Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-06-2015, 05:26 AM   #1
blue_esper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Up North, norther than Yorkshire.
Posts: 5,940
Likes: 667 (381 Posts)
Default Charles Kennedy.

R I P

Charles Kennedy.


http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...-dies-aged-55/

I liked him.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/ooohcheese

FREE PALESTINE AND YOU FREE THE WORLD

If You're Not A Decent People, You're A Poople.
BOYCOTT ISRAEL.
Their goods.
Their country.
Their people.
Isolate them totally until they behave like human beings.

Last edited by blue_esper; 02-06-2015 at 05:29 AM. Reason: k.
blue_esper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 06:14 AM   #2
notbuyingit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 630
Likes: 233 (83 Posts)
Default

Lembit Opik has paid a tribute on Sky News but also said he was battling an alcohol problem for years. Losing his seat was supposedly devastating for him and I think his sudden passing is being subtly linked. Sorry, but his meteoric rise to MP in 1983 (at 24!) tells me that he was groomed for his position. He only stood down as leader of the LibDems when the alcoholism story broke but remained an MP, which would be unacceptable in any other employment. Remember, there is no 'nice' in Westminster.
notbuyingit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 07:03 AM   #3
amberleaf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,865
Likes: 260 (136 Posts)
Default

Yes he was an alky and he was also a decent man and well liked.

I've never voted Liberals but if I was in his constituency I would've voted for him. His unseating at the GE last month was a shock to me. I knew labour were going to lose a lot of seats but Charles Kennedy I always thought had a seat for life.

He didnt last long after the election for sure.
amberleaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 07:54 AM   #4
grannie27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 15,058
Likes: 2,641 (1,295 Posts)
Default

The BBC played its part in the eventual self destruction of this man ....they allowed him to appear drunk on Question Time ,even though its Pre Recorded...I hope they are all very proud this morning ...I have no doubt the shame drove him over the top,plus losing his seat to the SNP must have been quite a blow.

Granted I did not agree with Charles Kennedy regarding the EU ,but he was very outspoken regarding the Iraq War .....

Very sad he was so young ....RIP Mr Kennedy
grannie27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 08:03 AM   #5
coooweee
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,599
Likes: 10 (10 Posts)
Default

Rest in peace, he was not a well man.
coooweee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 08:19 AM   #6
hypatie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 113
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

In today's Guardian and on his own blog, Alastair Campbell pays a tribute to Charles Kennedy. They were very great friends it seems

'In the tribute, Campbell also reveals that Kennedy sent him this text after the general election:

"fancy starting a new Scottish left-leaning party? I joke not."

It is not clear from the blog how serious Kennedy was being.'

I thought that seemed interesting.
hypatie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 08:30 AM   #7
grannie27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 15,058
Likes: 2,641 (1,295 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatie View Post
In today's Guardian and on his own blog, Alastair Campbell pays a tribute to Charles Kennedy. They were very great friends it seems

'In the tribute, Campbell also reveals that Kennedy sent him this text after the general election:

"fancy starting a new Scottish left-leaning party? I joke not."

It is not clear from the blog how serious Kennedy was being.'

I thought that seemed interesting.

Funny just finished reading this by AC ......

http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog...-shared-enemy/

Never knew they were Friends .....
grannie27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 08:50 AM   #8
jake_ball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 10,021
Likes: 3,174 (1,628 Posts)
Default



Quote:
No cause of death has been given but police said it was not suspicious.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-32970337
__________________
The truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself. ||| The words that I type onto this forum are NOT my opinions, nor are they my beliefs, they are simply just words and letters on a screen ||| Any thread that I start is not really meant as a debate, it's really just a friendly discussion
jake_ball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 09:31 AM   #9
nofuture
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 506 (246 Posts)
Default

Mowlam Cook and Kennedy die, IDS, Blair and Mandelson live.
__________________
On balance, I think the only reason our political elite haven't slaughtered us in camps is they need us to produce children for them to fuck

Frankie Boyle
nofuture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 09:43 AM   #10
grannie27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 15,058
Likes: 2,641 (1,295 Posts)
Default

I really hope one of the Mods will remove this rubbish ......

It has Nothing to do with Kennedys death .....
grannie27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 10:34 AM   #11
aster
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,162
Likes: 3,361 (1,860 Posts)
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by blue_esper View Post
R I P

Charles Kennedy.


http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...-dies-aged-55/

I liked him.
Thanks for sharing, Blue - can't watch TV news myself, as it makes my blood boil, so hadn't heard about Charles Kennedy's too-early death. I liked him too, and it is a tragedy for his family. The alcoholism probably hid a sensitive person, who knew way too much more about 'politics' in these islands, than was good for him - RIP, Charles.
aster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 10:37 AM   #12
alf hearted
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,152
Likes: 109 (86 Posts)
Default

You don't just die because you are an alcoholic, you die from the ensuing health problems. What known health problems did Charles Kennedy have?
alf hearted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 10:38 AM   #13
nongeekywebdude
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,903
Likes: 232 (167 Posts)
Default

sometimes, some politicians may have certain views may happen to coincide with your own, but that does not really mean anything. Lots of politicians say great things when in opposition and when climbing up the ladder, Blair made many a good point that I fully agreed with in his opposition speeches, but as soon as he was elected, all that good stuff vanished like a morning mist. Its hard to judge someone based purely on what they say, but much easier on what they actually do.

Politicians who have never sat at the big boys table have a certain luxury in that they can simply talk a good game, but making promises is easy. That being said, speaking out against the war was definitely a step in the right direction.
nongeekywebdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 10:45 AM   #14
alf hearted
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,152
Likes: 109 (86 Posts)
Default

There was nothing truly brave about him speaking out against the Iraq war, unless bravery has been redefined. That was the likely the opinion of most of his constituents, so speaking for them was to be expected. Let's not lionise him for doing his public duty.
alf hearted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 10:55 AM   #15
grannie27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 15,058
Likes: 2,641 (1,295 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alf hearted View Post
There was nothing truly brave about him speaking out against the Iraq war, unless bravery has been redefined. That was the likely the opinion of most of his constituents, so speaking for them was to be expected. Let's not lionise him for doing his public duty.

Shame more Labour MPs did not bother to do their "Public Duty" .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLVEzl76Tyg
grannie27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 11:03 AM   #16
alf hearted
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,152
Likes: 109 (86 Posts)
Default

Yes, it is. It's also a shame there wasn't an opposition party that could give them pause for thought, like Labour did when the tories wanted to go into Syria.
alf hearted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 11:05 AM   #17
markgobell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,987
Likes: 1,111 (659 Posts)
Default

Charles Kennedy's anti: Iraq War / Tory / New Lab speech 25 September 2003


Today, 2 June 2015, the day we learned of the death of Charles Kennedy, The Zio Guardian provides another clue, by publishing an extract from Charles Kennedy's closing speech at the Lib / Dem Conference in Brighton on 25 September 2003

Charles Kennedy had been in politics for 32 years, since first elected as an MP in 1983.

The same General Election that saw the vainglorious, Princess Tony, first elected MP for the re-created constituency of Sedgefield.

Interesting that the Zio Guardian should focus on the anti Iraq War extract from one speech from Charles Kennedy ...

Guardian: 2 June 2015: Charles Kennedy's 2003 speech on his party's anti-Iraq war stance.


The full speech is here:


Quote:


Link to index:

britishpoliticalspeech.org - 25/09/2003, Liberal Democrat, Charles Kennedy, Leader's speech, Brighton 2003

Transcript link:

Charles Kennedy, Leader's speech, Brighton 2003


Leader's speech, Brighton 2003

Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrat)

Location: Brighton

Quote:


Commentary:

At the time of the conference, Lord Hutton had begun his enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of the Iraq weapons expert, Dr David Kelly. Kennedy expressed his opposition to the Iraq war and claimed this case highlighted the need to introduce proportional representation, which would prevent future governments from going to war despite widespread public doubts. He also pledged to abolish five government departments and spend the money saved on public services; enact environmentally friendly policies; and uphold the rights of elderly people. Finally, Kennedy gave his backing to a referendum on the European Constitution and to Simon Hughes’s candidacy in the London mayoral election.


Well, for me it’s been a year of jubilees. I’ve had the pleasure and the privilege of representing you all, our party, at the celebrations for Her Majesty the Queen’s Golden Jubilee. I know that fact will not be lost on our conference.

But more recently another jubilee has played a recurrent part in my life. The London Underground Jubilee line, which runs from Westminster station to Willesden in Brent. Nine stops on the tube. Now renamed the Victorious Line. The people there voted for fairness and decency. That’s what we Liberal Democrats stand for. And that’s what Sarah Teather offered. A message which resonated over local, national and international issues alike.

Left and right is Westminster talk. It has no resonance or relevance outside. You need only go one stop on the tube to find a very different Britain. A country where people do actually want to talk to their politicians if they feel that the politicians are genuinely prepared to listen.

A country that wants to see real improvements in real services - not posturing and pretence.

A good country.

A caring country.

The fourth richest country in the world.

Which can afford the best for our people. And our kind of politics is people focussed - first and foremost.

It’s no longer a question of people being disappointed with this government. After six years of failure, they despair of this government. It’s our job as Liberal Democrats to be an effective opposition - and an increasingly tough one as well.

Taking a principled and consistent stance over Iraq has attracted much criticism from our detractors and opponents.

But they couldn’t ignore us.

And the voters didn’t either. We should not prejudge the outcome of Lord Hutton’s enquiry. It’s already exposed a great, great deal - despite its tight remit.

We argued from the outset for a far broader independent enquiry. One into the entire basis upon which this country was led into that war. And events are increasingly proving us correct.

The current speculation over the interim report of the Iraq Survey Group raises still more profound questions.

Two things however are clear.

The full legal advice of the attorney general at the time must now be published in full.

And the case for that full-scale independent enquiry becomes stronger by the day. And - incidentally - do you share with me a certain distaste at the sight now of the Conservative leadership criticising the consequences of a war for which they were the principal cheerleaders.

This is a leadership of charlatans and chancers.

At the time, they asked none of the key questions.

That was left to us.

Whatever the eventual judgement, the political implications of Hutton are already clear. A devastating indictment of Labour in power; and of our political system itself.

Consider these words from 1997. ‘We are not the masters. The people are the masters. We are the people’s servants. Forget that and the people will soon show that what the electorate give, the electorate can take away.’ That’s what Tony Blair told his new MPs in his first speech to them after his first election victory. Good instincts. Great ideals. Today tarnished for good.

No more glad, confident morning for this shop-soiled Labour government.

They seek to manage, not lead; to manipulate, not tell it as it is.

I don’t actually subscribe to the view that all power corrupts.

But absolute power - when secured on the back of massive parliamentary majorities, which don’t reflect the balance of political opinion in the country - can corrupt absolutely.

The soul goes out of politics.

So the system itself simply has to change.

I tell you this.

If the British House of Commons had known then what it knows now - about the events leading up to that fateful parliamentary debate and vote on committing our forces into war in Iraq - then the outcome could and should have been fundamentally different.

But, of course, parliament did not know these things.

Because the government’s instinct is to shroud itself in secrecy. To act like the office of a president instead of as a collective cabinet government held to account by the elected House of Commons. This is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy. What we’ve seen is a small clique driving us into a war, disregarding widespread public doubts.

That is not acceptable.

That’s why we need fundamental constitutional reform. It’s not arcane stuff any longer - if it ever was. Proportional representation? Let me just say one thing today about PR.

Does anybody really think that a House of Commons in possession of adequate information; able to hold the executive to account; and elected by fair votes; that such a structured and functioning House of Commons would have signed off the case for war?

Remind people of that next time they seek to dismiss the case for PR.

And we’ll remind the government of that as well - when their review of voting systems gets underway.

Fair votes - fundamentally - are about the rights and the interests of the people.

It’s high time that we really did give power back to the people.

But it’s not just the system which needs to change.

It’s the values in politics which have to alter as well.

The other two parties operate on the instinct of command and control.

Our instinct is to consult and then to win consent.

It’s the very lack of that approach which is turning people away from political parties.

We’re the people to win them back. For the sake of the future.

And the omens are promising.

Among younger voters we’re already ahead of the Conservatives. Perhaps not surprising when our party has led the fight against tuition and top-up fees.

They’re a party of defeat - and in retreat.

In fact, they’re increasingly not a truly national political party anymore. Consider this list. Liverpool, Newcastle, Gateshead, Manchester. And the London boroughs of Islington and Haringey. Now ask what these places have in common. Know the answer? You can phone a friend. But the friend can’t be a local Conservative councillor in any of those places. Because there aren’t any. That’s the answer.

That’s what they have in common. And it’s bad for democracy.

If ever there was a case for fair votes in local government then that is it.

We’ve got to give these poor, downtrodden, under-represented Tories a chance.

A space.

A space that befits a third party.

Remember - that party voted against the extra investment on health and social services.

The Conservative choice is no choice at all in today’s Britain.

By fundamental contrast, we are a genuine 21st century party. We talk positively about solutions, rather than concentrating negatively on people’s fears.

And you know Britain is becoming a more liberal country. Our social attitudes as a country are changing. And changing for the better. Acceptance of the right openly to be gay has increased. And a good thing too - in a liberal society. Racial prejudice - alas, still with us - is nonetheless diminishing. A good thing too - in a liberal society. There’s less discrimination against women. A good thing too in a liberal society.

In the post-Blair era - yes, we should think of Tony now as a future, former prime minister - people will be looking for a different approach to politics and a different style of leadership. They want a more liberal and modern political attitude. Less the bonfire of the vanities - and more, occasionally, the fireside chat approach. Mind you, it depends who’s giving the chat.

With the current leader of the Conservative party, there’d be a grave danger that the fire would be out half way through. Perhaps we should think of him as well as yet another future, former leader of his party? The other parties between them are offering us an unprecedented opportunity.

The Tories remain paralysed - as they have been for the past ten years - by feuds and rifts. The government has lost its way. It’s tired and fractious, and trust in the prime minister sinks by the day.

Meanwhile the nationalists - Scots and Welsh alike - are rebels without a cause. The better devolution works, the more irrelevant independence becomes. The nationalists are left turning in on themselves, turning away from the voters.

With the others in disarray, people want us to be more ambitious. And I don’t lack ambition for us, I want to see our ambitions realised for them. Last year, I said it was a realistic ambition for us to start overtaking the Conservatives in British politics.

This year, be in no doubt - we are overtaking the Conservatives.

Be in no doubt - we are the only credible challenge to the government.

And all that means going on being realistic and straight.

That’s the basis on which we shall frame our policy for the next general election.

A liberal approach is rarely an easy option.

Our stance on Iraq for a start. That was a tough choice. On the key vote committing the country to war, all 53 Liberal Democrat MPs were in the no lobby. All 53. And of course that decision by the 53 was one of many reasons why we now have a 54th MP. Jack Straw taunted us at the time about the iron discipline of the Liberal Democrats. He was jealous of course. But in truth this wasn’t iron discipline, Jack. It was iron principle. Liberal principle. Two words which this government simply doesn’t understand - liberal and principle.

And it’s principle which inspires trust.

Politics means facing up to hard choices. And facing down prejudice, short-termism, the easy, tempting court of knee-jerk public reaction.

That’s why we led the attack over Camp Delta. You cannot claim to be backing international justice while denying its very application to prisoners in your jurisdiction. Is that soft on terrorism? No. It’s hard on the need for universal human rights and the rule of international law. That’s why we challenge over crime.

Why are too many people in prison and yet too many crimes unsolved? Is that soft on crime? No. It’s hard on the need to really tackle the causes of crime.

That’s why we urge fairness and tolerance over asylum and immigration. Is that soft over illegal entry to Britain? No. It’s hard about the need for an efficient system that works in the interests of individuals and the state alike. And it’s by arguing that hard, compelling case that we are taking the lead in combating the racist scourge of the BNP.

Last year we led the way in the debate for making the funding and the control of our schools, our hospitals and our police services far more local. We’ve got to remain at the cutting edge of that debate - and take our ideas further forward. And that’s just what we’ve been doing this week.

The argument’s no longer about how much the government needs to invest. It’s moved on. It’s increasingly about how well our taxes are being spent.

People want straight talking about tax. And they’re correct to.

But they also want effective spending where they can see its benefits. And they’re right there too.

To get a better deal locally we have to start nationally.

Strip away the unnecessary and the wasteful in and around Whitehall itself.

Save at the centre to get more help and services for people in the local community.

Earlier this year I proposed scrapping five Whitehall departments. With savings like slimming down the number of ministers and slimming down the number of ministries, we argue that you can cut central government spending by at least 1%. One percent? Doesn’t sound much, does it? Well in fact, that 1% cut in central government is 1% of a colossal amount of our money. On today’s prices it’s equivalent to £5bn - each and every year. That’s substantially more today than you get by putting an extra penny on income tax.

And it all adds up to 150,000 more local nurses, local teachers or local police officers.

Vote Liberal Democrat. For less central government and Whitehall interference. And for more local nurses and teachers and police officers. And more protection for essential local services like post offices.

That’ll be our message at the next general election. This is a defining gulf between us and our opponents.

The Conservatives now say they too want to cut central government. But they won’t. Because they love big, centralised government. They spent eighteen years building it - to serve their interests, not the people’s. And what they want are tax cuts - to benefit the better off. And that means cuts in local services, encouraging those with money to go private, hitting hard those who most need support from government.

That’s not the Liberal Democrat way.

We’ll be there when you need us. Not when we think you need to be told what to do.

We want less government and less interference in people’s lives.

We favour more choice and a better chance.

Social liberalism and freedom must also be about harnessing the power of the market to do good.

And Labour? Well, people have given up trusting them. This past year has well and truly put paid to that. People don’t trust them because they see that they don’t trust the people. This government doesn’t actually trust the doctors and nurses, the teachers, the chief constables, to make genuinely local decisions. It’s all driven by artificial targets set and controlled at the centre. Hardly a voice for the local professionals that people really do trust. And next to no voice at all for the councillors that people locally elect.

But we are going to have to earn people’s trust as we advance these arguments in the second half of this parliament. And that means being consistent. Which is why, as we develop our programme for the next general election, I intend to be even more insistent and rigorous.

Our credibility depends on our self-discipline.

So I pledge that any new role we give government must be matched by a corresponding government function which we scrap.

With technology we can get much more out of far less.

It’s the system that’s wrong, not the people who try to make it work. A lot of talented civil servants would welcome our improved approach.

There’s another aspect of our last general election manifesto which we must build upon for next time.

The green aspect.

In 2001, we highlighted in every policy section the positive green impact of the proposals being made. Next time we’re going to have to be even more upfront. We’ve always been ahead on green issues. I’m determined we’ll stay ahead. And we’ll do that by sticking to one firm principle: making the economy work for the environment.

Green growth.

The polluter must pay.

The environmentally friendly must be encouraged.

And if we’re serious about the green agenda that will demand still more tough choices.

As the party of the future we cannot duck the biggest global threat to the future - the threat to the global environment. It’s not just about big remote-sounding international treaties like Kyoto - although that must be implemented.

At national level, it’s about the scandalous waste of public money over civil nuclear power and about proper caution over GM crops. And at the level of every single household in the country, it’s about recycling, home insulation, saving energy. And the availability of safe, affordable, reliable public transport.

Consider this: since 1974, the true cost of bus travel - up by 66%.

Rail travel - up by 85%.

Car travel - down by 1%.

Or consider this. Since 1997, the number of bureaucrats working in the rail industry has doubled. And over the same period, the number of trains delayed has also doubled. Could there perhaps be a connection here? Remember too that poor transport is a particular handicap for those older people who no longer drive or who have never owned a car.

And Liberal Democrats have certainly won the respect of older people in this country for standing up for their rights and their dignity.

We are the party which has fought against the complexity and unfairness of the pension credit. Which has fought for extra on the pension for the over 75s and over 80s. Which has campaigned long and hard for free personal care. But we must not forget too that there are increasing numbers of people in their late fifties and sixties whose concerns are not necessarily the same as those over 70. To take one example, many of them are frustrated that it is not possible to combine working part time with drawing part of their pension entitlement. I want our party to step up its efforts to reflect and champion the concerns of everybody who has reached the second half of their lives. To this end, I’ve set up a new taskforce on the third age.

There’s another cause which has always been central to this party’s beliefs - the cause of Europe. We are at a decisive moment in British politics where Europe is concerned.

Tragically, a decisive moment presided over by an indecisive government. It’s left to us to put the positive European case. And that’s what we'll be doing in those all-important European elections next year.

But we’re sensible, not supine in our attitude towards Europe. The EU must be more open, less remote and more accountable. We are committed to Britain maintaining a national veto on fundamental constitutional issues - the right of our House of Commons to decide if British troops are ever sent into military conflict, the right of our House of Commons to decide budget and tax matters, the right of our House of Commons to decide pay and social security. We broadly welcome the blueprint for the new Europe set out in the European Constitutional Convention.

Now this complex package must be decided upon at an Inter-governmental Conference. We can’t yet know its eventual outcome. But we have always said that major constitutional changes should be subject to referendums. And that remains our position today.

Next year we have another large-scale set of local elections. We have many strong messages to put across. And one of the best is our pledge to scrap the council tax. The Tories invented it. Labour keep forcing it up. They’ll both have to defend it. But it’s appallingly unfair and everyone knows that. This week the government admitted that it has reached the limits of acceptability. I agree. And it’s the poorest - particularly poorer pensioners - who suffer the most.

We must have a system of fair, transparent local income tax. A system founded on people’s ability to pay.

This year’s campaign saw us make spectacular gains - from Tories and Labour alike. We’ve panicked Michael Howard in Folkestone. It’ll be something of a goodnight for him, come the general election. And as for Theresa May - I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes in Maidenhead. And we’ve shown the Labour Party that the days are over when they could take strongholds like Durham and York for granted.

Next June, we’re set to advance deeper still into Tory and Labour territory. Labour had better watch out in places like Newcastle, Huddersfield and Sheffield. And the Tories had better watch out everywhere. We’re coming after you both - and the voters are coming with us.

And, of course, there’s the campaign for Mayor of London. Well, we start with the best candidate - Simon Hughes. And the only candidate with the genuinely united backing of a genuinely united party. I’d be astonished if the word Conservative passed Steve Norris’s lips during his campaign. He’ll be more the Jarvis candidate. And I wonder if Ken is now as anxious to rejoin the Labour Party as he was a week ago.

But Simon is a Liberal Democrat to his fingertips. I’ll tell you the difference between Simon and Ken. Simon would be an outstanding servant of the people of London. Ken’s another one who’s far too keen to be their master. And of course Ken has a turning circle tighter than a London taxi. ‘I don’t want to keep running around spin-doctoring’ – That’s what he said two years ago. And now he has more press officers than No 10 Downing Street.

The court of King Ken is growing larger and larger. Like the Labour government, Ken has a mounting problem with trust. And there’s certainly no reason to trust his judgement. Remember his warning last week to the voters in his old constituency: ‘the Liberal Democrat campaign could even deter enough Labour voters to hand victory to the Tories on a small turnout.’ Watch out Ken. We’ve already captured your backyard. You only have squatter’s rights to the rest of London.

So time is running out for our opponents.

Because a great moment of opportunity is opening up for us To be able to seize that moment we have to be clear among ourselves - and to be clear with the public.

We’re at our best and we achieve our best when we stand united on our integrity and independence.

More and more people have moved from disappointment to despair with this government.

More and more people have come to despise this government.

We offer something different, fresh - and better.

We’re gaining the support of millions of voters.

We stand united, we stand independent, we stand determined.

We stand as the best hope for Britain’s future.


*


Quote:


At the eleventh hour ...



31 = P11 = P( 1+1+9 )


From Charles Kennedy's anti-Iraq War / Tory / New Lab speech on 25 September 2003 to his death on 1 June 2015 is:


INTerval =


= 1+1+9 years, P( 1+1+9 ) weeks, P( 1+1+9 ) days >


3119



Quote:


P777 = 5903


From GW Bush born on 6 July 1946 to the death of Charles Kennedy on 1 June 2015 is:


INTerval =


= 777 + 777 + P777 + P777 + P777 + P777 days >


777 777 777
777 777 777




.

Last edited by markgobell; 02-06-2015 at 02:53 PM.
markgobell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 12:33 PM   #18
greatdayforfreedom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 682 (328 Posts)
Default

I'm a bit shocked, I wasn't expecting it. He seemed like a decent man, he spoke out against the Iraq war, as did Robin Cook.

Sky news are saying,...... wait for it.... "his death is not believed to be suspicious". Yeah, Robin Cook's death wasn't suspicious either.
__________________
''I started a journey 25 years ago and I'm bloody well gonna finish it. And it will only end when I do'' - David Icke.

Last edited by greatdayforfreedom; 02-06-2015 at 12:33 PM.
greatdayforfreedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 12:36 PM   #19
alf hearted
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,152
Likes: 109 (86 Posts)
Default

By "not suspicious" they mean "unlikely to be outside agencies involved." That would suggest suicide to me. I certainly don't believe he died of a broken heart.
alf hearted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 12:41 PM   #20
decode reality
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 24,061
Likes: 4,369 (2,796 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greatdayforfreedom View Post
I'm a bit shocked, I wasn't expecting it. He seemed like a decent man, he spoke out against the Iraq war, as did Robin Cook.

Sky news are saying,...... wait for it.... "his death is not believed to be suspicious". Yeah, Robin Cook's death wasn't suspicious either.
Much as I'll be in the minority for saying this, I don't believe there was foul play. He wasn't exactly the most visible of politicians in his latter years and let's face it, if someone has a severe drink problem, there's a good chance they'll have a brief life.
decode reality is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.