
Has Liked: 219 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Devils_Advocate » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:16 pm

At least the racists have got your back on this thread Rowls

# 33
martin_p
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1488 times
Has Liked: 372 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:19 pm

AndyClaret wrote:I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you have your world view, and view everything through your lens.


Well no, you said it was a clip of O’Brien failing to get Sir what’s-his-face to blame Boris for Darroch’s sacking. It wasn’t. Unless you’re taking the fact that the blame lying on Boris was never mentioned by either party as proving your claim. In which case he also failed to get Sir what’s-his-face to say Tom Heaton isn’t going to Aston Villa!

# 34
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:21 pm

martin_p wrote:Rather than trying to be smart (it’s not working) why don’t you explain what you were implying in post #13 on this page if it isn’t that he should be less than truthful with his employers just because this was the POTUS?


I'm not trying to be smart at all martin_p

You've put forward a stupid straw man argument and you can live with it.

My position has been very clear. I've stated it more than once for you. Yet you persist in asking stupid questions based on nothing that I've said.

So here it is, as you requested, for the Zth time:

It is not Sir Kim's fault; the blame lies with the leaker.

However, had he chosen more diplomatic language in the email (which, admittedly he had a reasonable expectation would remain confidential) then he wouldn't have found himself in this position.

Sir Kim is not culpable although he is not entirely blameless.

This truly is the last time I'll re-phrase it for you and I'll be "smart" with any further ridiculous straw men.

# 35
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:21 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:At least the racists have got your back on this thread Rowls


What?

# 36
Devils_Advocate
Posts: 3799
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1271 times
Has Liked: 219 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Devils_Advocate » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:22 pm

Rowls wrote:What?

What I said.

# 37
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:25 pm

aggi wrote:So basically what you're saying is the ambassador should refrain from briefings where they think the UK may already know and use euphemisms rather than being candid. I can't see any confusion arising from that.

I mean there is a chance that you know how to do the ambassador's job better than a hugely experienced diplomat I guess but it seems slim.


"So what you're saying...."

Why is it that whenever this phrase crops up it is almost always incorrect?

For clarification:

No. That is not "what I'm saying".

What I am saying is that diplomats should choose a register of language appropriate for the medium.
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

# 38
martin_p
Posts: 3991
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 1488 times
Has Liked: 372 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:26 pm

Rowls wrote:I'm not trying to be smart at all martin_p

You've put forward a stupid straw man argument and you can live with it.

My position has been very clear. I've stated it more than once for you. Yet you persist in asking stupid questions based on nothing that I've said.

So here it is, as you requested, for the Zth time:

It is not Sir Kim's fault; the blame lies with the leaker.

However, had he chosen more diplomatic language in the email (which, admittedly he had a reasonable expectation would remain confidential) then he wouldn't have found himself in this position.

Sir Kim is not culpable although he is not entirely blameless.

This truly is the last time I'll re-phrase it for you and I'll be "smart" with any further ridiculous straw men.


You’ve rephrased it to not include the bit about not writing it down I see.

What you haven’t done is answer the very reasonable question (asked by someone else), if the communications had been written in ‘more diplomatic language’ and leaked would it have made a blind bit of difference?

# 39
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:29 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:What I said.


I don't follow the meaning of it.

Not sure I understand your intent or what the wider meaning or relevance of it is?

# 40
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:33 pm

martin_p wrote:You’ve rephrased it to not include the bit about not writing it down I see.

What you haven’t done is answer the very reasonable question (asked by someone else), if the communications had been written in ‘more diplomatic language’ and leaked would it have made a blind bit of difference?


I never said anything about "not writing it down" - I said he could have re-phrased it, chosen better language, used a euphemism or two.

I haven't answered the question because I haven't seen it.

The answer would be - that's all hypothetical isn't it? I doubt a better constructed email (by which I mean, more diplomatically scripted) would have been leaked or even at all newsworthy.

That's the crux of it - somebody has maliciously done this and they've been able to do so because Sir Kim slipped up in his discretion. I don't think any kind of diplomat should be using this kind of language, at any time, in any form of written communication.

# 41
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:34 pm

martin_p wrote:You’ve rephrased it to not include the bit about not writing it down I see.

What you haven’t done is answer the very reasonable question (asked by someone else), if the communications had been written in ‘more diplomatic language’ and leaked would it have made a blind bit of difference?


But thanks for backing off with the stupid straw man stuff.

# 42
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:37 pm

AndyClaret wrote:I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you have your world view, and view everything through your lens.


When you present an argument then you are trying to convince other people of your opinion, you daft sod. You posted that JoB was trying to provoke someone into accusing Boris Johnson of something, the evidence you presented doesn't support your claim.

# 43
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:38 pm

Hapag Lloyd wrote:A full 6 minutes eh, it’s a good job you’ve nowt else to do.


I suspect it's more time than you've ever spent trying to understand someone elses point.

# 44
Devils_Advocate
Posts: 3799
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1271 times
Has Liked: 219 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Devils_Advocate » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:38 pm

Rowls wrote:I don't follow the meaning of it.

Not sure I understand your intent or what the wider meaning or relevance of it is?

Well you seem to be making a bit of a fool of yourself on here this aft but at least a couple of the boards knuckle draggers are wading in on your side.

Not much of a consolation but at least its sommat

# 45
brigante
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:54 pm
Been Liked: 239 times
Has Liked: 81 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby brigante » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:39 pm

I wonder if there will come a time where we identify that our humiliation is complete. Whether you kind of know it at the time or whether history better identifies it. We must be getting pretty close.

# 46
Rowls
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 2350 times
Has Liked: 2369 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:40 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Well you seem to be making a bit of a fool of yourself on here this aft but at least a couple of the boards knuckle draggers are wading in on your side.

Not much of a consolation but at least its sommat


Thanks for the clarification.

Don't see that way at all.

But even if that were true I'm confident enough of my own beliefs that I wouldn't give a toss if a "knuckle dragger" agreed with me.

I do what I do and believe what I believe because I believe it to be right. Not because of who else might agree with me.

# 47
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:42 pm

martin_p wrote:Well no, you said it was a clip of O’Brien failing to get Sir what’s-his-face to blame Boris for Darroch’s sacking. It wasn’t. Unless you’re taking the fact that the blame lying on Boris was never mentioned by either party as proving your claim. In which case he also failed to get Sir what’s-his-face to say Tom Heaton isn’t going to Aston Villa!



I'm pretty sure Andy simply hadn't listened to it. Either that or he did listen to it, knew it was a complete lie, and then just shared it anyway not expecting people to listen to what he shared therefore expecting to get away with posting what amounts to fake news.

It's a tactic I see a lot from these alt-right types. Just claim that something supports your point even if it doesn't. I think it's because when we post evidence supporting our point they don't review it, so they just expect we won't review whatever nonsense they post. It happens a lot on here.

# 48
AndyClaret
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
Been Liked: 120 times
Has Liked: 468 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby AndyClaret » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:48 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm pretty sure Andy simply hadn't listened to it. Either that or he did listen to it, knew it was a complete lie, and then just shared it anyway not expecting people to listen to what he shared therefore expecting to get away with posting what amounts to fake news.

It's a tactic I see a lot from these alt-right types. Just claim that something supports your point even if it doesn't. I think it's because when we post evidence supporting our point they don't review it, so they just expect we won't review whatever nonsense they post. It happens a lot on here.


Like i said, listen to the other clips, in fact listen to the full hour from 11.55 on catch up, his all narrative was "Boris has done this", none of the 4 guests he had on agreed with him, and you could hear him getting more and more frantic trying to pin it on Boris.

# 49
aggi
Posts: 4122
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 1027 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby aggi » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:52 pm

Rowls wrote:"So what you're saying...."

Why is it that whenever this phrase crops up it is almost always incorrect?

For clarification:

No. That is not "what I'm saying".

What I am saying is that diplomats should choose a register of language appropriate for the medium.


That is literally what you were writing.

He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms
Nothing in the leaks would have been "news" to the PM, so it could have been left unsaid.

Personally I'd have the view that describing that administration as "inept and insecure" is a fair description. Do you really think that you could get across the realities of the situation whilst permanently couching it in language so bland as to not cause offence? If it wasn't the examples that were picked up in the paper then it would have been something else unless the ambassador never said anything negative.

# 50
Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19435
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5290 times
Has Liked: 2451 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Postby Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:54 pm

AndyClaret wrote:Like i said, listen to the other clips, in fact listen to the full hour from 11.55 on catch up, his all narrative was "Boris has done this", none of the 4 guests he had on agreed with him, and you could hear him getting more and more frantic trying to pin it on Boris.


lol. No. You led with your best evidence and it was completely lacking. You lied.


Return to “The Bee Hole End”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Claretforever, duncandisorderly, ElectroClaret, giveusaB, gtclaret, Mala591, Moorite, Rowls, Stproc, Wembley09 and 264 guests