When they staged it?

Don't tell me, Starmer knew nothing about that.

George, this is my whole thread response to you on one page, which should make it easier to read and follow. Thanks for highlighting this insidious web, a clique, that controls everything in our societies.
skywriter.blue/@steb77.bsky...

So George, we are both talking about the same thing. A corrupted clique at the top, which self-censors any criticism of the neoliberal system, and the oligarchs who control this insidious web, because of the exclusive nature of this social web.
11/

None of the organizations they control, are going to allow any of the people their organizations employ, to speak out about neoliberalism, or the insidious social web at the top. This includes the media, higher education institutions, even NGOs. It's why there's so little criticism of it.
10/

As I say, at the top of every organization, corporation, bureaucracy, educational institutions, most importantly the media, you'll find one of these people highly corrupted by their wealth, who is in an exclusive social web, of other similar individuals, who control almost everything in society.
9/

As I say, they have a lot in common with each other, and very little in common, to almost nothing, with over 99% of society, who they hardly ever mix with. Yes, there are slightly lower tiers of cliques, wheels within wheels, so there is not a clear boundary, but it is very exclusive.
8/

But nevertheless, regardless of the precise figure, we're talking about a relatively small clique of people, totally apart from the rest of society, who socialize almost exclusively with each other. The Epstein files give us a bit of insight into it.
7/

It's not called the top 1% for nothing, as 99% of society is shut out of this exclusive social web, which the oligarchs swan around in. In fact, we're not really talking about the top 1% as those in the bottom of it, are a long way from those at the top. It's a fraction of that top 1%.
6/

Of course, it is a wheels within wheels type thing. Not all those on these very large salaries know each other, but almost certainly they know someone, who knows many more in it, and their social web include others, that know others. Everyone knows everyone one else.
5/

A very small clique of people are in charge of every organization in our society, and they socialize together, as their huge CEO salaries are what they all have in common. During the phone hacking scandal it was very difficult to find judges and lawyers who had not socialized in it.
4/

These people run everything. Even the CEOs of NGOs often get salaries massively higher than those below them. Ultimately these people know they are blessed to get such huge salaries, and without them realizing it, it buys their loyalty to the whole neoliberal cult, topped by oligarchs.
3/

This whole pattern of giving enormous undeserved salaries to CEOs etc, was ushered in, in the beginning of the neoliberal era under Reagan and Thatcher. It corrupted society. It created a tiny clique of people, utterly loyal to the neoliberal system, and the oligarchs pulling strings in it.
2/

An instant retweet from me. This is the problem in a nutshell. I have tried, repeatedly to explain this, but it is an insidious web, of the type language is a bit inadequate to explain.

My stab at explaining this, is that every organization, in our society has someone in the top 1% in control.
1/

Almost everything we argue about is a substitute for the thing we should be arguing about: the immense wealth & power of an oligarchic class, which captures governments, ruins lives and wrecks the living planet.
This class redirects our rage at scapegoats. To resist its lies is to resist its power.

Unless Starmer can give a cogent explanation as to why he didn't ask about the findings, it is very reasonable to question, whether Starmer was deliberately making himself wilfully ignorant of the findings, simply so later on, he could claim no knowledge of the facts, if it blew up.
4/4

The question here, is not whether Starmer was informed about Mandelson failing developed vetting, but why didn't Starmer ask to see the findings, given the furore, when Mandelson was appointed, and when he had to resign? This is highly suspicious.
3/4

Phone-hacking report: what is 'wilful blindness'? MPs make pointed allegation with accusation of 'wilful blindness', a term that carries weight in US anti-corruption legislation

There is a well known dishonest contrivance, "wilful blindness", where a person deliberately makes themselves ignorant of something, so later on, if it blows up, that person can in a flimsy way, claim ignorance of the facts.
www.theguardian.com/media/2012/m...
2/4

I knew that Mandelson failed security vetting. So why didn’t Keir Starmer? Political editor David Maddox looks back on The Independent’s exclusive in September last year and how he informed Downing Street of Mandelson’s vetting failure seven months before the prime minister ...

As I made clear yesterday, this whole issue about Starmer not being told about Mandelson, failing vetting, is being framed in the wrong way, probably deliberately i.e. a red herring.

The issue is not, that no one told Starmer, but why didn't Starmer ask?
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/poli...
1/4

The irony is off the scale.

Why isn't a single journalist pointing this out? It's like they all forgot how to do their job.

Why doesn't anyone ask the obvious question?

Why didn't he ask to know the details of the developed vetting?

Not asking for the details, suggests he didn't want to know i.e. "wilful ignorance. It's well known legal contrivance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful...

I agree. The IDF refuses to investigate murder and rape, no matter how much evidence, but they are quick about this, because it threatens to destroy support, from their most loyal supporter base.

A video clip.

Reed Warblers this morning, at Marbury Big Mere, South Cheshire.

Exactly, Western governments should stand up to Trump and reciprocate, when he threatens them. It is the only way to deal with bullies, the only language they understand.

They are a core component, facilitating and supporting the genocide.

Trump’s presidency is what evil looks like: absurd, frightening, cruel | Nesrine Malik Commentators have said that the US president’s clownishness and lack of ideology somehow make him less dangerous. They’re wrong, says Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik

"Trump’s presidency is what evil looks like: absurd, frightening, cruel"

I agree, and all politicians or states people who support Trump, like King Charles visiting Trump, are condoning evil.

The only way to deal with evil like Trump is to isolate him.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Israeli army investigates soldier seen striking Jesus statue in Lebanon IDF says sledgehammer image circulating online is authentic and is being viewed with ‘great severity’

We all know why the IDF is taking this seriously. It's because most Zionists in the world, are neither Israeli nor Jewish, but Christians in the US. This will not go down well with Israel's core support.
www.theguardian.com/world/2026/a...

2 Large Red Damselflies, Fenns Moss NNR. They're the only Odonata out at the moment. White-faced Darters and Four-spotted Chasers will be out in a few more days.