Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Which Tory moderator do we have to thank for the thread title, by the way?
 
SteveJ said:
“Fake claims to support equality as Theresa May was condemned by the Institute of Directors for jeopardising Britain’s economic recovery by pandering to anti-immigration sentiment.
Click to expand...

robbing millions of Britain’s low-paid workers to fund an inheritance tax cut for the 60,000 wealthiest estates
Click to expand...


http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rude-personal-attack-shows-tories-are-rattled
Click to expand...

Is that Jeremy planting his banner alongside cheap, readily exploitable foreign labour?

His comments on tax credits and IHT are a nice piece of spin though, very New Politics.
 
Another day, another Corbyn-IRA link.

The true extent of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell’s links with the IRA is revealed by a Telegraph investigation.

It can be disclosed that for seven years running, while the IRA “armed struggle” was at its height, Mr Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican commemorations to honour dead IRA terrorists, IRA “prisoners of war” and the active “soldiers of the IRA.” The official programme for the 1988 event, held one week after the IRA murdered three British servicemen in the Netherlands, states that “force of arms is the only method capable of bringing about a free and united Socialist Ireland.” Mr Corbyn used the event to attack the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the precursor of the peace process.

He said it had resulted in no improvement in the lives of the people of Northern Ireland, adding: “It strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.”

The editorial board of a hard-Left magazine, of which Mr Corbyn was a member, wrote an article praising the Brighton bombing. In its article on the IRA attack, which almost wiped out Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, the editorial board of London Labour Briefing said the atrocity showed that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

...
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...rbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html
 
^ The words of our ever-consistent and friendly pacifist, Jeremy.



Queen's advisers strip Jeremy Corbyn of 'Right Honourable' title after Privy Council snub

Exclusive: Mr Corbyn was described on Parliament’s website as “Right Honourable”, which denotes membership of the centuries-old Privy Council, until late last week

By Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent
11 Oct 2015

The Queen’s advisers told Parliament to strip Jeremy Corbyn of his “Right Honourable” status after Number 10 wrongly implied the Labour leader had joined the Privy Council, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Mr Corbyn was described on Parliament’s website as “Right Honourable”, which denotes membership of the centuries-old Privy Council, until late last week.

The Labour leader was also described as a “Right Honourable friend” by Prime Minister David Cameron when they faced each other in the Commons last month, days after he was voted in as Labour leader.

However, after Mr Corbyn failed to attend the first meeting of the Privy Council since the summer holidays with the Queen last Thursday, the “Rt Hon” title was removed from Mr Corbyn’s page on Parliament’s website.

The Daily Telegraph understands that this was done under the orders of the Privy Council, the group of advisers which carry out the Queen’s wishes.

Photographs show that Mr Corbyn was on holiday near Ben Nevis in Scotland when his spokesman said he had been invited to attend a Privy Council meeting with the Queen last Thursday.

Mr Corbyn, a known republican, said last month he was not previously aware that joining the Privy Council meant he had to kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand.

The Cabinet Office confirmed on Sunday that Mr Corbyn is not a member of the Privy Council. He now cannot become one until the next meeting is held, probably next month.

It means that the Labour leader cannot be briefed on security matters until then, which will complicate efforts by ministers to use intelligence to persuade Mr Corbyn on backing British involvement in military action over Syria.

Jacqui Smith, a former Labour shadow Home secretary, has described how she was able to brief her Conservative opposite number about four terror attacks in her first few days in office “on Privy Council terms”.

David Rogers, a leading expert on the Privy Council, said the confusion was caused by a statement on the Cabinet Office’s website on September 14 that Mr Corbyn had been appointed to the Council.

The statement said: “The Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment of Jeremy Corbyn MP as a member of the Privy Council.”

Mr Rogers, author of “By Royal Appointment: Tales of the Privy Council”, published by Biteback Publishing, said: “Number 10 had confused a recommendation to appoint with an actual appointment” and added that Downing Street “probably hadn’t cleared their statements with the Privy Council Office”.

The Privy Council had stepped in to ask Parliament to correct its website and remove Mr Corbyn's title, he said. This was confirmed by sources in Parliament.

Mr Rogers said: “Anything stemming from the Monarchy, Buckingham Palace or Privy Council is always in the politest possible terms but nobody doubts [they meant]: ‘Get it off’.

The Labour leader will have to send a Privy Counsellor in his shadow Cabinet team – such as foreign affairs spokesman Hilary Benn – for briefings, such any on British drone strikes in Syria

In contrast Mr Cameron was named as a member of the Privy Council at a meeting on 14 December 2005, eight days after he was made Conservative leader.

Mr Cameron did not attend a Privy Council meeting and therefore was not sworn in for a further three months, but unlike Mr Corbyn he was appointed in his absence.

Mr Cameron was then referred to as “Right Honourable” in Commons by Prime Minister Tony Blair in the weeks before he was sworn as a Privy Counsellor in March 2005.

Gisela Stuart and Angus Robertson, two other MPs who were recommended to be members of the Privy Council at the same time as Mr Corbyn, were formally appointed at last week’s meeting.

Sir Nicholas Soames, a member of the Privy Council ,said Mr Corbyn was being “unbelievably selfish and bad mannered” over his treatment of the invitation to join the centuries-old body.

He said: “If he is going to be the Leader of the Opposition and be taken seriously he has to take the job seriously and treating a privy counsellorship in this way is appalling."

A Number 10 source said: “The Prime Minister was merely treating him with the same respect as he would any leader of the Official Opposition” when the pair debated in the House of Commons last month.

A Privy Council spokesman said: “Jeremy Corbyn is not yet a member of the Privy Council therefore he is yet to have the Right Honourable title.”

Mr Corbyn's spokesman said that the Labour leader - who is a known republican - wanted to take up the position on the Privy Council.

A Labour source blamed an "administrative error". A spokesman Mr Corbyn said last week: “Although Jeremy was unavailable for today’s meeting, he has confirmed he will be joining the Privy Council. As the Prime Minister and others did, it is far from unusual to miss the first meeting due to other commitments.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...onourable-title-after-Privy-Council-snub.html
Click to expand...
 
He had much more important things to do than bow and scrape at some outdated ceremony. Like taking his wive out to dinner in the Scottish Highlands allegedly.
 
Untied said:
Click to expand...


Not too bad for Labour actually, considering the supposed doom and gloom surrounding Corbyn. I wonder if the Tories cuts to tax credits, and some of Jeremy Hunt's comments in particular, have affected this at all?
 
Cheesy said:
Not too bad for Labour actually, considering the supposed doom and gloom surrounding Corbyn. I wonder if the Tories cuts to tax credits, and some of Jeremy Hunt's comments in particular, have affected this at all?
Click to expand...
If the polls are remotely accurate, then May's speech strikes me as possibly the cause, given UKIP are down two and the Tories unchanged.

Tories go right on immigration, gain a couple from UKIP, lose a couple to Labour.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
If the polls are remotely accurate, then May's speech strikes me as possibly the cause, given UKIP are down two and the Tories unchanged.

Tories go right on immigration, gain a couple from UKIP, lose a couple to Labour.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that definitely won't help either. The Tories have been going fairly strongly on certain issues lately, so it's likely that it's probably influenced people quite significantly either way on them.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
If the polls are remotely accurate, then May's speech strikes me as possibly the cause, given UKIP are down two and the Tories unchanged.

Tories go right on immigration, gain a couple from UKIP, lose a couple to Labour.
Click to expand...

If you look at the polls from the last three months (1,2,3) by far the biggest Labour gain is from Green voters intending to vote Labour, going up from 8% two months ago to 36% this month. After that its SNP voters, up from 5% to 9%. The Greens get their vote back from the Lib Dems and SNP, leaving them net neutral. That's almost certainly the Corbyn effect (i assume anyway) and makes up all the gains.

The Tories lose votes back to the Lib Dems, which is interesting & a problem for them, but gain from UKIP so end up with no change.

On the downside the number of people who voted Labour in 2015 and who intend to vote again has fallen down to 77%, down by 6% from the middle of August. In social group C1 & C2 (aka the working classes), the Tories either beat or match Labour, but thats an improvement over the last 2 months. The people switching from Tory to Labour are cancelled out by people switching the other way.

TlDr Labour gain from Greens and SNP, lose support among previous Labour voters, everyone else plays a bit of musical chairs.
 
bishblaize said:
Another depressing bust up at the PLP tonight.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-tensions-boil-over-fractious-mps-meeting

I won't bother linking all the tweets, but amongst the many, this one jumped out.

Click to expand...

Not hugely surprising he doesn't know how to run them, I think I read that he hadn't been to one since before Blair. PMQs will be interesting...

Bevan to Benn to Corbyn... why is the calibre going in the entirely wrong direction at a gathering speed?
 
I dont understand the fuss really. Its completely consistent with everything Corbyn has said he stands for. Supporting the charter was the oddity, not this.

As for economic credibility, are we still even talking about that? Again, Corbyn has stated quite clearly what he is about. Every person with a passing interest in politics has had their say about whether it makes any sense or not. Nobody is ready to change their minds about it yet, there has been no time for either side to be vindicated.

IMO Corbyn has to be given the chance to deliver on what he has promised, at least to represent those arguments. It would be a massive betrayal of all those people who got so enthused by Corbyn for him to turn around now and sign up for someone else's idea of fiscal responsibility. I mean, people wonder why there is so little trust, and so much apathy, when it comes to politics. At least part of the reason has to be politicians always seem unwilling or unable to actually deliver the changes they promise, markets and other conservative forces always win the day. Exhibit A: Alexis Tsipras. At least Corbyn might be able to go a month before quietly abandoning everything he said he stood for.
 
Adebesi said:
I dont understand the fuss really. Its completely consistent with everything Corbyn has said he stands for. Supporting the charter was the oddity, not this.
Click to expand...

I made the point several pages back that his voting for the fiscal charter was in direct opposition to his plan to reject austerity. He certainly should have done this in the first place. But he's managed to make a mess of an easy decision.
 
sun_tzu said:
First economic u turn
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
Can't see that being popular... Though it's consistent with the anti austerity ethos.
But in terms of economic credibility it will almost certainly play badly
Click to expand...

Most curious about this is the fact that Corbyn didn't seem to be involved.

If it's all a political trick why should anyone care? Diane Abbott, the shadow international development secretary tried to laugh off the chaos at the weekly gathering of Labour MPs last night when she was put up to defend the policy today.

Labour's change of heart, withdrawing its support for George Osborne's attempt to make it illegal for governments to spend more than they have, was she argued, nothing more than her party's ongoing commitment to Keynsian economics. And the Chancellor's efforts are all a dastardly trap that doesn't matter.

There is a logic to opposing the bill. One senior figure in the party told me this morning, without being able to borrow to invest "there is no Labour economic story". And for Jeremy Corbyn's anti-austerity message to stick, it was odd that his close colleague John McDonnell had supported the idea in the first place. The Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale was among those who argued that position could not stick.

But McDonnell did, very publicly commit to backing Osborne's idea and the U-turn can't just be laughed off, for several different reasons.

First, Labour knows it needs voters to trust the party again on the economy. This total reversal on a key economic policy in the space of two weeks doesn't do much to inspire confidence.

Second, the manner in which its Shadow Chancellor presented the new policy, an email to Labour MPs in the middle of yesterday afternoon out-of-the-blue, runs totally counter to the approach Mr Corbyn has repeatedly said he wants to take - frank and open discussions before any decisions are made. What faith can his colleagues have in that promise now? This has soured relations between the leadership and the "making it work" brigade - politicians who accepted senior jobs in Corbyn's team for the sake of trying to keep the party together, and giving him a chance.

Third, at Labour's meeting last night there was dismay not just at how the U-turn had suddenly emerged, but at how Mr Corbyn didn't even make much attempt to confront his critics, not all from the right of the party. Despite his overwhelming support from the party membership there is a real fear in his Westminster party that he just is not up to the demands of the job.

Lastly, Corbyn's team seemed rather taken aback by McDonnell's decision, pointedly saying last night it was "for John to defend and explain". Any split between the two is dangerous because it is easy for their enemies to exploit.

In the short term McDonnell's U-turn leaves the new leadership with a potential rebellion on its hands. Labour moderates like the former Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie plans to abstain on what is "John's first big test", and many others may join him.

Jeremy Corbyn gave McDonnell the job of running Labour's economic policy against the advice of many others. If the last 24 hours are anything to go by, Corbyn may in time conclude it would have been better to listen to that counsel.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
 
bishblaize said:
I made the point several pages back that his voting for the fiscal charter was in direct opposition to his plan to reject austerity. He certainly should have done this in the first place. But he's managed to make a mess of an easy decision.
Click to expand...
Yeah its strange that he went along with it at first, maybe he was trying to be conciliatory and sure up his position with his own shadow cabinet or something?

Anyway, the fallout from this U turn will be limited. The fallout if he had gone along with it could be more significant, in that he would potentially alienate a lot of his supporters, and would be highly unlikely (on this alone) to win any doubters over.
 
Adebesi said:
Yeah its strange that he went along with it at first, maybe he was trying to be conciliatory and sure up his position with his own shadow cabinet or something?

Anyway, the fallout from this U turn will be limited. The fallout if he had gone along with it could be more significant, in that he would potentially alienate a lot of his supporters, and would be highly unlikely (on this alone) to win any doubters over.
Click to expand...
With the membership, yes, but he's basically got zero support from his own MPs now. Whilst his supporters will no doubt say that's no big deal and that he's about doing things "from the bottom up", being a leader of a parliamentary party with no support from that parliamentary party is not a situation that's going to last. Unless you have widespread de-selection of MPs, I can't see how he's going to turn that around.
 
Ubik said:
With the membership, yes, but he's basically got zero support from his own MPs now. Whilst his supporters will no doubt say that's no big deal and that he's about doing things "from the bottom up", being a leader of a parliamentary party with no support from that parliamentary party is not a situation that's going to last. Unless you have widespread de-selection of MPs, I can't see how he's going to turn that around.
Click to expand...
Wasnt that the situation anyway? This is what I was alluding to in my last sentence. If he had gone along with the charter some his fans would start to think, here we go, says one thing on the campaign trail, but once he is in a position of authority its just more of the same. Meanwhile, the MPs still dont trust him.

Whereas if he opposes the charter he is being consistent with his stated position so his supporters are happy. MPs dont trust him but they didnt before so he hasnt lost anything.

I guess I am looking at his position vis-a-vis the MPs in black and white terms, the reality is surely more nuanced. But still, I think there is more than an element of truth in it. The MPs hate him, they have made no secret of it and are clearly biding their time for the right moment to try and get rid of him. I cant see how he is going to change that. He has to play the hand he has, and his support is among the membership, so they are the ones he has to keep onside.

That's how I see it anyway.
 
It's all a complete mess. There's pretty much zero chance Corbyn leads Labour into the next election.
 
Adebesi said:
Wasnt that the situation anyway? This is what I was alluding to in my last sentence. If he had gone along with the charter some his fans would start to think, here we go, says one thing on the campaign trail, but once he is in a position of authority its just more of the same. Meanwhile, the MPs still dont trust him.

Whereas if he opposes the charter he is being consistent with his stated position so his supporters are happy. MPs dont trust him but they didnt before so he hasnt lost anything.

I guess I am looking at his position vis-a-vis the MPs in black and white terms, the reality is surely more nuanced. But still, I think there is more than an element of truth in it. The MPs hate him, they have made no secret of it and are clearly biding their time for the right moment to try and get rid of him. I cant see how he is going to change that. He has to play the hand he has, and his support is among the membership, so they are the ones he has to keep onside.

That's how I see it anyway.
Click to expand...
It's just dumb to give them easy stuff to get angry about, and they genuinely are angry about this. He's supposed to be promoting consensual style politics, yet this reversal took place immediately prior to the PLP and shadow cabinet meetings without discussion, a mere two weeks after McDonnell said at conference that he'd back it. It looks incompetent as much as anything. It should also be noted that McDonnell still says he's committed to eliminating the deficit, the reason he's not backing this anymore is because it doesn't allow you to borrow extra for infrastructure spending. Which he would have known had he read the charter before Sunday.

MikeUpNorth said:
It's all a complete mess. There's pretty much zero chance Corbyn leads Labour into the next election.
Click to expand...
Beginning to think he's a goner before the Scottish elections to be honest.
 
A very low move by McDonnell in explaining why he changed his mind. Pure spin.

I went to Redcar and I met the steelworkers and I had families in tears about what’s happening to them as a result of the government failing to act, failing to intervene. And I came back and I realised the consequences of the government’s failure to invest in infrastructure and skills, the cuts that are going to start coming now, I realised that people are actually going to suffer badly. And it brought it home to me, and I don’t want the Labour party associated with this policy.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...charter-u-turn-due-to-meeting-redcar-families
 
Some guy on Dateline London said Labour will be out of power for twenty years. I'm beginning to think it might be true. I don't support any party but I really dislike a lot of the Tory government. For neutrals, a credible and electable Labour Party as an alternative to this government is essential.
 
Shamwow said:
Christ, he's making it sound like his policy will be formed on the basis of seeing people cry.
Click to expand...

Certainly don't get with the Tories. They'd rather plough on through to save face despite being told the negative impacts of their policies.
 
It's not a good idea so I'm glad Labour are no longer backing it. I'm more frustrated that McDonnell ever backed it in the first place than with the fact that he's changed his mind. If politicians are terrified to change their minds because they'll get accused of flip-flopping you get into a situation we've seen far too much of, which is them backing bad policies to the hilt despite the consequences instead of holding their hands up and admitting they got it wrong. McDonnell's reasoning for opposing the policy is fair enough - the Tories want to create a situation where governments have no power to curb the excesses of the free-market on the pretext of having balanced budgets - that policy hurts people and Labour shouldn't back it.
 
Corbyn signals Labour could back military action in Syria without UN support

Jeremy Corbyn has signalled for the first time that Labour could support forms of military action in Syria without UN support if Russia blocks a security council resolution.

Taking a more flexible approach to UK military involvement in the Syrian civil war, the new statement urges David Cameron to try again to win support for a new UN resolution allowing military action, and affirms that the party supports the creation of safe zones within Syria to protect Syrians who have had to flee their homes.

In an article in the Guardian on Monday, Diane Abbott, the shadow international development secretary, rejected the idea of safe havens when proposed by Jo Cox, one of the backbenchers trying to assemble a broader Labour policy on Syria that does not just wait to react to government proposals.
The new positions, an attempt to assert a collective shadow cabinet policy, are laid out in a new article on Comment is Free by the shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, and follow a meeting on Tuesday morning between Benn, Corbyn, the shadow lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, the shadow attorney general, Catherine McKinnell, the shadow defence secretary, Maria Eagle, and the shadow chief whip, Rosie Winterton.

In a bid to underline this as the agreed Labour leadership position, Corbyn issued a brief statement, saying: “I met with shadow cabinet colleagues today and Hilary Benn is setting out the position today.”

The new stance, taking into account the unexpected Russian air campaign inSyria in defence of Assad, is also significant since it is the Labour policy with which the prime minister will have to work if he is to build a clear consensus in the Commons for further UK military action as part of a wider diplomatic plan.

At present, Cameron is looking for at least 35 Labour MPs to give cast iron guarantees to vote with him on military action, but Downing Street may feel engaging with Benn’s broader strategy offers a superior route to winning broad Commons agreement for a new approach in Syria.

In his article, Benn writes: “On the question of airstrikes against Isil/Daesh in Syria, it should now be possible to get agreement on a UN security council chapter VII resolution given that four of the five permanent members – the USA, France, Britain and Russia – are already taking military action against Isil/Daesh in Iraq or Syria or in both countries. The prime minister should now be working tirelessly with other countries to try to secure such a resolution.”

For the first time, Benn discusses the possibility that it will not be possible to reach agreement on a chapter VII resolution at the security council, stating: “Of course, we know that any resolution may be vetoed, and in those circumstances we would need to look at the position again.” The wording is designed to imply that Labour recognises its prior support for military action without explicit UN authorisation, such as in Kosovo.
Benn also stresses the absolute necessity of acting, writing: “We have a responsibility to protect people, but in Syria, no one has taken responsibility and no one has been protected. It is the great humanitarian crisis of our age and one of our greatest tests too.”

He says: “The way we take any decision will matter a great deal. MPs and others may disagree about what the right thing to do is, but we must never forget that we have a responsibility both to help the Syrian people and protect British citizens. Deciding to intervene militarily in another country is one of the most serious decisions parliament can make, but equally, nobody should be in any doubt that inaction is also a decision that will have consequences in Syria.”

So far, safe havens have been rejected by the UK foreign office, and by President Obama. Tobias Ellwood, the Foreign Office minister, told MPs on Monday night: “History tells us that implementing genuinely safe zones is difficult and must be accompanied by an international mandate that would provide the will, the authority and the full means to ensure that they have a chance of being effective. It would also involve significant military commitment. As we have seen, that can be hard to come by from the various parliaments across the world.”
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...t-military-action-in-syria-without-un-support
 
bishblaize said:
A very low move by McDonnell in explaining why he changed his mind. Pure spin.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics...charter-u-turn-due-to-meeting-redcar-families
Click to expand...

Pure gold comedy from a party who expect voters to trust them with the country...

“Just one hour before the parliamentary Labour party was due to meet, without McDonnell choosing to speak, he announced his U-turn,” Mann wrote. “Yet in all of this time there has been no debate, nor any consultation within the Labour party. So two contradictory policy announcements, without a single collective discussion.”
 
Among those who are discussing the u-turn in here, who agrees with Osbourne's charter and who doesn't?
 
At a matter of interest, were all you guys equally loudly calling Labour a shambles when Blair said there wouldn't be an EU referendum, and then u-turned on that policy? And then u-turned back to his original position afterwards? All without consultation with the PLP?

Obviously it's a bit of a mess, but I'd rather a mess than Labour following a shit Tory policy. There was an article a few years ago that showed that the coalition government u-turned on a policy an average of once every 29 days, and I didn't see many on here giving them this sort of stick.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Obviously it's a bit of a mess, but I'd rather a mess than Labour following a shit Tory policy. There was an article a few years ago that showed that the coalition government u-turned on a policy an average of once every 29 days, and I didn't see many on here giving them this sort of stick.
Click to expand...

I doubt most even knew about that, I certainly didn't.
 
sun_tzu said:
thats because they didnt mis-manage it in such an amateurish way
Click to expand...

Not really, the coalition government was a farce. They got away (as the current government still does) with loads of stuff because 90% of the print media backed them in the 2010 election. Ironically, if the media reported scathingly on the number of u-turns committed by the coalition they'd be u-turning on their support for it in the first place.
 
Shamwow said:
Among those who are discussing the u-turn in here, who agrees with Osbourne's charter and who doesn't?
Click to expand...

Its a question of competence, not policy. The fact the almost no-one agrees with the fiscal charter is what makes the whole business so stupid. Borderline decisions with arguments on both sides, fine, people will change their mind.

But this was the easiest decision he'll ever have to make as shadow chancellor. He's in an anti-austerity party and this is a pro-austerity bill. What on earth was he doing supporting it in the first place?

The real worry is not the policy position, which I suspect most Labour voters would agree with. Its how on earth he managed to mess up something so simple.
 
bishblaize said:
Its a question of competence, not policy. The fact the almost no-one agrees with the fiscal charter is what makes the whole business so stupid. Borderline decisions with arguments on both sides, fine, people will change their mind.

But this was the easiest decision he'll ever have to make as shadow chancellor. He's in an anti-austerity party and this is a pro-austerity bill. What on earth was he doing supporting it in the first place?

The real worry is not the policy position, which I suspect most Labour voters would agree with. Its how on earth he managed to mess up something so simple.
Click to expand...

Not really the question I asked, I don't disagree with you that they've gone about it the wrong way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.