My Name is Ms. lizzy I was married to my husband for 13 years and we were both bless with three children, living together as one love, until 2010 when things was no longer the way the was [when he lost his job]. But when he later gets a new job 6 months after, he stated sleeping outside our matrimonial home. Only for me to find out that he was having an affair with the lady that gave he the job. since that day, when I called him, he don't longer pick up my calls and he don’t want to see me around him and he also deleted me from his face book account.
I reported him to TOM SPRINGER ON NATIONAL TV [MESSYLY AFFAIRS], I did many things all just to see if I can just get my husband but nothing since to come out good. Yet my husbands just still keep on seeing the lady.
Until I met a very good friend of my who was also having a similar problem, who introduced me to a very good love spell caster. But I told her that if it has to do with things that I am not interested, but she said that it has nothing to do with pay first. But the only thing he was ask to do was just to go and buy the items to cast the spell, and that was what she did. And she gave me the spell caster e-mail address and phone number.
When I contacted him, I was so surprise when he said that if I have the faith that I will get my husband back in the nest three [3] day, and off which it was really so. But I was so shock that I did not pay any thing to ogun but my husband was on his knells begging me and the children for forgiveness. This testimony is just the price I have to pay. This man bako is good and he is the author of my happiness. His e-mail address bakotemple@gmail.com

Sorry Andrea, Chavez, my mistake.

Final point. I can't stand the dirty old man, but it's worth noting is how counterproductive a political tactic this round robin and the hysterical abuse of the people on this site is from Livingstone's point of view. Across the blogosphere, posters are reading what you and the party hacks at Compass are writing and vowing not to vote Labour for the first time in their lives. I don't think you realise how you look to outsiders. You would be respected if could just say 'right, we accept that there are serious accuastion of corruption and unaccountable power. As real leftists rather than the pseudo variety we find Livingstone's embrace of the far right revolting, and obviously something has gone badly wrong when Venezuela, a poor country, is subsidising a city as rich as London. However, on balance we consider Livingstone the least worst option.'
But you can't. You just scream like the nutter on the bus everyone wants to avoid. In your own small way you are destroying the very candidate you wish to promote.

Serosch -- you've forgotten Michael Gove and John Ware... oh and Lex Luthor

Mr Bright, it will be a happy day indeed when you are sacked from this publication.

You can then join your chum Ms Phillips at the Daily Mail, a publication that supported German fascism in the 20th century and in the 21st century is supporting Jewish fascism.

Martin you are a card carrying member of the neo con Reaganite right but at least you have a sense of humour unlike mate Cohen.

By your comments I assume you were not on Any Questions and making those remarks. If you did then you are a disgrace. If you did not make remarks about the immigrants and then I apologise. I would like to know which it was.

So why haven't they sent me my card yet? I'm still waiting.

Anyway, must dash... off to the latest meeting of the Zionist conspiracy

Martin - you have now entered the realm of pure fantasy - you have to write me off as an anti-semite because I have dismantled rabid lies about Venezuela - but if you look through all my comments, you'll find nothing to evidence it. Read before you write Martin - its some good advice for a journalist. you are fast becoming a prime embarrassment to your trade.

Salil - I cant actually work out what you are saying anymore but you have a real bee in your bonnet about my inability to spell. Good to see that you are spending your time dealing with the really important issues in the world! The fact that this of much more interest to you than the truth about Chavez and Venezuela casts you as a bit of a nerd I have to say - just out of interest- what did you read while you were out there? Any of the anti-Chavez press that populates the news-stands on a daily basis? tune into any of the channels that daily pump out lies about Chavez? or did you just bury your head in the nearest dictionary?

Perhaps that explains why you thought you were under a pinochet style dictatorship !

My point is simply this- you have to attack Chavez with lies that fall flat on their faces under scrutiny because that is how you justify your attacks on Ken for allying with Chavez. With friends like these who needs the tories?

Nick Cohen's lost it. Anyone who thinks that good transport in London, a serious policy on the environment, that it's not a bad thing that crime has been reduced to its lowest level for nine years and therefore concludes that Ken Livingstone is the best person to carry those policies forward is 'hysterical abuse'. This is from the man who has used his position as a national journalist to write attack after attack against political opponents as he justifies his right-ward shift. He repeats the gutter politics of the Standard about corruption for which there has been much written, but no evidence provided. he then insults anyone writing a defence of the Mayor's politics as being on the 'inside' as he knows the 'outside' well. (By the way, I've only visited Cty Hall three times till now, which I guess is considerably less than Mr Cohen..
As epitomy has noted, he and his journalists are remarkably quiet when Boris's friends act in an overtly racist way. I suppose that's one to be kept from the 'outside'.
Why don't you just say that you're a Tory and stop finding anyone else to blame for your impending defection. You're not a new phenomenon.
It's not true either about Ken's popularity. Despite all the tirade, what is counter-productive is the avoidance of discussing policies - the result of the Evening Standard's campaign is that Ken has set the political agenda while Boris relied on the crap that you and others churned out. There are other factors involved in the mayoral election, but if you think the postings here (including my own in all modesty) represent what people on buses I travel on, you do live in isolation.

If Ken is such a massive fan of the gay hating Muslim ultra-right can anyone explain why his administration has:

- funded anti-homophobic bullying DVDs for all secondary schools in London, in partnership with Stonewall

- established the first same sex civil partnership register in the UK

- funded Pride for the last 8 years

- battled Westminster and Bromley councils over the right to fly the rainbow flags at gay venues in the West End and the right to hold civil partnership ceremonies at town halls respectively

- banned a homophobic holiday company from advertising on the London Underground

- established a full time liaison officer for LGBT communities in London

Could it actually be that his engagement with Al Qawadari was a piece of (yes, possibly misjudged) realpolitik in regard to specific issues of the time, rather than a wholesale policy shift in support of the latter's position on gay rights?

Could it possibly be that this ridiculous assertion is being made by specific journalists who either (a) support Boris (b) have axes to grind in their never ending blog war with prominent leftists or (c) do both?

I'm thinking that it might be the letter, which is why neither Bright or Cohen will go near the actual policy agenda as they will become badly found out in their support of Boris "write some more hilarious spic jokes please Taki" Johnson.

All right, then have it your way. Ken's cruising to victory and Labour haven't picked a clapped out loser. We'll see in May who is right.

Martin, thank you for writing what I felt when reading the "Unite for Ken" letter. Ken - famous for ignoring consultations and the will of local councils and residents is now being held up as an "ideal of democracy" - hilarious if it wasnt so serious. It is shame that the signatories wish to help Labour keep their sleazy grip on power that they are willing to forget the failings of a despicable man and regime. well done.

epitomy, it is Gandhi, not Ghandi.

There is a rich vein of stuff to post about Nick Cohen (eg his support for grammar schools) but given his portrayal of critics as nutters how about this one where he begins an e-mail to left journalist Dave Osler, "Oi, Tosser.." See http://www.davidosler.com/2006/04/this_charming_man_an_exchange.html

Have you been offered a job at the Evening Standard by any chance Martin?

The so called "investigative journalist" you quote at length - Tom Bower - just happens to be Veronica Wadley - editor of the Standard's husband.

... and he was writing in the Daily Mail. Oh no, its a plot!

Nick Cohen doesn't pick up gauntlets, his preferred method is to fling mud and run away like the coward he is.

Note that when his denial of his support for torture and rendition was contradicted by an article where he had proposed both - Cohen ignored the evidence of his venality.

Nick Cohen is a particularly nasty piece of work as he adopts pseudo-left positions merely in order to attack the left.

Cohen pretends to support Iraqi trade unionists but when the occupation forces raid their offices, Cohen writes not a single word of protest.

Cohen also poses as a great friend of the Kurds and Kurdistan, but when Turkey invades oppresses its own Kurdish population or invades Iraqi Kurdistan, Cohen is silent.

Nice friend you have there Mr Bright.

While your here Nick how would you differentiate yours and Martins views from the Policy Exchange unit and a journalists such as Charles Moore and Michael Gove.

Bright is no doubt particularly angry about this impressive list of progressive people backing Livingstone’s re-election because it makes his bizarre proposal for Livingstone to be dropped as the Labour candidate seem even more redundant and flaky.

We can expect supporters of this position to get a lot dirtier in their tactics against Livingstone (although it could not get much dirtier than Bright’s activities such as the Dispatches hatchet job).

Bright says that the signatories should be ashamed of themselves, and that anyone with a progressive bone in their bodies would have run a mile, but these individuals are the ones who can see that Londoners would suffer under a Johnson mayoralty.

Under Ken good policies on the environment and transport will continue. Bright can’t see this. Bright has jumped outside a basically progressive framework altogether.

The New Statesman deserves a political editor who is actually on the left in a meaningful sense.

Thank god for Martin Bright. At last someone part of the 'progressive' left who is willing to not only to poo-poo the radical right (which incidentally I don't think you could call Boris Johnson) as well as the hard-left.

Serosch: "...your real gripe with Ken is that he won't signup to the extremist Zionist project, one of the aims of the project is to completely sideline Muslims in the UK." - Seriously what?! Instead Ken signs up to an extremist Islamic project...much better! Glad to see the left, 'progressive' or otherwise is hell bent on providing such nonsense.

Keep up the level-headed and sensible writing Martin - left or right, doesn't matter, truth will out and thank you for providing a critique which would otherwise be white-washed by the Labour spin machine.

"But I'm afraid my view is that such policy initiatives should be the bottom-line for a progressive politician.I don't believe I should feel grateful that he is sometimes doing the right thing."

Good to see you admit that Ken is a progressive politician. Do you think that Johnson would be as progressive?

You might think that these should be bottom line policies but they aren't . The GLA has been a leading authority in driving forward the agenda on LGBT equality.

Who's asking you to be grateful? Just think that the New Statesman might consider supporting an administration with such a positive record on LGBT equality.

And its groundbreaking work on the London Living Wage, responsible public procurement and several transport and environmental strategies.

Or, if not supporting, then at least trying to bring some kind of balance to the equation.

Yet you choose to reiterate your standard sentences about Livingstone's attacks on Philips and Singh.

Let's assume you're right and these attacks were completely out of line. On the overall balance of progressive policies vrs nasty attacks on political opponents, do you not think the scorecard is generally favourable for the Labour Mayor of London?

As far as I can tell your entire agenda against Livingstone is down to three things:

i. He can be a nasty political opponent

ii. You disagree with some of his positions on world affairs

iii. The LDA have mismanaged some of their contracts.

Is that really a reason to jump ship to supporting the Tories? Or is this just an inevitable conclusion to your increasing rightward shift?

I tend to agree with KingKev, Personally, I don't much care if Ken's supposedly left wing or not. I want to vote for a progressive, not a reactionary - not someone who embraces (physically!) homophobes, anti-semites or other assorted clerical bigots, No decent Londoner who values our free and diverse capital could vote Ken.

Back Paddick or Berrry.

... er, what's the difference between Pinochet and Chavez?

Wonderful to see the back slapping between ex-lefties Cohen and Bright - you are both the unashamed warm-up act for the star attraction ... Boris Johnson! (what a wonderfully entertaining gig that would make!)

the great thing about stating this obvious fact, is that Boris is such a backward and unpalateable prospect, you have no choice but to squirm and justify your position in increasingly pathetic ways: The "Labour should select another candidate" or "Im actually backing Paddick" positions being the most creative contortions which still amount to piling in for the Backward Boris toff bandwagon.

The nail in the coffin for Cohen was the fact that he sat in the evening standard's "influentials" debate with Boris Johnson, where Yasmin Alibhai Brown was told to "f*** off back to Uganda you c***" by a rabid audience member after she agreed with someone making a point about affirmative action. Whatever your views on affirmative action, surely it is the job of a supposed progressive journo, and indeed, any candidate for mayor, to condemn such a racist outburst and make it clear this is unnaceptable? The only person who is making this the point of difference and a sign of things to come under Boris is the New Nation's Michael Eboda.

Cohen of course has not made an issue of the fact that a mayoral candidate who can sit in a meeting with such blatant racism and allow it to continue unchecked has fallen at the first hurdle of demonstrating he will govern a city like london equally. (still grateful for your endorsement from Nick, Martin?)

On the flip side of this, Livingstone has presided over a fall in racist attacks together with a general fall in crime - something no Tory adminstration has done for all their chorus calling on crime, and something which neither Bright or Cohen weigh up as being a critical achievement for the Mayor.

That is why you should both be considered ex-left- you have lost your bearings and are an embarrasment - now away with you.

Bright is infatuated with what city hall worries about - have you tried door-stepping black people, Lesbian and gay people, environmentalists, the peace movement about their views? (For Martin's benefit - these are the constituents that traditionally make up the left. They are also the targets of Boris's backward views in his rather public disdain for these and many other issues that should be considered critical in the next Mayor.) These groups are worried about a victory for backward Boris as they will be the first to feel the loss of Livingstones progressive positions on these issues. You may remember that up until Ken became Mayor, people still spoke of the legacy of the GLC which was destroyed by Thatcher. I dont want to return such lamenting but you seem to have a very short term memory - especially when you consider the role of fleet street in this at the time. The constant attacks on Ken's support for Black, Lesbian and Gay groups and others, is echoed again in the latest round of attacks and has the same aim - to justify his removal - the ultimate scalp for the Tories in the run in to a general election.

However, the more jubiliant your tone on speculating about 'how scared city hall' is, the more you sound like a deluded, isolated voice in the wilderness; one that will no doubt have a cosy, well paid home in the evening standard if the new statesman ever decides to stop wasting the precious time that remains in the run up to this election on your pantomime performance as a serious political editor.

As glibly entertaining as it is to watch you rolling out the red carpet for the Thatcherite Boris and lying prostrate on it, Im more interested in reading about how the left can defend the gain it has made in Livingstone, and play a decisive role in this close election which will either make things better for Londoners under Livingstone, or so much worse under Boris.

Mr Cohen is still trapped in the days of Blair's new labour ascendency when any left progressive ideas were trampled on by the SDP claret drining crowd who had hi-jacked the Labour Party. Now that project has come to its end, the Nick Cohens of this world have to find a new home. They haven't the integrity (if that's the right word - maybe chutzpah is more appropriate) to clarify their ideological shift like Peter Hitchens, so he has to conjure up a world where it is implied that we have all embraced the right.
For the record, Mr Cohen: Ken's not cruising it, but you're making it eassier because you and Boris and Martin Bright want to sling mud. Even Ross Lydall who is employed by the Standard admitted that Ken wiped the floor with Boris on the environment. If you and all the other Boris supporters would have prepared him for a serious political debate - (and sorry, I may be an old-fashioned lefty, but I do consider that conservatives can come with good ideas), maybe Boris would fare better. While Ken is the only person to have policies and strtegies rather than gimmicks - sorry the Greens have policies - then people will vote on the basis that for the most part they like London under Ken and like where he's going.
One last point which is important to both Nick Cohen and me - anti-semitism. Do you think an increase in racism, evident at the Standard husting as epitomy pointed out ,when you and Boris chose to say nothing is going to make the lives of you and me any easier? Do you think the BNP cares whether you support Ken or not when they attack Jews? I know who will stand beside me against racism and who will not. You Mr Cohen need to wake up.