So what do people think about this Salisbury poising, where Corbyn said we should wait til we had proof before sanctioning Russia, May saying she had proof but wouldn't share it with Corbyn, expelling diplomats and then it turning out that we don't, in fact, have any proof:
I wonder will the Tories be so quick to question the party propping them up in government about the Islamophobic content it's party have been involved with int he last few days.
Herzlos wrote: So what do people think about this Salisbury poising, where Corbyn said we should wait til we had proof before sanctioning Russia, May saying she had proof but wouldn't share it with Corbyn, expelling diplomats and then it turning out that we don't, in fact, have any proof:
Is this why the Tories are smearing Corbyn so heavily right now?
That is not exactly saying there is no proof.
We have positively identified the particular nerve agent. We (as in the expert chemists working on this) also know how complex the manufacture, weaponisation, storage, transport and deployment of such an agent would be. That limits the groups capable of producing and using such an agent.
All the MoD is saying is that the analysis of the composition of the nerve agent cannot be used on its own to prove country of origin. It is worth pointing out that the Secret Intelligence Service (colloquially known as MI6) is not part of the Ministry of Defence, but answers to the Foreign Secretary. With that in mind, the sources and information available to SIS would not be automatically shared with the MoD, hence government "used a number of other sources to piece together the conclusions".
Herzlos wrote: So what do people think about this Salisbury poising, where Corbyn said we should wait til we had proof before sanctioning Russia, May saying she had proof but wouldn't share it with Corbyn, expelling diplomats and then it turning out that we don't, in fact, have any proof:
Is this why the Tories are smearing Corbyn so heavily right now?
Did you read the article you linked?
Gary Aitkenhead, the chief executive of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down, Wiltshire, told Sky News that the substance required “extremely sophisticated methods to create something only in the capabilities of a state actor. We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify that it was military-grade nerve agent.”
Mr Aitkenhead went on to say: “We have not identified the precise source, but we have provided the scientific info to the government who have then used a number of other sources,” some of them intelligence-based.
A British government spokesperson insisted that the Porton Down assessment was “only part of the intelligence picture”. He continued: “As the Prime Minister has set out in a number of statements to the Commons since 12 March, this includes our knowledge that within the past decade, Russia has investigated ways of delivering nerve agents probably for assassination and as part of this programme has produced and stockpiled small quantities of novichoks, Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations and our assessment that Russia views former intelligence officers as targets.
“It is our assessment that Russia was responsible for this brazen and reckless act and, as the international community agrees, there is no other plausible explanation.”
Because I'm pretty sure what you're saying and what the article says are two very different things.
ulgurstasta wrote: Could you point out where the proof for Russian involvement is in that article?
Assuming that you're not just being obtuse, the bits where it talks about the 'wider intelligence picture not disclosed'. The article literally says nothing which alters the status quo of what we already know; namely that the PM says she know with a degree of certainty, from multiple sources, who was responsible.
The OP was implying that some new evidence had come to light revealing this to be untrue, and linked this article. Which says nothing about the veracity or lack thereof in relation to the PM's statement. It's a statement from a chemical weapons lab relating to a separate aspect, and a statement from the British Government saying 'Yeah, we have other stuff from multiple places'. Which hardly jibes with the original statement of 'it turning out we don't, in fact, have any proof'.
And equally, things certainly seem to be a lot less certain than they certainly were a few days back, according to people who certainly should know.
FO have deleted a tweet this morning that asserted Porton Down has certainly established that the source of the agent was Russia. They now say "never had the task to establish the source of the toxic agent", which is fine, except they previously said they did.
It's certainly a bit murkier. I'm reminded of the aftermath of the Manchester bomb attack, when there was certainly a network supporting the bomber, because he couldn't have made it alone. There wasn't, and he did.
Edit - "It would be better to keep the Russian nerve gas stuff in the Russian nerve gas thread." Ah sorry, missed that update.
ulgurstasta wrote: Could you point out where the proof for Russian involvement is in that article?
Assuming that you're not just being obtuse, the bits where it talks about the 'wider intelligence picture not disclosed'. The article literally says nothing which alters the status quo of what we already know; namely that the PM says she know with a degree of certainty, from multiple sources, who was responsible.
The OP was implying that some new evidence had come to light revealing this to be untrue, and linked this article. Which says nothing about the veracity or lack thereof in relation to the PM's statement. It's a statement from a chemical weapons lab relating to a separate aspect, and a statement from the British Government saying 'Yeah, we have other stuff from multiple places'. Which hardly jibes with the original statement of 'it turning out we don't, in fact, have any proof'.
You are missing the fact that Porton Down analysis was supposed to show that Russia had manufactured the novichok in question. In fact, the Foreign & Commonwealth office and Boris Johnson both claimed that Porton Down had proof that it was manufactured in Russia, so yeah I would say something seems "untrue" about this!
Take house prices. According to the author Kevin Cahill, the main driver behind the absurd expense of owning land and property in Britain is that so much of the nation's land is locked up by a tiny elite. Just 0.3% of the population – 160,000 families – own two thirds of the country. Less than 1% of the population owns 70% of the land, running Britain a close second to Brazil for the title of the country with the most unequal land distribution on Earth.
TBF that's largely due to the Normans so perhaps we are better off out of Europe.
Kilkrazy wrote: Isn't part of a political party leader's job to avoid being manoeuvred into situations which enable him to be smeared?
To flip the point of view, how did Corby's attendance at Jewdas help mend relations with the overall Jewish community, or help to damp down the anti-semitism rumours around the Labour Party?
As a standing MP he is also meant to represent the views and meet his constituents. As has become clear to day this was within his own constituency so your could argue he is obligated to listen to their concerns/voices and so forth. I am not opposed to any politician sitting down with groups that have different (non-extremist views). You can always come to a better consensus by hearing all sides of an argument and making a decision afterwards. Ignoring elements is perhaps the fastest way of creating extreme views as they become more insular and protective of their group.
Actually it might come as a shock in defending May, but she didn't. She was much more savvy with her words than that. The problem is Boris the Clown ran off like a child with a toy telling everyone he had been definitely told that the Russian government were behind the poisoning. Even to the point of posting it on twitter (now withdrawn). That drags May into the issue because either May is excluding Boris from nationally important issues (given his preponderance to mouth off I wouldn't be surprised) or she allowed him to send out this misinformation because it was in his official capacity as a clown...erh sorry.... Foreign Secretary.
can't blame it on the EU now, so we'll blame it on those enviromentalists instead.
Course those will mainly be smaller farms.
.. which could then, say, be bought by larger richer farmers/landowners.
Who would have thought that the Tories want Wrexit to be about benefiting the wealth and their supporters at the expense of the poorer elements. They'll probably sell off land too for housing at lower rates to help Tory supported builders earn more profit too!
Spoiler:
This title is misleading. It isn't the wind farms that cause the pollution. It is that the area in question has many old mine workings and there are pools with heavily contaminated water. It's the land owners failure to clear up the land that is at fault.
Govt admits (for 1st time) it “likely” had contacts with Libyan Islamic Fighting Group & 17 February Martyrs' Brigade in Libya war of 2011. *These were the groups with which Manchester bomber Salman Abedi and his father reportedly fought in 2011
less than reassured by the ..err... stances..... taken make the twitter guy there as being totally reliable.
But what the hell, populism has to have a target and if can’t be the EU now, may as well go for the Muslims(!)
As an aside, I have no idea why this was classed as a Newsbeat story, weird?
It's ironical how Leave.EU use their freedom to talk, to talk about not being allowed to talk about muslims, by talking about muslim things they are not allowed to talk about.
But what the hell, populism has to have a target and if can’t be the EU now, may as well go for the Muslims(!)
As an aside, I have no idea why this was classed as a Newsbeat story, weird?
It's ironical how Leave.EU use their freedom to talk, to talk about not being allowed to talk about muslims, by talking about muslim things they are not allowed to talk about.
But what the hell, populism has to have a target and if can’t be the EU now, may as well go for the Muslims(!)
As an aside, I have no idea why this was classed as a Newsbeat story, weird?
Leave.EU have just given the remain side a massive stick if there is another referendum... how totally stupid of them, but then no one ever accused the far right of being Mensa candidates.
But what the hell, populism has to have a target and if can’t be the EU now, may as well go for the Muslims(!)
As an aside, I have no idea why this was classed as a Newsbeat story, weird?
Leave.EU have just given the remain side a massive stick if there is another referendum... how totally stupid of them, but then no one ever accused the far right of being Mensa candidates.
That is true. We now have evidence that they really are bigoted idiots. But then it's not like there wasn't things they displayed that showed that before. Some people just chose to ignore it (or worse agreed with it).
I don't believe you could have found a jury in Britain that would convict a 78-year-old who was defending himself and his disabled wife from two armed burglars in their 30s.
I don't believe you could have found a jury in Britain that would convict a 78-year-old who was defending himself and his disabled wife from two armed burglars in their 30s.
I am pleased with the news and whole-heartedly agree with the decision, but I am very annoyed about the way this has been treated in the media. The police were doing their jobs; the guy killed someone with a weapon, the police have a duty to take him in to custody and interview him. I could understand the kerfuffle if they’d charged him or it had gone further, but it hadn’t.
Jadenim wrote: I am pleased with the news and whole-heartedly agree with the decision, but I am very annoyed about the way this has been treated in the media. The police were doing their jobs; the guy killed someone with a weapon, the police have a duty to take him in to custody and interview him. I could understand the kerfuffle if they’d charged him or it had gone further, but it hadn’t.
Yep, sounds like the police did exactly what they are supposed to do and that, in this case, the processes worked as intended.
The only thing you can hope to do when confronted by anyone angry about this person being arrested is try to explain why, for the sake of our understanding of justice, this was the correct outcome. Some people want to get angry about anything that goes against their sense of natural justice, oblivious to an understanding that natural justice is not justice.
US trade department drafted a wish list of trade requirements that would apply to post Brexit uk. None of it could be described as good.
As the article describes, chlorine washed chicken has become something of a totem with regards trading with the US.
Would all those people who voted for Brexit, desperate to take back powers from the EU, be happy to relinquish all those powers to the US in the hopes of getting a trade deal? Take back all those powers that we played a large role in, only to cede them to another body over which we will have no control at all? Isn't Brexit-land a wonderful place to be.
I don't believe you could have found a jury in Britain that would convict a 78-year-old who was defending himself and his disabled wife from two armed burglars in their 30s.
I’m not clear why they needed to arrest the old man, couldn’t he have just made a statement? They kept him at a police station for two nights, who was caring for his disabled wife? The stress of all this could really harm his health.
The guy who died was already wanted by police, his whole scum family are criminals. I read elsewhere that he came from a traveller camp so undoubtedly the police didn’t have a fixed address for the villain and they all collude to cover for each other and prevent police finding anyone. He should have been in a cell not out robbing more old people in the night. He got exactly what he deserved. My concern now is that this hateful family of criminals that rob old people will target this old couple for revenge, they’ll live out their final years in constant fear of reprisal.
Because being arrested sets into motion certain legal rights and procedures.
Just one example, the right to a lawyer for the interview. If he wasn't arrested he wouldn't have the right to a lawyer without paying for that lawyer himself.
Due process has to be followed in any case. If they didn't arrest and subsequently release him there would be complaints about special treatment and police not doing their job.
He probably didn't need to be in for 2 nights though
Howard A Treesong wrote: I’m not clear why they needed to arrest the old man, couldn’t he have just made a statement?
I refer to my previous comment about natural justice not being the same as justice, and about people not understanding this.
Someone was killed. They HAD to arrest him. It was the only right thing to do.
He got exactly what he deserved.
Ease up there Judge Dredd, summary executions aren't a legal recourse on our streets just yet.
It isn't about what he deserved, it is about what is just, proportionate and reasonable.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I’m not clear why they needed to arrest the old man, couldn’t he have just made a statement?
I refer to my previous comment about natural justice not being the same as justice, and about people not understanding this.
Someone was killed. They HAD to arrest him. It was the only right thing to do.
He got exactly what he deserved.
Ease up there Judge Dredd, summary executions aren't a legal recourse on our streets just yet.
It isn't about what he deserved, it is about what is just, proportionate and reasonable.
Its also worth bearing in mind, that with such scrutiny on surrounding Police and CPS over collapsed trails and miscarriages , that they decided that a marginal case wasn't worth pursuing. Especially in the face of media coverage.
Not saying that this is the case. But a possibility.
Just look at the scenario from the point of view of a Crown Prosecutor..
A wanted criminal and his accomplice, with a history of distraction burglary of pensioners, invade a pensioner couple's house about midnight, and threaten the disabled wife to force the husband at weapon point (I would say knife but it was a screwdriver).
Somehow the husband manages to seize the screwdriver and stabs a burglar with it.
The burglar's accomplice, rather than phone an ambulance and face justice, drags the casualty off to their getaway car.
The police arrive in time to arrest one burglar, another one escapes, and the third has bled to death on the floor of his getaway vehicle.
You couldn't find a jury in Britain who would convict in this case.
There were three of them? I thought was just two, one died and the other fled. No honour between thieves. You can be sure the family and friends know who the other was, probably a relative.
I'm glad that pensioner is no longer facing charges for defending his home - it would have been an utter travesty if he'd been charged.
It's also troubling and tragic to see so many young people getting killed on London's streets
We've discussed this before, but is it as simple as saying less police = more crime?
Everybody knows where I stand on the Tories. Utterly, utterly incompetent buffoons that should have been ran out of the country years ago, but comparing what they did in Glasgow, to what they're doing in London, throws up some interesting debates.
The problem is not eradicated in Glasgow, but they had a massive response which involved social workers, schools, judges, prosecutors, and intelligient use of stop and search. And they mostly have the gang and knife problem under control.
Even if they had the money in London, I'm not sure the political will or competence is there to make a difference. Both Labour and Tories seem more interested in point scoring rather than band together for the common good.
Splits over Brexit, weak leadership, diminishing base, loss of fiscal credibility, lack of vision, no core values, a rampant extreme right wing, demonstrable failure in Govt.
Are we watching the end of conservatism as we know it? Are the very acts designed to try and hold the party together at the expense of all else actually the actions that lead to its ultimate split and demise?
Yes, but there’s also the much greater number of people who have non lethal stab wounds and the large numbers of crimes carried out using threats made with knives. There’s a huge number of people carrying knives, admittedly some just for self defence and don’t intend to use them unless threatened by a knife themselves. But that’s just symptomatic of the problem. Knive and gun crime resulting in deaths is mostly involving gangs on other gangs, bystanders are unlikely to be involved... most of the time.
It’s not about the 8.5 million in the whole city, that’s too generalised and hides a problem. Consider that the majority of this violence tends towards a few notorious areas like Tottenham, Brixton, Peckham. Young black men are not only the most likely perpetrators, but also the most likely victims. Don’t tell them a few murders a week in a population 8.5 million isn’t much, the reality is living in these areas that it occurs is quite dangerous.
Not really sure that Anonymous millionaire donors , who apparently aren't even sure that they're actually trying to form a new party, is really going to fix things.
Not really sure that Anonymous millionaire donors , who apparently aren't even sure that they're actually trying to form a new party, is really going to fix things.
The TL/DR: India is in no rush to make a trade deal with the UK to match the one they've been working on since 2007 with the EU and when they do get around to us they want easier immigration for Indians as a condition.
We'll need feth-tons of extra sovereignty to get this one to make sense.
I broke the swear filter again. I seem to have a talent for it.
UKIP have an utter scumbag as a candidate, no surprises there, but I love they now seem to be issuing statements in Footballerese -
Ukip said they would look into the tweets. “The lad is deeply ashamed and embarrassed,” said a spokesman. “He can’t remember doing it, but he doesn’t claim he didn’t. It’s deeply unedifying and unpleasant, there’s no question about that, but it was six years ago. He’s terribly embarrassed and ashamed, as rightly he should be.”
I think it's the Savage dialect. Expect to hear soon -
"It's a Brexit of two halves"
"It only takes a second to win a referendum"
"Neil Hamilton gave 110%"
This explains why they change their leader every 3 months anyway.
UKIP have an utter scumbag as a candidate, no surprises there, but I love they now seem to be issuing statements in Footballerese -
Ukip said they would look into the tweets. “The lad is deeply ashamed and embarrassed,” said a spokesman. “He can’t remember doing it, but he doesn’t claim he didn’t. It’s deeply unedifying and unpleasant, there’s no question about that, but it was six years ago. He’s terribly embarrassed and ashamed, as rightly he should be.”
I think it's the Savage dialect. Expect to hear soon -
"It's a Brexit of two halves"
"It only takes a second to win a referendum"
"Neil Hamilton gave 110%"
This explains why they change their leader every 3 months anyway.
Is it any surprise that the true bottom feeders are rising to the surface.
Not really sure that Anonymous millionaire donors , who apparently aren't even sure that they're actually trying to form a new party, is really going to fix things.
That's really interesting, I think there is definitely room in the centre ground since the Lib Dems seem to have failed to capitalise on Brexit.
I was so disillusioned with the Tories following the result, but with Corbyn taking Labour in such a repugnant direction and Tim Farron showing that he couldn't even stand up for his own beliefs I was completely without options! A proper attempt to create a new centrist party would give me some serious food for thought.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm glad that pensioner is no longer facing charges for defending his home - it would have been an utter travesty if he'd been charged.
It largely depends on the circumstances. Most people will be arrested in similar circumstances as I think it's procedure to do it. It means that flight risk people can be stopped and prevented from having bail before they fly to and ask for asylum in Brazil etc.
There is a balance between protecting your home and the implications of doing so. If you allow for no charges in any circumstance then it can end up making the situation worse. If a thief thinks he might be shotgunned / stabbed in any potential property then they are more likely to arm themselves because of fear of that action. That escalates the violence as the thieves then arm themselves and that increases the probability of a violent assault/murder etc being committed. On the other hand if the thief recognises that they have some protection in law from a violent assault then that alleviates the fear that the householder might go all Rambo on them. The balance being that there are violent criminals out there and in those cases people should be entitled to defend themselves. It doesn't allow them, for example to pin them down and then slowly extract their innards as in braveheart. In some ways the pensioner should consider himself lucky. In a lot of cases it is the householder that gets injured.
It's also troubling and tragic to see so many young people getting killed on London's streets
We've discussed this before, but is it as simple as saying less police = more crime?
To an extent. Extra police likely means more people are investigated and caught from low level incidents that might then prevent them getting ever more confident and aggressive. Do I think a few extra people on patrol will stop the violence overall, no I don't.
There's more the violence that just police. The systematic destruction of social support systems by the Tories especially for the poorest is likely driving people into other social groups, likely gang associated. That leads to certain evolved territorial behaviour especially when there is a fight over 'resources'. Be that looking 'cool' and powerful to the local women, gang territory etc.
So I think it is a problem with the Tories exploiting the poor for the benefit of the wealthy rather than specifically there are less police (although it will be a factor)
Splits over Brexit, weak leadership, diminishing base, loss of fiscal credibility, lack of vision, no core values, a rampant extreme right wing, demonstrable failure in Govt.
Are we watching the end of conservatism as we know it? Are the very acts designed to try and hold the party together at the expense of all else actually the actions that lead to its ultimate split and demise?
We can only hope so.
Hopefully just the end of neo-liberal conservatism.
I've little problem with the centre-right. Indeed, we need them to balance out my lefty principles by providing a counter narrative.
The reason Corbyn is doing so well is the last few elections have been Tory, Diet Tory or Full Strength Insanity Flavour Tory as options - and that's not good for democracy, as it's not a wide enough political spectrum (same would be said if they were all lefty options too. Got to have variety to have discourse).
And as a result, there's a generation, maybe two, that've known nothing but the poo covered end of the stick in terms of opportunity and earnings.
Kroem wrote: ... but with Corbyn taking Labour in such a repugnant direction....
That's an interesting turn of phrase, why do you think Labour's return to more socialist principles is repugnant?
Fundamentally it is the impression I get from them that being successful is something to be punished for with higher taxes, or that sweeping social change is necessary or even desirable that puts me off Labour atm!
I've done well in the current society and want a nice boring government that changes a little as possible :-p
Fear not, I find the prospect of Reese Mog or Micheal Gove being the prime Minister similarly repugnant! It was only Teresa May winning the leadership contest that brought me reluctantly back into the fold.
Its weird in that if you go back 10 years the ideological argument was won. Centrism was the way forward and whether Labour, Tory or even Lib Dem were in power you didn't have to worry about the country being wrecked as everyone would do pretty much the same thing.
At the moment it seems like both sides are keen to conduct their own brand of crackpot social experiment on the country with us all as guinea pigs!
Fundamentally it is the impression I get from them that being successful is something to be punished for with higher taxes, or that sweeping social change is necessary or even desirable that puts me off Labour atm!
I've done well in the current society and want a nice boring government that changes a little as possible :-p
It's not about punishment but about providing support the rest of society so that those that, for whatever reason, are less successful and provided the ability to improve their lives through state support. If such people have children, those children then they are hamstrung because they are born in areas where education is poor resulting in a continued cycle of poverty that is very difficult to get out of. If you don't care about society then why should society care about you? If you take the approach that I'm successful so I don't want to change then if whatever reason you suddenly become unsuccessful then why should the rest of country come to your rescue at such times.
For example suppose you are doing all well, have a family and nice house/mortgage with 2.4 children and then without warning someone side swipes you in car and causes you serious injuries leaving your permanently disabled. Because of lowered employment standards you are made redundant, that's no more employers private health care scheme, pension and so on. Then perhaps to make things worse one of your children is diagnosed with cancer, but because of lack of funding NHS waiting times have increased and the number of rounds of treatment is dropped from 6 to 4 (which lowers the success rate). You lose the house, nice car and so forth. At that point you despise the system because it is then punishing you for things outside of your control. However you've supported that position simply because of the "I'm all right Jack approach". You can't then expect that to change because your circumstances have changed. i.e. You didn't care about society as whole so society doesn't care back.
Now I hope that none of this ever happens to you, but I ask you to take a moment and consider how your would want society to be like if this does happen to you...and for some people it does. I would consider myself successful too, but I consider it more statistical luck because of genetics, where I was born, that I simply was in the right place at the right time and I'm more than happy to pay more tax to help those that simply didn't get those same lucky breaks.
That's the basis of socialism. It's not communism where everything is split equally between everyone (not that this ever really happened); it's about supporting those worse off than yourself to help them to aspire and be given those same opportunities. That makes the whole of society better off because we are all wealthier and that drives real growth.
In other news....we now have flag burning in the UK....all encouraged by Farage
Yea and this is very similar to the conversations I have in the pub with my mates that support Labour haha!
I think a democracy works best when everyone votes selfishly, as then the total result adds up to what is best for the most amount of people.
I 'should' be the expert on what is in the best interests for me and I 'should' look at the policies and adapt my opinion for each election and my changing circumstances.
If I try to vote for what's best for society, that's very open to interpretation and I'm not a sociologist! I don't like the idea of voting for a politician who supports policies against my own interests just because he says its better for someone else. That's basically emotional blackmail I can see a situation arising where an election result is based on what is best for a particularly sympathetic minority rather than what is best for the most people if you see what I mean?
It doesn't matter very much if individuals vote selfishly on their personal concerns, or on wider social issues.
The UK is a representative democracy, and the government will be elected from one of the two main parties by the FPTP system which is often significantly unprepresentative of the actual ratio of voters choices.
Each party has a manifesto laying out what it intends to do in government, and in theory you have voted to support one or other manifesto. At any rate, it doesn't matter much, as no government ever manages to carry out its entire manifesto, and will often drop pledges or add new legislation which wasn't in the manifesto at election time.
From all the above, the effect of individual votes is negligible.
The UK is a representative democracy, and the government will be elected from one of the two main parties by the FPTP system which is often significantly unprepresentative of the actual ratio of voters choices.
Kroem wrote: Yea and this is very similar to the conversations I have in the pub with my mates that support Labour haha!
I think a democracy works best when everyone votes selfishly, as then the total result adds up to what is best for the most amount of people.
I 'should' be the expert on what is in the best interests for me and I 'should' look at the policies and adapt my opinion for each election and my changing circumstances.
No it is still 'selfish' voting. It's just longer term selfish thinking rather than short term thinking. At some point I may need the NHS / pensions / disability benefits / the police etc. I may not need it now but I might in the future hence I would like to bank these services when I need them.
If you vote for what is best now then that is short term selfish thinking. It's the principle that because everything is OK now I'll take what I can without any thought to the future (spending your pension rather than saving because you may never need it etc.). It's the idea that we may as well emit all the carbon we want because we'll never see the consequences.
I also find it rather sad (as in literally, not in an insulting way) that being selfish is the ideal way of managing society, that a representative democracy can't be about what society feels is best for society rather than what the bulk of individuals want for their own selfish desires? The best selfish vote is that everyone's money should just be given to 'me'...which strangely just happens to be Tory policy albeit that 'me' happens to them and their friends. So maybe a Tory party government is the outcome from a selfish voting ideology?
The reason Corbyn is doing so well is the last few elections have been Tory, Diet Tory or Full Strength Insanity Flavour Tory as options - and that's not good for democracy, as it's not a wide enough political spectrum (same would be said if they were all lefty options too. Got to have variety to have discourse).
I do rather agree with this. I think Eddy occupied a more palatable spot in the middle between Corbyn and the New Labourites; but suffered from a lack of personal charisma or political effectiveness; and was still rather beholden to the Nu-Labourites.
I find it strange the extent of the dislike some people appear to have towards a number of Corbyn's proposed policies; like nationalising the railways. Whilst I don't think he's really thought them through, there's nothing intrinsically objectionable to them or left wing policies generally. They're responsible for much of the good in this country. Yet some people react to such ideas as if they involve raising the Hammer and Sickle over Buckingham and setting up the Stasi.
No it is still 'selfish' voting. It's just longer term selfish thinking rather than short term thinking. At some point I may need the NHS / pensions / disability benefits / the police etc. I may not need it now but I might in the future hence I would like to bank these services when I need them.
Yea and if a policy is sold to me in a way where I can see the benefits to me, I'm much more likely to be supportive.
Take the recent rise in minimum pension contribution for example. If I paid the minimum in then it would make me worse off every month, but I can see the benefit it gives me later. That's an easy sell.
Tuition fees are the same, I'm worse off in the short term for paying them, but I understand that in order to have such top notch universities they need to have money and I don't mind investing in my own future because I know I can make a success of it.
I don't think Labour are very good at this though.
The reason Corbyn is doing so well is the last few elections have been Tory, Diet Tory or Full Strength Insanity Flavour Tory as options - and that's not good for democracy, as it's not a wide enough political spectrum (same would be said if they were all lefty options too. Got to have variety to have discourse).
I do rather agree with this. I think Eddy occupied a more palatable spot in the middle between Corbyn and the New Labourites; but suffered from a lack of personal charisma or political effectiveness; and was still rather beholden to the Nu-Labourites.
I find it strange the extent of the dislike some people appear to have towards a number of Corbyn's proposed policies; like nationalising the railways. Whilst I don't think he's really thought them through, there's nothing intrinsically objectionable to them or left wing policies generally. They're responsible for much of the good in this country. Yet some people react to such ideas as if they involve raising the Hammer and Sickle over Buckingham and setting up the Stasi.
I like to think Ed's performance at the GE was because somebody was saying "you must act like this" etc etc. He seems a far more interesting person after the event from various tv appearances and his podcast.
In a similar way Theresa May followed that ridiculous script saying ‘strong and stable’ over and over until people were mocking her for it. I doubt that did her party much good at the polls.
Don’t politicians have any conviction or ideas of their own? Do they value themselves so little that they don’t give an honest impression of themselves? It’s like they don’t have the awareness or nous to know when their guidance is poor, they just follow whatever they are told to say.
Our top politicians shouldn’t have to be micromanaged through the campaign process like an idiotic band going on tour, having lines fed to them and being told how to put on a front in order to appeal to the public.
Yea and if a policy is sold to me in a way where I can see the benefits to me, I'm much more likely to be supportive.
Take the recent rise in minimum pension contribution for example. If I paid the minimum in then it would make me worse off every month, but I can see the benefit it gives me later. That's an easy sell.
Tuition fees are the same, I'm worse off in the short term for paying them, but I understand that in order to have such top notch universities they need to have money and I don't mind investing in my own future because I know I can make a success of it.
The problem is how do you represent something that if you are unlucky you will use or be affected by? Take unemployment benefits - not many people want to think that their life might come crashing down because of a random occurrence and most of us will happily ignore such concepts. How do you sell funding to help troublesome families when you may or may not be affected by them subject to where they live or act? How do you persuade a populace to explain that the money is put there to prevent/minimise such issues in the extremely unlikely event you are as an individual are affected. Pensions and University fees are easy relatively because it is still a direct consequence of what you are spending the money on. What it harder is those aspects that people don't want to confront and for the majority will never have to (fortunately).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Strong and Stable got the Tories from 36% of the vote in 2015 to 48% in 2017. The trouble was that Corbo got Labour from 26% to 40%
I like to think Ed's performance at the GE was because somebody was saying "you must act like this" etc etc. He seems a far more interesting person after the event from various tv appearances and his podcast.
I'd like to see Ed back as head of Labour. I think he learnt a lot from not winning.
Yea and if a policy is sold to me in a way where I can see the benefits to me, I'm much more likely to be supportive.
Take the recent rise in minimum pension contribution for example. If I paid the minimum in then it would make me worse off every month, but I can see the benefit it gives me later. That's an easy sell.
Tuition fees are the same, I'm worse off in the short term for paying them, but I understand that in order to have such top notch universities they need to have money and I don't mind investing in my own future because I know I can make a success of it.
The problem is how do you represent something that if you are unlucky you will use or be affected by? Take unemployment benefits - not many people want to think that their life might come crashing down because of a random occurrence and most of us will happily ignore such concepts. How do you sell funding to help troublesome families when you may or may not be affected by them subject to where they live or act? How do you persuade a populace to explain that the money is put there to prevent/minimise such issues in the extremely unlikely event you are as an individual are affected. Pensions and University fees are easy relatively because it is still a direct consequence of what you are spending the money on. What it harder is those aspects that people don't want to confront and for the majority will never have to (fortunately).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Strong and Stable got the Tories from 36% of the vote in 2015 to 48% in 2017. The trouble was that Corbo got Labour from 26% to 40%
I'd like to see Ed back as head of Labour. I think he learnt a lot from not winning.
Only if he leaves engraving commandments on massive stone tablets to Moses this time The real question is why the prodigal son David Miliband hasn't returned?
Leadership of the International Rescue Committee On 26 March 2013 the Daily Mirror reported that Miliband would be announcing the following day that he intended to resign as an MP and leave politics altogether. He announced that he was taking up the post of head of the International Rescue Committee in New York, for which his remuneration would be £300,000 ($450,000) a year.[5][67][68]
Miliband became the President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee on 1 September 2013. At the IRC, Miliband will be overseeing humanitarian aid and development programs in 40 countries, a global staff of 12,000 and 1,300 volunteers, and an annual budget of $450 million.[69] Near the top of the IRC, Miliband again installed his former Special Political Advisor from London, Madlin Sadler. She became the aid agency's Chief of Staff.[70] In 2015 it was revealed that Miliband's salary at the IRC was $600,000 per year, almost $200,000 more than his predecessor.[71]
Whirlwind wrote: In other news....we now have flag burning in the UK....all encouraged by Farage
So? Thats freedom of speech. No matter which flag is being burned, the British Flag, EU, America...
A bit of a silly stunt though.
It's not a question of freedom of speech. It's the implication that they would quite happily burn and the people that walk under it whether government or individual.
If you don't like something please feel free to argue against it, but burning a flag is all the more concerning because of the implications. Might as well ask them to start burning books whilst they are at it...
Although...some books are more equal than others it seems.
Yet book burning usually represents censorship in some form. It's all well and good saying that it is the freedoms of those burning it; but what about those that want to read them. That option is gone. By enacting a type of freedom of speech they have denied it to others.
Whirlwind wrote: Yet book burning usually represents censorship in some form. It's all well and good saying that it is the freedoms of those burning it; but what about those that want to read them. That option is gone. By enacting a type of freedom of speech they have denied it to others.
People can do what they like with their own private property. Thats Freedom of Speech. If I choose to destroy my own copy of a book, I'm not denying other people the chance to read it. They've got their own copies, or can obtain them.
Confiscating books from other people and burning them is theft and criminal damage. That is not Freedom of Speech.
Yet book burning usually represents censorship in some form. It's all well and good saying that it is the freedoms of those burning it; but what about those that want to read them.
From what I hear, you could fire up several hundred thousand copies of Twillight or the Da Vinci Code and that wouldn't be a problem.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: People can do what they like with their own private property. Thats Freedom of Speech. If I choose to destroy my own copy of a book, I'm not denying other people the chance to read it. They've got their own copies, or can obtain them.
Yes you can, but that doesn't stop it being a representation of what a mass book burning represents.
I think this is a social rather than a strictly political topic, but it touches on law and order, so...
A weird "tributes" war seems to have broken out around the place in London where a burglar got fatally stabbed by the OAP he was trying to extort at weapon point.
He tried to rob an OAP and his family. He got what he deserved, death is a risk that comes with the job of stealing other people's stuff.
If someone wants to leave tribute flowers, that's on them, but personally I think he deserves no tribute, and certainly don't leave the flowers on someone's fence. Leave it on a lamppost, or some other piece of public property.
Whilst the friends and family of the deceased have the right to grieve for him like anyone, there is something quite perverse about leaving flowers and tributes to a deceased burglar across the street from the home of his victim, who killed him in self defense. That is not the appropriate place, leave them at the burglar's own home, not the home of his victim.
Its tantamount to intimidation.
The victim and his wife can't return home, because friends and family of the burglar have "taken over the street" and are seeking revenge. If he shows his face, he's dead. So the victim and his wife are now living in a safe house under Police protection.
"He wasn't a murderer, he wasn't a rapist, they're putting him as a monster."
No, he wasn’t those things. But he did extort thousands from vulnerable OAPs and he attacked an old man in his house with a screwdriver in the middle of the night.
What the family are doing amounts to intimidation. The neighbours in the area don’t want these tributes being attached to their fences, the victims are in hiding because of the risk of reprisal by the burglar’s relatives. It’s shocking.
If that was my fence, I would take the tributes down and deliver them to the local Police Station for the owners to retrieve them; then put up a sign warning that any further tributes will be thrown in the trash.
On the other hand, that would put me at risk of violent retaliation, given that the burglar was from a known "crime family" and the Police fear that they're seeking revenge against the Victim.
Probably not the sort of people you want to cross.
Well, everybody knows where I stand on law and order in this country. If the do gooders hadn't ruined the nation, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
From what I've read, the victim and his family have been in and out of the system for years with fines here, six months there, despite the severity of their crimes.
If a judge had had the guts to give them 10-20 years, and none of this only serve half your sentence for good behaviour bollocks, then the victim would probably be alive, and the home owner would have been spared from this hell.
Add that to an utter buffoon of a Home Sec. who claims that police cuts have no impact, and you can see that Britain's streets are turning into a war zone with crime gangs roaming around with impunity, London being a prime example.
I'm going to post some statistics that contradict Do_I_Not_Like_That, which is hardly surprising. Since this is DINLT I'm just going to assume that he'll neither read past the first few sentences nor think in any way about such numerical piffle. But for those who do consider the statistics I'd like to emphasise that these statistics are not drawn from police statistics. They are derived by surveying the public about their own experiences of crime. As such they capture crimes which are not reported to the police or are not recorded for one reason or another. Such figures are also very difficult to massage, an accusation often levelled at statistics derived from police records of crime.
But in two graphs here's how thoroughly "do-gooders" have ruined this nation:
Main points Our assessment of the main data sources is that levels of crime have continued to fall consistent with the general trend since the mid-1990s. However, these figures cover a broad range of offence types and not all offence types showed falls.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) shows that many of the high-volume crimes, such as lower harm violent crime, criminal damage and most types of theft, were either estimated to be at levels similar to the previous year or to have fallen. It also shows that crime is not a common experience for most people, with 8 in 10 adults surveyed by the CSEW not being a victim of any of the crimes asked about in the survey.
Other data sources including police data on the number of crimes recorded, show evidence of increases in some of the less frequently occurring, but higher-harm offences. These rises were relatively low in volume and were more than offset by falls seen across other higher-volume offence types shown by the CSEW.
[...]
Police recorded crime statistics must be interpreted with caution. The police can only record crimes that are brought to their attention and for many types of offence these data cannot provide a reliable measure of levels or trends. However, for some offences, police figures can be useful in informing our understanding of the general picture of crime. This is especially the case for those crimes that generally have high levels of reporting to the police and where audits of recording practices have not highlighted significant concerns about the reliability of the data.
Police recorded crime showed continuing rises in a number of higher-harm violent offences that are not well-measured by the CSEW as they occur in relatively low volumes. This was most evident in offences of knife crime and gun crime; categories that are thought to be relatively well-recorded by the police. The occurrence of these offences tends to be disproportionately concentrated in London and other metropolitan areas.
Police figures also suggest rises in vehicle-related theft and burglary. These are offence types that are less likely to be affected by changes in policing activity and recording practice and are therefore likely to reflect some genuine increases. While these rises have not previously been reflected in the CSEW there are some signs that these increases in vehicle-related thefts may be beginning to appear in the latest estimates.
England and Wales? No good if you're in the middle of the Scottish Highlands!
On a serious note, it's all about the perception. It's all very well sitting in your Ivory Tower and banging on about stats, bar graphs, and pie charts,
but up here, the thin blue line is nowhere to be seen.
Post Offices have been turned over, ATMs ripped from the walls of corner shops (by gangs coming up from the SE of England) and if farm equipment is not nailed down, it's getting lifted
Fear has gripped the countryside. We're in the middle of a rural crime wave and that's official.
What do I, a hard working tax payer of many years have for protection? A dedicated and efficient police force? A government serious about property and law and order?
No, a sturdy oak club and a loyal bull terrier is all I can draw on.
That's what being a tax payer gets you. Nothing!
The first duty of government is defence of the realm and upholding law and order. It's turned into a bad joke.
monarda wrote: I'm going to post some statistics that contradict Do_I_Not_Like_That, which is hardly surprising. Since this is DINLT I'm just going to assume that he'll neither read past the first few sentences nor think in any way about such numerical piffle. But for those who do consider the statistics I'd like to emphasise that these statistics are not drawn from police statistics. They are derived by surveying the public about their own experiences of crime. As such they capture crimes which are not reported to the police or are not recorded for one reason or another. Such figures are also very difficult to massage, an accusation often levelled at statistics derived from police records of crime.
But in two graphs here's how thoroughly "do-gooders" have ruined this nation:
Main points Our assessment of the main data sources is that levels of crime have continued to fall consistent with the general trend since the mid-1990s. However, these figures cover a broad range of offence types and not all offence types showed falls.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) shows that many of the high-volume crimes, such as lower harm violent crime, criminal damage and most types of theft, were either estimated to be at levels similar to the previous year or to have fallen. It also shows that crime is not a common experience for most people, with 8 in 10 adults surveyed by the CSEW not being a victim of any of the crimes asked about in the survey.
Other data sources including police data on the number of crimes recorded, show evidence of increases in some of the less frequently occurring, but higher-harm offences. These rises were relatively low in volume and were more than offset by falls seen across other higher-volume offence types shown by the CSEW.
[...]
Police recorded crime statistics must be interpreted with caution. The police can only record crimes that are brought to their attention and for many types of offence these data cannot provide a reliable measure of levels or trends. However, for some offences, police figures can be useful in informing our understanding of the general picture of crime. This is especially the case for those crimes that generally have high levels of reporting to the police and where audits of recording practices have not highlighted significant concerns about the reliability of the data.
Police recorded crime showed continuing rises in a number of higher-harm violent offences that are not well-measured by the CSEW as they occur in relatively low volumes. This was most evident in offences of knife crime and gun crime; categories that are thought to be relatively well-recorded by the police. The occurrence of these offences tends to be disproportionately concentrated in London and other metropolitan areas.
Police figures also suggest rises in vehicle-related theft and burglary. These are offence types that are less likely to be affected by changes in policing activity and recording practice and are therefore likely to reflect some genuine increases. While these rises have not previously been reflected in the CSEW there are some signs that these increases in vehicle-related thefts may be beginning to appear in the latest estimates.
A very good friend of mine, he is an ex policeman, it wasn’t his job to “distort” the crime figures to make them fit with government policy, your statistics are totally unreliable and untrustworthy, even though I agreee with what you are saying, the police are bare faced lying when it comes to their rights own statistics.
A few months ago, the official government figures showed that crime was up in England and Wales. It was in black and white. We know that police numbers are down.
We know that kids are getting murdered on a daily basis in London
And up here, I'm trying to survive a rural crime wave.
Anybody who's trying to convince me that Britain is safer, will get laughed out of town.
monarda wrote: I'm going to post some statistics that contradict Do_I_Not_Like_That, which is hardly surprising. Since this is DINLT I'm just going to assume that he'll neither read past the first few sentences nor think in any way about such numerical piffle. But for those who do consider the statistics I'd like to emphasise that these statistics are not drawn from police statistics. They are derived by surveying the public about their own experiences of crime. As such they capture crimes which are not reported to the police or are not recorded for one reason or another. Such figures are also very difficult to massage, an accusation often levelled at statistics derived from police records of crime.
I think the difference here is between mass figures and targetted crime. The figures show that almost certainly crime has gone down as a general trend over the las 20 years (barring the slight upturn recently). There's probably a number of factors to this. In the early 1990s there was a lot of car crime, however modern technology has made that much more difficult to undertake (no hot wiring cars so easily). In addition violent crime has decreased overall. There has been a suggestion that this may be due to the removal of leaded petrol. Lead has bad effects on our brains and can cause more aggressive behaviours. There is some thinkign that I have read that the low continual dose of lead poisoning made us more aggressive and hence violent crime increased as car usage increased. As this was phased out we mellowed out a bit.
On the other hand DINLT is experiencing targeted crime. Where high value, relatively low protected items are targeted. If you are in the vicinity of such targeted campaigns then you perception of crime increases. Therefore it could be argued that a small fraction of the populace see large increases in crime but is only registered as one data point on the plot. Hence overall crime is decreasing but localised crime where there is a vulnerability is not (and can increase).
For cash machine thefts there is an easy solution. Explosive paint modules upon impact ruin the cash. That provides a visible deterrent as the cash is no longer valuable.
For high value agricutural equipment this requires more police resources. I have known similar circumstances where tracked vehicles (known to be stolen) can be watched going to ports and then abroad. Despite the police being informed by the time they actioned it, it was by far too late. This is simply a resource issue. When insurance will pay for a replacement, no one was hurt then desperately needed resources are sent elsewhere. Simple checks at ports would help in such circumstances.
Which of course doesn't change the fact that DINLT is ranting about the crime rate again without understanding how statistics work and blaming it on "Ivory Tower intellectuals", as usual.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If a judge had had the guts to give them 10-20 years, and none of this only serve half your sentence for good behaviour bollocks, then the victim would probably be alive, and the home owner would have been spared from this hell.
The problem is that if there is little difference between a threatening theft and an actual assault then the fear of undertaking the assault becomes lessened. If it is I might get caught and go to jail for 6 months from this theft is moved to 20 years in jail being similar to the assault term then there is much less risk in undertaking the assault (and even murder) because regardless the risk is the same. However if you kill someone that is one less person to identify you.
That's why things are softer for lesser crimes, it is to encourage less violent crime. Higher penalties encourage more aggressive behaviour. People commit thefts because someone has something they want. To break that cycle you need to encourage people to move out of thinking that the only opportunity to get this is via crime to a system where those people can achieve those aims. However you'll never get rid of it completely.
monarda wrote: I'm going to post some statistics that contradict Do_I_Not_Like_That, which is hardly surprising. Since this is DINLT I'm just going to assume that he'll neither read past the first few sentences nor think in any way about such numerical piffle. But for those who do consider the statistics I'd like to emphasise that these statistics are not drawn from police statistics. They are derived by surveying the public about their own experiences of crime. As such they capture crimes which are not reported to the police or are not recorded for one reason or another. Such figures are also very difficult to massage, an accusation often levelled at statistics derived from police records of crime.
A very good friend of mine, he is an ex policeman, it wasn’t his job to “distort” the crime figures to make them fit with government policy, your statistics are totally unreliable and untrustworthy, even though I agreee with what you are saying, the police are bare faced lying when it comes to their rights own statistics.
Reading to the third sentence is probably expecting a bit too much.
Once again, the statistics I posted are not collected from the police. They are collected by asking 35,000 people (including a minimum of 650 in each police force area) whether they have been a victim of crime (or violent crime) in the past year. For reference this is about 30 times as many people as would be sampled in a normal newspaper poll about voting intentions. You can find more details of the methodology used by the Crime Survey for England and Wales at the ONS.
The impression I’ve had from years of crime stats being reported is that overall crime is lower, but violent crime is creeping up. Which is supported recently, and by the text accompanying he graphs above
Violent crime and robbery is probably the one that affects us most because it’s high profile and life changing for its victims and those around them. That petty offences, presumably like shoplifting and vandalism, are down overall doesn’t make anyone feel much safer while you’re more likely to get robbed at knifepoint.
That said, it’s still localised for the most part, obviously some parts of London are worse than others. I live in Richmond, which is much better than Tottenham, somewhere I’d not feel safe on my own or any time after dark.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The impression I’ve had from years of crime stats being reported is that overall crime is lower, but violent crime is creeping up. Which is supported recently, and by the text accompanying he graphs above
Violent crime and robbery is probably the one that affects us most because it’s high profile and life changing for its victims and those around them. That petty offences, presumably like shoplifting and vandalism, are down overall doesn’t make anyone feel much safer while you’re more likely to get robbed at knifepoint.
That said, it’s still localised for the most part, obviously some parts of London are worse than others. I live in Richmond, which is much better than Tottenham, somewhere I’d not feel safe on my own or any time after dark.
Violent crime has risen in the last year, but prior to that it had been steadily falling since the mid-90s.
These statistics can't show recent changes, and nor would they be able to show surges in particular areas such as London.
It's also worth noting that we know violent knife crime has surged in the past year because it's reflected in police records (which, once again, are not used in the graph above) and in hospital admissions for stab wounds. The same alternative sources of data also show that violent crimes have, until recently, been declining since the mid-90s.
Since Thatcher, every PM wants their own ‘Falklands’ moment. Major legitimately had the Gulf, Blair pushed us into Iraq, Cameron bombed Libya and May wants to bomb Syria.
First Blair and now May, FFS all we need now is claims of WMDs.
FFS!!! I'm agreeing with Jeremy C.
What, what exactly will we be able to do that stops Assad and his regime from slaughtering his own population? Which doesn't ultimately involve making Radical Islam stronger?
Why is this some kind of magical red line when Civilians have been killed in numerous cruel ways since the start?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Since Thatcher, every PM wants their own ‘Falklands’ moment. Major legitimately had the Gulf, Blair pushed us into Iraq, Cameron bombed Libya and May wants to bomb Syria.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: England and Wales? No good if you're in the middle of the Scottish Highlands!
On a serious note, it's all about the perception. It's all very well sitting in your Ivory Tower and banging on about stats, bar graphs, and pie charts,
but up here, the thin blue line is nowhere to be seen.
Post Offices have been turned over, ATMs ripped from the walls of corner shops (by gangs coming up from the SE of England) and if farm equipment is not nailed down, it's getting lifted
Fear has gripped the countryside. We're in the middle of a rural crime wave and that's official.
What do I, a hard working tax payer of many years have for protection? A dedicated and efficient police force? A government serious about property and law and order?
No, a sturdy oak club and a loyal bull terrier is all I can draw on.
That's what being a tax payer gets you. Nothing!
The first duty of government is defence of the realm and upholding law and order. It's turned into a bad joke.
You make it sound like we've descended into anarchy. I think this is very much a crime vs perception thing, though we definitely have less police officers than we used to; budget cuts bringing less in, poor conditions causing more to leave.
And up here, I'm trying to survive a rural crime wave.
When was the last time you or someone you directly know, victim of this crime wave?
I'm in rural Scotland too, and whilst k wouldn't leave farm equipment lying around I've seen no crime wave. A guy did try to rob a post office with a knife a couple of months ago, and a hedge got set on fire last year, but that's all I've seen.
It could be your crime wave is more localized (traveller camps t's d to have that effect) or it could be getting blown out of proportion.
Whilst I have enjoyed the one time he eviscerated Steve Baker over the Corbyn smears, the presence of Andrew Neil on the BBC is clear evidence of political bias from our supposedly impartial national broadcaster.
Why does it matter? Well, the BBC news network, including the online presence, is supposed to represent all the people of the UK, yet politically it normalises right wing ideology and tacitly supports the rest of the right wing press, which thanks to private ownership, is the overwhelming majority of the press in the UK despite the fact that millions of people in the UK support left wing views.
Wealthy individuals already dominate and control our tabloids and broadsheets, yet we allow the BBC to have its foremost political commentator to openly support these ideologies and we have the pleasure of having to pay for it.
Whilst I have enjoyed the one time he eviscerated Steve Baker over the Corbyn smears, the presence of Andrew Neil on the BBC is clear evidence of political bias from our supposedly impartial national broadcaster.
I think it is more that they are witlessly scared of the government and that if they are not seen as favourable it will all be sold off to....Rupert Murdoch....
That's resulting in less challenging, softer approaches to the government and harder line against the opposition. It is starting to shows as well.
The BBC are getting slammed by the media watchdog for their Lawson interview on climate change.
I disagree that bombing Syria has nothing to do with defending the nation.
Of coruse we are not at risk of being bombed by Syria, but we certainly are at risk of the continual degradation of international law that arises from allowing people like the Syrians to flout it.
Whilst I have enjoyed the one time he eviscerated Steve Baker over the Corbyn smears, the presence of Andrew Neil on the BBC is clear evidence of political bias from our supposedly impartial national broadcaster.
Why does it matter? Well, the BBC news network, including the online presence, is supposed to represent all the people of the UK, yet politically it normalises right wing ideology and tacitly supports the rest of the right wing press, which thanks to private ownership, is the overwhelming majority of the press in the UK despite the fact that millions of people in the UK support left wing views.
Wealthy individuals already dominate and control our tabloids and broadsheets, yet we allow the BBC to have its foremost political commentator to openly support these ideologies and we have the pleasure of having to pay for it.
Because god forward the BBC has one presenter who isn’t a gurning lefty. By your own logic, since the BBC is tax payer funded and most of those right wingers you despise so much are tax payers, they deserve representation. Or should the tax payer funded bbc only support your opinions and feth the rest?
FYI, you have the guardian, and to a lesser extent the mirror as well. You’ve got plenty to work with.
There is however a vehicle tax. My driver's license is not a tax.
I can have a television and not have to pay the license fee if I can prove it doesn't receive a signal. Which in my flat, I genuinely can't - I pipe everything in through streaming. But because I include iPlayer in my watchings, that's why I have to pay the license.
No such thing as "road tax". There's Vehicle Excise Duty, which is a tax on owning a motor vehicle.
So if you don't buy a vehicle, then you don't pay it. But then again, it's theoretically possible to not have to pay Income Tax, VAT or customs duty, too.
I think you’re all being just a teeny bit pedantic here. The fact is, if you want to watch live tv (or drive a car) in the uk you have to pay the government for the privilege of it. And failing to do so is a criminal offence. They’re taxes, even if they (or you) don’t call them that.
I agree with all the above however this pedanticism about the nomenclature of different government customs and excise is a bit unexciting when MSN is reporting that the Daily Mail is reporting that UK submarines are moving into missile range of Syria.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree with all the above however this pedanticism about the nomenclature of different government customs and excise is a bit unexciting when MSN is reporting that the Daily Mail is reporting that UK submarines are moving into missile range of Syria.
I really thought we'd go hot with Russia in the 2030s. I was a decade out. Oh well, at least I'm about to become old enough to serve, I could go the rest of my life without working a desk job.
Regards the Beeb, there will be a long and intense session of BBC bashing in most of the papers over this. And whilst not wishing to excuse BBC behaviour regards Mr Richard, most of those papers do far more despicable things on a more or less Daily basis.
There are many on here with deep appreciation of British history, one thing that stands out to me when I read on the subject is how often the BBC was something for the British to be very proud of indeed, but 40 odd years of Murdoch led attacks, combined with it regularly self-harming, have resulted in a rather sorry current version, which I think is a bit sad.
Regards the Beeb, there will be a long and intense session of BBC bashing in most of the papers over this. And whilst not wishing to excuse BBC behaviour regards Mr Richard, most of those papers do far more despicable things on a more or less Daily basis.
There are many on here with deep appreciation of British history, one thing that stands out to me when I read on the subject is how often the BBC was something for the British to be very proud of indeed, but 40 odd years of Murdoch led attacks, combined with it regularly self-harming, have resulted in a rather sorry current version, which I think is a bit sad.
But they don't help themselves, though, that's the problem. On Iraq, they allowed themselves to be bullied into submission, and the Cliff Richard debacle is shameful.
Working in hand with the Police (who seem to be more interested in making a name for themselves these days rather than do any actual policing)
they dragged an innocent man through the gutter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree with all the above however this pedanticism about the nomenclature of different government customs and excise is a bit unexciting when MSN is reporting that the Daily Mail is reporting that UK submarines are moving into missile range of Syria.
They'll soon be backtracking at a rate of knots when they realize Trump's got cold feet over the whole thing.
It will be funny watching our government squirm and try to explain this U-turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And my thanks to those who replied to my comments on crime. Too many replies to reply too.
Kilkrazy wrote: I disagree that bombing Syria has nothing to do with defending the nation.
Of coruse we are not at risk of being bombed by Syria, but we certainly are at risk of the continual degradation of international law that arises from allowing people like the Syrians to flout it.
The chemical bombing is not a direct aggressive action against the UK which would require immediate or very quick actions because a debate would needlessly forestall the necessary response. In such circumstances it is appropriate for the Executive to make a decision. For Syria which is not taking direct action against the UK then a parliamentary decision is the correct manner as it ensures that the decision to attack a foreign state without direct provocation is debated and all arguments considered. It also allows us to consider what the end game is and how to achieve that rather than a "gun and run" approach.
They'll soon be backtracking at a rate of knots when they realize Trump's got cold feet over the whole thing.
It will be funny watching our government squirm and try to explain this U-turn.
I don't think Trump will back down from some action as it will result in him being mocked without mercy after categorically stating there would be some action. I think what they are now trying to work out is whether Russia will respond or if it is bluffing (to point out Israel already has taken action and Russia did not respond to it).
I really thought we'd go hot with Russia in the 2030s. I was a decade out. Oh well, at least I'm about to become old enough to serve, I could go the rest of my life without working a desk job.
If it escalates there won't be time to recruit anyone....
Kilkrazy wrote: I disagree that bombing Syria has nothing to do with defending the nation.
Of coruse we are not at risk of being bombed by Syria, but we certainly are at risk of the continual degradation of international law that arises from allowing people like the Syrians to flout it.
The chemical bombing is not a direct aggressive action against the UK which would require immediate or very quick actions because a debate would needlessly forestall the necessary response. In such circumstances it is appropriate for the Executive to make a decision. For Syria which is not taking direct action against the UK then a parliamentary decision is the correct manner as it ensures that the decision to attack a foreign state without direct provocation is debated and all arguments considered. It also allows us to consider what the end game is and how to achieve that rather than a "gun and run" approach.
I think a debate on the matter will simply produce paralysis when decisive action is required.
Acts of military action are a crown prerogative. Authorisation by parliament is not required, and will at best lead to a "camel is a horse designed by committee" kind of campaign.
Kilkrazy wrote: I disagree that bombing Syria has nothing to do with defending the nation.
Of coruse we are not at risk of being bombed by Syria, but we certainly are at risk of the continual degradation of international law that arises from allowing people like the Syrians to flout it.
The chemical bombing is not a direct aggressive action against the UK which would require immediate or very quick actions because a debate would needlessly forestall the necessary response. In such circumstances it is appropriate for the Executive to make a decision. For Syria which is not taking direct action against the UK then a parliamentary decision is the correct manner as it ensures that the decision to attack a foreign state without direct provocation is debated and all arguments considered. It also allows us to consider what the end game is and how to achieve that rather than a "gun and run" approach.
I think a debate on the matter will simply produce paralysis when decisive action is required.
Acts of military action are a crown prerogative. Authorisation by parliament is not required, and will at best lead to a "camel is a horse designed by committee" kind of campaign.
I wasn't aware May was the Queen.
Understandable she thinks she is though, the silly old bint.
I think a debate on the matter will simply produce paralysis when decisive action is required.
Acts of military action are a crown prerogative. Authorisation by parliament is not required, and will at best lead to a "camel is a horse designed by committee" kind of campaign.
Except that doesn't hold up to previous votes on military action. A vote would either approve or not approve military action as a direction. Neither of these is paralysis (unless you hold that no military action is paralysis but then that is just bias as to the type of action you think they should take). No one is asking parliament to plan the campaign just like it didn't for Iraq, Libya and so on. However it is there to stop a PM acting as their own tinpot dictator.
I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.
We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.
We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.
Pretty much nailed it.
This is May 'hmm, polls are slipping, smears aren't working...What Would Maggie Do? OH YEAH! Start a war!' moment.
I think a debate on the matter will simply produce paralysis when decisive action is required.
Acts of military action are a crown prerogative. Authorisation by parliament is not required, and will at best lead to a "camel is a horse designed by committee" kind of campaign.
Except that doesn't hold up to previous votes on military action. A vote would either approve or not approve military action as a direction. Neither of these is paralysis (unless you hold that no military action is paralysis but then that is just bias as to the type of action you think they should take). No one is asking parliament to plan the campaign just like it didn't for Iraq, Libya and so on. However it is there to stop a PM acting as their own tinpot dictator.
Previous votes on military action -- I think there have been two -- don't hold up to the numerous previous occasions when military action was launched without reference to parliament.
Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.
Kilkrazy wrote: Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.
The last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2015, expanding air strikes against ISIS from Iraq to Syria, and Parliament approved the intervention by 397 votes to 223. I believe that in practice the UK's contribution was largely symbolic.
I stand corrected. However the main point I wanted to make is that Parliament do not have to be asked to authorise military action.
I suspect that it has been done several times in recent history for political reasons: In particular Blair used it to implicate all the MPs in supporting the second Gulf War, for which public support was very weak.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.
We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.
Pretty much nailed it.
This is May 'hmm, polls are slipping, smears aren't working...What Would Maggie Do? OH YEAH! Start a war!' moment.
One of the rare occasions when we are in complete agreement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.
We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.
I feel sorry for young folk like yourself, because if the gak hits the fan, it's people like you that will have to march into battle against the Russians.
Kilkrazy wrote: I disagree that bombing Syria has nothing to do with defending the nation.
Of coruse we are not at risk of being bombed by Syria, but we certainly are at risk of the continual degradation of international law that arises from allowing people like the Syrians to flout it.
The chemical bombing is not a direct aggressive action against the UK which would require immediate or very quick actions because a debate would needlessly forestall the necessary response. In such circumstances it is appropriate for the Executive to make a decision. For Syria which is not taking direct action against the UK then a parliamentary decision is the correct manner as it ensures that the decision to attack a foreign state without direct provocation is debated and all arguments considered. It also allows us to consider what the end game is and how to achieve that rather than a "gun and run" approach.
They'll soon be backtracking at a rate of knots when they realize Trump's got cold feet over the whole thing.
It will be funny watching our government squirm and try to explain this U-turn.
I don't think Trump will back down from some action as it will result in him being mocked without mercy after categorically stating there would be some action. I think what they are now trying to work out is whether Russia will respond or if it is bluffing (to point out Israel already has taken action and Russia did not respond to it).
I really thought we'd go hot with Russia in the 2030s. I was a decade out. Oh well, at least I'm about to become old enough to serve, I could go the rest of my life without working a desk job.
If it escalates there won't be time to recruit anyone....
I've seen Trump back down before, and the end result will be a gak storm on twitter where he spends most of the day labelling his opponents losers.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When the Royal Prerogative was used to try and push through Article 50, there was a gak storm.
Now some people are trying to justify its use in pushing through military action, which is far more serious than leaving a trading block...
Quite the contradiction there...
....
The Royal Prerogative doesn't extend to authorising Article 50.
It does extend to authorising military action.
No contradiction at all.
It still boils down to this fundamental question that has been bugging the nation since 2016: do we want Parliament to be truly sovereign and strong, or do we want the executive out of control?
Blair and Clegg have been screaming for months that Parliament should have the final say on the Brexit deal. Now they're saying that Parliament should be ignored and let's send in the tanks against Syria.
It's cake and eat it territory.
And people say I'm all over the shop on the key issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And where is David Cameron's 70,000 moderate Syrian rebels to spring to our aid?
And at the last vote, when the government was defeated in 2013 on this issue, thanks to Ed Miliband, Michael Gove was foaming at the mouth, and by all accounts, had to be restrained by Parliament security, as he was going to lunge at Labour MPs.
Don't people want to see Gove going ballistic again?
The Health Secretary, who has a personal fortune of more than £14 million, initially failed to declare his 50 per cent interest in the property firm to Companies House - a criminal offence punishable by a fine or up to two years in prison.
Mr Hunt also failed to disclose his interest in the property firm on the Parliamentary Register of Members’ interests within the required 28 days.
A Downing Street spokesman said: “Jeremy has rightly apologised for an administrative oversight, and as the Cabinet Office have made clear there has been no breach of the ministerial code.
“We consider the matter closed.”
uh huh.
TBF that level of dealing is going to be difficult and confusing.
.. do you think many non cabinet ministers would get away with making an apology, not paying a fine and just being able to carry on ?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When the Royal Prerogative was used to try and push through Article 50, there was a gak storm.
Now some people are trying to justify its use in pushing through military action, which is far more serious than leaving a trading block...
Quite the contradiction there...
....
The Royal Prerogative doesn't extend to authorising Article 50.
It does extend to authorising military action.
No contradiction at all.
It still boils down to this fundamental question that has been bugging the nation since 2016: do we want Parliament to be truly sovereign and strong, or do we want the executive out of control?
Blair and Clegg have been screaming for months that Parliament should have the final say on the Brexit deal. Now they're saying that Parliament should be ignored and let's send in the tanks against Syria.
It's cake and eat it territory.
And people say I'm all over the shop on the key issues.
No, you are arguing in bad faith, or acting with wilful ignorance, in order to score points.
Royal prerogative extends to some things and not others:
Royal prerogative generally extends to things which have historically been in the purview of the crown and can require quick, decisive action. Military action fulfils both of those requirements. Leaving the EU fulfils neither.
You may not like it, but those are the laws of our country. There is no contradiction.
I do not want to go to war, but I accept that it remains in the right of the PM to exercise that authority. There have been votes in the past, but putting it to parliament is not a requirement, but does help a PM avoid the risk of a vote of no confidence they might face if they take unpopular action.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.
We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.
I feel sorry for young folk like yourself, because if the gak hits the fan, it's people like you that will have to march into battle against the Russians.
I'm on the Autistic Spectrum. The British Military wouldn't take me even if I wanted to (and I did go as far as to meet with an RAF recruiter last year to learn about it).
Automatically Appended Next Post: If its a criminal offence, its a criminal offence. Prosecute the b******. No exceptions.
No. I don't hold any kind of a torch for Hunt or the Tories. I just think his "offence" was trivial and there are many other things going on which are much more worthy of the country to spend time on.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.
We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.
I feel sorry for young folk like yourself, because if the gak hits the fan, it's people like you that will have to march into battle against the Russians.
I'm on the Autistic Spectrum. The British Military wouldn't take me even if I wanted to (and I did go as far as to meet with an RAF recruiter last year to learn about it)
.
That might well change.
The Israeli Army Unit That Recruits Teens With Autism
Many autistic soldiers who would otherwise be exempt from military service have found a place in Unit 9900, a selective intelligence squad where their heightened perceptual skills are an asset.
Edit: sorry, I got a little pissed off, so I deleted the non PG13 stuff.
But whatever you think about strikes, should they happen or not, Corbyn will take any chance to go against the 'evil capitalist west'.
Of course we're going to take cues from the American's on military strikes, we're both in nato, and they're the dominant military power, but Corbyn hates nato, because war is bad kids and they're a tool of the eviil capitalist west and he's still sore about the iron curtain falling.
“Britain should press for an independent UN-led investigation of last weekend’s horrific chemical weapons attack so that those responsible can be held to account. Yeah, because that'll go so well in the middle of a warzone and won't take far too long for any sort of retaliation to be meaningful, and once it's done of course Assad and Putin will turn themselves in to the UN.
“The need to restart genuine negotiations for peace and an inclusive political settlement of the Syrian conflict, including the withdrawal of all foreign forces, could not be more urgent. We must do everything we can, no matter how challenging, to bring that about.”A) perhaps everythign should include strikes. B) it is not in Assad or Putin's interests to come to a settlment now. They're winning.
All US allies can't just snub the USA for the duration of Trump's presidency. We have to find a way to work with the US government as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Isn't it ironic how less than two years after Leave.EU laughed at Carmon for (not actually) saying Brexit would lead to WW3, and less than a yer unti Brexit, the UN is seriously warning about the danger of WW3?
Kilkrazy wrote: Previous votes on military action -- I think there have been two -- don't hold up to the numerous previous occasions when military action was launched without reference to parliament.
Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.
When was the last time that we engaged in an attack on another state that wasn't approved by Parliament? As I've pointed out I have no issue with defence of the UK being undertaken without a vote. I don't have an issue where an existing state asks for assistance in dealing with terrorists. I don't have an issue where there is a UN resolution that allows such offence to take place (as agreed internationally). I do however have an issue when an individual can make a decision where there is an attack on another state and there should be appropriate cross checks through a parliamentary process.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When the Royal Prerogative was used to try and push through Article 50, there was a gak storm.
Now some people are trying to justify its use in pushing through military action, which is far more serious than leaving a trading block...
Quite the contradiction there...
It doesn't happen a lot, but I agree. There is no need for 'immediate and decisive' action in this case. It could be next week or the week after.
Kilkrazy wrote: Previous votes on military action -- I think there have been two -- don't hold up to the numerous previous occasions when military action was launched without reference to parliament.
Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.
When was the last time that we engaged in an attack on another state that wasn't approved by Parliament? ...
...
Kilkrazy wrote: Previous votes on military action -- I think there have been two -- don't hold up to the numerous previous occasions when military action was launched without reference to parliament.
Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.
When was the last time that we engaged in an attack on another state that wasn't approved by Parliament? ...
...
Early this morning, by the latest news.
And as always with the UK, there's money to bomb Arabs, but there's never money for doctors, nurses, police etc etc
Funny that...
I read that during the Libya debacle, we barely had the missiles to conduct strikes for a lengthy period. Do we have enough this time?
I heard that we're contributing 4 jets or something. It's a wonder we can even afford to do that, given how the Tories have ran our military into the ground.
Kilkrazy wrote: Previous votes on military action -- I think there have been two -- don't hold up to the numerous previous occasions when military action was launched without reference to parliament.
Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.
When was the last time that we engaged in an attack on another state that wasn't approved by Parliament? As I've pointed out I have no issue with defence of the UK being undertaken without a vote. I don't have an issue where an existing state asks for assistance in dealing with terrorists. I don't have an issue where there is a UN resolution that allows such offence to take place (as agreed internationally). I do however have an issue when an individual can make a decision where there is an attack on another state and there should be appropriate cross checks through a parliamentary process.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When the Royal Prerogative was used to try and push through Article 50, there was a gak storm.
Now some people are trying to justify its use in pushing through military action, which is far more serious than leaving a trading block...
Quite the contradiction there...
It doesn't happen a lot, but I agree. There is no need for 'immediate and decisive' action in this case. It could be next week or the week after.
We agree. Mark it in your diary.
On a serious note, I disagree with Corbyn on a lot of things, but the man is usually spot on when it comes to foreign policy and military action. I think he'll be proved right again, over Syria.
These pin prick military strike will achieve the square root of feth all, and like the 30 years war, this kind of foreign intervention only prolongs the conflict.
Lol I think Maygube has taken a massive miss step with her long looked for "Maggie" moment. It worked for the original sociopath because 1. We were not the aggressors 2. The demographics for the UK are very different, back then it was generation's brought up on ww2 boys own stories and the glories of war. My generation and younger has Vietnam, Iraq mk2, Afghanistan Ussr and US versions plus various vicious bushfire wars that taught us the futility of war.
Yes I support any military action to defend us or our allies I do not however support wars so the US can build a pipeline or the Tories can try propping up there gakky government.
Ifvtheres more than a dozen Tory councillors in the whole of the UK after the local elections I will be shocked.
3 months of smears and crap thrown at Labour have just been rendered pointless in 1 night.
Next election the Tories are going to need more than the Irish Taliban and the brexit loons to prop them up.
Oof. This is why I'll never be for May, just against Corbyn. She's utterly incompetent.
A 5 year old could spot the political damage this will cause from a mile away. Anyone with half a brain cell knows these strikes won't do anything, and even if we 'win', whatever that means in Syria, it will not be Falklands 2.0. The Falklands are British territory, we were invaded and people loved a military success in defending ourselves. Syria is not, as I'm sure even May knows, British. It will not garner the same reaction.
In addition, not going through parliament is just stupid. Regardless of constitutional legality, which I know nothing about, I can guarantee it will be dragged up in the 2022 elections without fail. Look how much crap Blair gets for 'dragging us into Iraq'. At least he had the sense to get parliament to vote for it. May has no one at all she can shift blame on here. It's just so politically stupid. Especially when many Labour MPS said they were going to vote for intervention.
When was the last time that we engaged in an attack on another state that wasn't approved by Parliament? ...
...
Early this morning, by the latest news.
That's a cynical argument and you are better than that. The argument is about whether there should be a vote in parliament. I assume then you can't find evidence of previous recent offensive actions against another state then without a vote in parliament? Using that we didn't do it this time is an argument that here is a recent example is a circular and not worth debating argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: We've joined forces with our close allies to defy the Russians and stand up for international law.
We've helped administer a good bop on the nose to Assad, which will discourage him from using chemical weapons again.
We've sent a warning to other states who might consider following the same path.
Hardly. Assad has already won. The only think Russia is interested in is keeping was the bases on the mediterranean. It will help Assad rebuild the small amount of damage caused by these strikes (relatively). After which point in a year or two Assad will pretty much have complete control including who reports what. Then he go about gassing anyone he sees fit and we'll be powerless to do anything about it. Our intervention here is pointless and largely political in looking "weak and wobbly" and to bend over as far as possible to butter Trump up as much as possible for a terrible trade deal.
From Russia's perspective they've managed to put enough fear into the strike to mean that the damage is miniscule and in the end they get exactly what they want. A few damaged chemical plants is unlikely to bother them at all.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm a lot older than a 5-year-old and I think May's done the country a bit of good with this strike.
We've joined forces with our close allies to defy the Russians and stand up for international law.
We've helped administer a good bop on the nose to Assad, which will discourage him from using chemical weapons again.
We've sent a warning to other states who might consider following the same path.
Russia is claiming without providing any evidence that Syrian AA shot down all the missiles.
It will be interesting to see the satellite images of bomb damage assessment.
I agree she's done good, but I meant the domestic political ramifications would have been so easily avoided by just waiting a few days to hold the vote.
After all, a chemical weapon was used by agents of the Russian state on British soil, with a British policeman being hospitalised, and potentially hundreds of British civilians being endangered.
Why isn't there a cruise missile heading for Putin's office in the Kremlin?
It's odd that in one sense the Salisbury incident could be seen as a declaration of war, but both countries aren't really feeling it so nothing's happening.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's always embarrassing to see a British Prime Minister with their tongue up America's rear
Yet with Brexit you're forcing her tongue further up there for the sake of a trade deal.
So Sturgeon has said policy should be determined by parliament and not trump. Cable has expressed concern that parliament wasn't consulted, and Corbyn is demanding May proves what she did is actually legal. She's going to get torn to pieces at PMQ's. At least they won'tbe talking about Brexit for a while.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: If you're talking about Hunt, he didn't break the law. He didn't even break the ministers' code.
Hunt only made a small technical infraction due to getting mistaken advice from his solicitor. He has apologised, and his apology has been accepted.
A small technical infraction which happened to mask a significant conflict of interest, which seems to happen an awful lot to Tory MPs.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's always embarrassing to see a British Prime Minister with their tongue up America's rear
Yet with Brexit you're forcing her tongue further up there for the sake of a trade deal.
So Sturgeon has said policy should be determined by parliament and not trump. Cable has expressed concern that parliament wasn't consulted, and Corbyn is demanding May proves what she did is actually legal. She's going to get torn to pieces at PMQ's. At least they won'tbe talking about Brexit for a while.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: If you're talking about Hunt, he didn't break the law. He didn't even break the ministers' code.
Hunt only made a small technical infraction due to getting mistaken advice from his solicitor. He has apologised, and his apology has been accepted.
A small technical infraction which happened to mask a significant conflict of interest, which seems to happen an awful lot to Tory MPs.
There's a big difference between negotiating for a trade deal and rolling up the white flag.
You'll remember that even when we were in the EU, Blair was happy to capitulate on the British rebate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: It's odd that in one sense the Salisbury incident could be seen as a declaration of war, but both countries aren't really feeling it so nothing's happening.
One country can destroy us 100 times over with its nuclear arsenal. The other country is weak and defenceless, and is ideal for some gesture politics to shore up support for a party that is intellectually and ideologically, bankrupt.
Herzlos wrote: So Sturgeon has said policy should be determined by parliament and not trump. Cable has expressed concern that parliament wasn't consulted, and Corbyn is demanding May proves what she did is actually legal. She's going to get torn to pieces at PMQ's. At least they won't be talking about Brexit for a while.
Mostly agreed, but is Vincent Cable really politically relevant? This has to be the first time I've heard his name in months.
Herzlos wrote: So Sturgeon has said policy should be determined by parliament and not trump. Cable has expressed concern that parliament wasn't consulted, and Corbyn is demanding May proves what she did is actually legal. She's going to get torn to pieces at PMQ's. At least they won't be talking about Brexit for a while.
Mostly agreed, but is Vincent Cable really politically relevant? This has to be the first time I've heard his name in months.
We'll see at the next elections. I never minded old Vince; but at 75 now he's pushing the boat out a bit. Most people his age are trying to decide what to bed down next to the begonias, not aiming to be Prime Minister.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's always embarrassing to see a British Prime Minister with their tongue up America's rear
Yet with Brexit you're forcing her tongue further up there for the sake of a trade deal.
So Sturgeon has said policy should be determined by parliament and not trump. Cable has expressed concern that parliament wasn't consulted, and Corbyn is demanding May proves what she did is actually legal. She's going to get torn to pieces at PMQ's. At least they won'tbe talking about Brexit for a while.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: If you're talking about Hunt, he didn't break the law. He didn't even break the ministers' code.
Hunt only made a small technical infraction due to getting mistaken advice from his solicitor. He has apologised, and his apology has been accepted.
A small technical infraction which happened to mask a significant conflict of interest, which seems to happen an awful lot to Tory MPs.
There's a big difference between negotiating for a trade deal and rolling up the white flag.
You'll remember that even when we were in the EU, Blair was happy to capitulate on the British rebate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: It's odd that in one sense the Salisbury incident could be seen as a declaration of war, but both countries aren't really feeling it so nothing's happening.
One country can destroy us 100 times over with its nuclear arsenal. The other country is weak and defenceless, and is ideal for some gesture politics to shore up support for a party that is intellectually and ideologically, bankrupt.
An attack on Russia would be illigal under international law. There are many differces between the two. One was an assassination and an attack would be a punitive reprisal. The other was a war crime and one of an ongoing series of chemical attacks on civilians and the attack has been stated as being to prevent further chemical weapons attacks.
Your statements are clearly biased on a dislike of the Tory party rather than fact.
WHO and VCD have both stayed there was a chemical weapons attack. The US, UK and French governments have. The UN has. The only people saying there was no chemical attack are Syria and Russia.
Now, shockingly, the Home Office is targeting the ‘Windrush generation’, the people who came from the West Indies to Britain in 1948 to work and fill gaps in the labour market.
Thousands of people who arrived in the UK as children in the first wave of Commonwealth immigration are being threatened with deportation. They have lived and worked in the UK for decades and consider themselves to be British, but are being told they are here illegally.
The issue has arisen because under the 1971 Immigration Act, all Commonwealth citizens living in the UK were given indefinite leave to remain, but the act abolished the freedom of movement between British Commonwealth nations which existed before.
Until the 1971 Act, the Commonwealth citizens who came to Britain had citizenship rights, and therefore did not need the paperwork that was required of immigrants after the Act was passed. The Home Office seems never to have compiled paperwork on this group and is now, bafflingly, it is implementing its ‘hostile environment’ policies against them, and demanding proof of their right to be in the UK.
Many of the Commonwealth citizens who moved here never formalised their immigration status because they thought of themselves as British. Then, in 1971 they were guaranteed their rights. The Windrush generation often came here as children and didn’t bring their own papers of keep evidence. Those born in Caribbean countries are thought to be more affected than others because they were more likely to arrive on their parents’ passports without their own ID documents.
We are talking here about people who were invited into our country to help rebuild it. They were given the opportunity to make a new life here. They are an integral part of the social fabric.
They have worked hard, paid their taxes and raised families. They are British, pure and simple. They don’t deserve to be threatened and harassed.
Under the hostile environment policy, migrants are required to provide documentary evidence of every year they were in Britain. If you are a Commonwealth citizen who came here in the 1950’s, imagine how difficult that is. If you are poor, or poor at record keeping and paperwork, it may be impossible.
Elwaldo Romeo who moved to Britain from Antigua 59 years ago has now been told he is in the UK illegally. His Home Office letter said he was ‘liable to be detained’ because he was a ‘person without leave’. He now must report fortnightly to Home Office premises, and has been advised that the staff can offer him ‘help and support on returning home voluntarily’.
Paulette Wilson is a former cook at the House of Commons who came to Britain from Jamaica in 1968. She received a letter from the Home Office telling her to register each month at the Solihull immigration centre. Paulette has been threatened with deportation and wrongly sent to immigration removal centres. Earlier this year, the former Labour minister Lord Falconer raised her case:
“While she was there on a visit, officials declared that she was an illegal immigrant, had her carted off to the appalling Yarl’s Wood immigration removal complex and told her that she would be deported – presumably back to Jamaica, which she had not visited since she left as a child almost 50 years before,”
Glenda Caesar has had a career in the NHS, had children here (her eldest is 40) and her mother and father are buried in UK soil. She has lived here almost all her life and considers herself British, but because she has no ID records of her arrival she faces an uncertain future.
It is utterly appalling and brings shame to our country.
This is unacceptable. If you agree, I urge you to write to your MP about this matter and sign the petition calling for amnesty for the Windrush generation of migrants who came here as children. If even a single one of the Windrush generation is deported having been granted rights, it will be a sickening historic injustice. That we are even having to discuss this is disgusting.
..... really starting to wonder if the Home Office is at all fit for purpose.
Now, shockingly, the Home Office is targeting the ‘Windrush generation’, the people who came from the West Indies to Britain in 1948 to work and fill gaps in the labour market.
Thousands of people who arrived in the UK as children in the first wave of Commonwealth immigration are being threatened with deportation. They have lived and worked in the UK for decades and consider themselves to be British, but are being told they are here illegally.
The issue has arisen because under the 1971 Immigration Act, all Commonwealth citizens living in the UK were given indefinite leave to remain, but the act abolished the freedom of movement between British Commonwealth nations which existed before.
Until the 1971 Act, the Commonwealth citizens who came to Britain had citizenship rights, and therefore did not need the paperwork that was required of immigrants after the Act was passed. The Home Office seems never to have compiled paperwork on this group and is now, bafflingly, it is implementing its ‘hostile environment’ policies against them, and demanding proof of their right to be in the UK.
Many of the Commonwealth citizens who moved here never formalised their immigration status because they thought of themselves as British. Then, in 1971 they were guaranteed their rights. The Windrush generation often came here as children and didn’t bring their own papers of keep evidence. Those born in Caribbean countries are thought to be more affected than others because they were more likely to arrive on their parents’ passports without their own ID documents.
We are talking here about people who were invited into our country to help rebuild it. They were given the opportunity to make a new life here. They are an integral part of the social fabric.
They have worked hard, paid their taxes and raised families. They are British, pure and simple. They don’t deserve to be threatened and harassed.
Under the hostile environment policy, migrants are required to provide documentary evidence of every year they were in Britain. If you are a Commonwealth citizen who came here in the 1950’s, imagine how difficult that is. If you are poor, or poor at record keeping and paperwork, it may be impossible.
Elwaldo Romeo who moved to Britain from Antigua 59 years ago has now been told he is in the UK illegally. His Home Office letter said he was ‘liable to be detained’ because he was a ‘person without leave’. He now must report fortnightly to Home Office premises, and has been advised that the staff can offer him ‘help and support on returning home voluntarily’.
Paulette Wilson is a former cook at the House of Commons who came to Britain from Jamaica in 1968. She received a letter from the Home Office telling her to register each month at the Solihull immigration centre. Paulette has been threatened with deportation and wrongly sent to immigration removal centres. Earlier this year, the former Labour minister Lord Falconer raised her case:
“While she was there on a visit, officials declared that she was an illegal immigrant, had her carted off to the appalling Yarl’s Wood immigration removal complex and told her that she would be deported – presumably back to Jamaica, which she had not visited since she left as a child almost 50 years before,”
Glenda Caesar has had a career in the NHS, had children here (her eldest is 40) and her mother and father are buried in UK soil. She has lived here almost all her life and considers herself British, but because she has no ID records of her arrival she faces an uncertain future.
It is utterly appalling and brings shame to our country.
This is unacceptable. If you agree, I urge you to write to your MP about this matter and sign the petition calling for amnesty for the Windrush generation of migrants who came here as children. If even a single one of the Windrush generation is deported having been granted rights, it will be a sickening historic injustice. That we are even having to discuss this is disgusting.
..... really starting to wonder if the Home Office is at all fit for purpose.
Without going into too much detail, I have a Ex Ghurka friend who fought in several wars for this country and now runs a successful buisness, they have been trying to deport him since last year and he has been here 30+ years.
See, this is why I utterly despise this country at times. They won’t block or deport murderous parasitical jihadi scum buckets but they’ll go after decent hard working people who have literally risked life and limb for the country, presumably because they’re soft targets. It’s stomach churning.
Future War Cultist wrote: See, this is why I utterly despise this country at times. They won’t block or deport murderous parasitical jihadi scum buckets but they’ll go after decent hard working people who have literally risked life and limb for the country, presumably because they’re soft targets. It’s stomach churning.
Nah. It's just down to paperwork. Pure and simple. You have no right to be here? The Home Office will come after you as soon as they're aware of the situation. Doesn't matter what you've done, doesn't matter how long you've been here. It's just the faceless mound of bureaucracy which spits out papers, assesses visas and sometimes loses documents for a decade before rediscovering and acting on them. The people who've been here thirty years will have the exact same recourse as any other immigrant would do with their legal status (plea to stay under right to family life, appeal to HS, etc).
That's.....just how bureaucracy and government institutions work. After retiring, most ministers often say that they're nothing more than putty in the hands of Civil Service heads, who themselves barely have a finger on the wheel of direction for these behemoth departments. And they're not lying. But it's their faces on the front, so they're the ones that tend to get roasted when some mid-level Home Office wonk sitting in Scunthorpe rediscovers a batch of immigrants who were never properly processed and starts proceedings according to the rulebook.
Future War Cultist wrote: See, this is why I utterly despise this country at times. They won’t block or deport murderous parasitical jihadi scum buckets but they’ll go after decent hard working people who have literally risked life and limb for the country, presumably because they’re soft targets. It’s stomach churning.
Nah. It's just down to paperwork. Pure and simple. You have no right to be here? The Home Office will come after you as soon as they're aware of the situation. Doesn't matter what you've done, doesn't matter how long you've been here. It's just the faceless mound of bureaucracy which spits out papers, assesses visas and sometimes loses documents for a decade before rediscovering and acting on them. The people who've been here thirty years will have the exact same recourse as any other immigrant would do with their legal status (plea to stay under right to family life, appeal to HS, etc).
That's.....just how bureaucracy and government institutions work. After retiring, most ministers often say that they're nothing more than putty in the hands of Civil Service heads, who themselves barely have a finger on the wheel of direction for these behemoth departments. And they're not lying. But it's their faces on the front, so they're the ones that tend to get roasted when some mid-level Home Office wonk sitting in Scunthorpe rediscovers a batch of immigrants who were never properly processed and starts proceedings according to the rulebook.
Then, with all due respect, someone had better re-write the rulebook, update the system, and pull their fingers out their unmentionables.
Then, with all due respect, someone had better re-write the rulebook, update the system, and pull their fingers out their unmentionables.
Good luck with that. It usually takes a politician of considerable willpower and intelligence working a 16 hour day as a hated autocratic micromanager for two years to make even the slightest veer in the course of the leviathan that is a Government department. All most politicians do is get into power, hand a list of things that they'd like done to the four or five Heads of their department, write lots of memos, and rubber stamp paperwork. And even that takes a nine hour day.
If you're lucky, you'll get a few of the departmental higher ups actively pushing and micromanaging in the same direction as you. That lets you delegate, and makes policy shifts that much more effective/likely/lasting. But since we've long since left the days of matching senior civil service appointments to party loyalties, it's more a random bag of chance. You're just as likely to get a group of functionaries who hate you and everything you stand for, and go out of their way to subtly block and impede anything you want done.
Given your power to remove such people is somewhat limited, you often find Ministers ending up as impotent figureheads of their own departments. There's a reason every recent Home Secretary before May was hoisted and hung out to dry for circumstances and events they couldn't control.
I don't think this will affect the local council elections very much, though. People either vote on local issues, or as a generalised protest, so they won't be voting for Corbyn for Prime Minister. It will be interesting to see the level of turnout.
But it's not just a paperwork thing; it's an unreasonable paperwork thing. They were invited and came here legally 20 years before paperwork was required. So the home office is asking them for evidence they didn't need and would still need to have kept for 50 years.
It wouldn't be too hard for the home Secretary to update guidelines such that carribean people who they can't prove didn't come here before 1977 are left alone and given proper paperwork.
There can't be that many of them so it shouldn't be too hard to sort.
Making them check into immigration centres is just cruel. Hopefully someone will take the home office to court.
But foreigners are bad and the root of all our problems, or have you not been following British politics for the past few years?
I have personal experience of the U.K. immigration system (which I will not detail here); suffice it to say it is a bureaucratic nightmare that makes the Vogons look like paragons of efficiency and compassion.
Call me skeptical, but I've got a feeling the "chemical attack" in Syria was a last gasp staged ploy to involve other countries and try to oust Assad and Russia.
Do we have any hard evidence? Lab reports? Assad has won. Why on earth would he risk foreign intervention by gassing the opposition to his rule in his country? It makes no sense tactically and politically.
Until a independent commission can investigate, we are going off eye witness accounts and information from groups which claims to be impartial in helping the civilians, but have been proved several times in faking pictures, staging scenes and being very much on side with the rebels.
Do I think Assad is a tyrant and unfit ruler? Yes. Is he the right person to lead Syria? Absolutely. I'd rather Assad keep control of the country than allow radicals to take control and turn it into a cesspit like Lybia was in the fall of Gaddafi where militant extremists are rampant.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except Assad couldn't control Syria, hence why it has been stuck in a civil war for years.
A civil war that was affecting no one but Syria and Russia. All of a sudden its important that the US/UK needs to stick its oar in for reasons?
If US/UK citizens were killed in Syria, then I wouldn't say anything. It seems rather hypocritical to me that in the 6+ years of fighting, with hundreds of civilians dying on both sides with not a twitch from the US or UK. All of a sudden "chemical weapons" were apparently used and so Syria is now worth our time? Chemical weapons might I add that the rebels themselves have, and have been used.
Call me callous, but I'm pretty sure until the last few days, the US/UK had no interest in getting involved in Syria other than political reasons.
If chemical weapons are used (and ignoring the fact that Assad has turned weapons on non-combatants), then by all rights, the international community should punish them for their use of prohibited weaponry. It's a matter of principle - use chemical weapons, and the international community has a duty to enforce the punishment for using them.
Failing to do so implies that you can get away with breaking international regulations, and if you can get away with it, then what's the point of having those rules in the first place?
Realistically, it shouldn't matter if it happens to the citizens of your country or not - if there's a breach of international regulations, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, under that idea, the Holocaust could go ahead just fine, and the UK wouldn't get involved unless the Nazis went for UK citizens?
By all accounts, we fired the grand total of 6 missiles, with each missile costing the UK taxpayer £750,000 each.
Probably our entire defence budget for the whole year.
And with Bojo laying down the law on the Andrew Marr show this morning, I predict many a sleepless night in Moscow for one V.Putin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If chemical weapons are used (and ignoring the fact that Assad has turned weapons on non-combatants), then by all rights, the international community should punish them for their use of prohibited weaponry. It's a matter of principle - use chemical weapons, and the international community has a duty to enforce the punishment for using them.
Failing to do so implies that you can get away with breaking international regulations, and if you can get away with it, then what's the point of having those rules in the first place?
Realistically, it shouldn't matter if it happens to the citizens of your country or not - if there's a breach of international regulations, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, under that idea, the Holocaust could go ahead just fine, and the UK wouldn't get involved unless the Nazis went for UK citizens?
The Scott report back in the 1990s showed we were happy to flog dodgy material to Saddam whenever it suited us, and now we're pontificating about Assad and Putin?
We pick and choose which international law to follow when it suits us.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except Assad couldn't control Syria, hence why it has been stuck in a civil war for years.
A civil war that was affecting no one but Syria and Russia. All of a sudden its important that the US/UK needs to stick its oar in for reasons?
If US/UK citizens were killed in Syria, then I wouldn't say anything. It seems rather hypocritical to me that in the 6+ years of fighting, with hundreds of civilians dying on both sides with not a twitch from the US or UK. All of a sudden "chemical weapons" were apparently used and so Syria is now worth our time? Chemical weapons might I add that the rebels themselves have, and have been used.
Call me callous, but I'm pretty sure until the last few days, the US/UK had no interest in getting involved in Syria other than political reasons.
My thoughts entirely
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except Assad couldn't control Syria, hence why it has been stuck in a civil war for years.
It's hard to control a nation when various outside actors are running arms deals, special forces, and war by proxy through your nation.
Like the 30 years war, the Syrian war would have ended sooner, if outside actors hadn't kept stoking the flames for their own interests i.e Saudi Arabia Vs Iran.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If chemical weapons are used (and ignoring the fact that Assad has turned weapons on non-combatants), then by all rights, the international community should punish them for their use of prohibited weaponry. It's a matter of principle - use chemical weapons, and the international community has a duty to enforce the punishment for using them.
Failing to do so implies that you can get away with breaking international regulations, and if you can get away with it, then what's the point of having those rules in the first place?
Realistically, it shouldn't matter if it happens to the citizens of your country or not - if there's a breach of international regulations, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, under that idea, the Holocaust could go ahead just fine, and the UK wouldn't get involved unless the Nazis went for UK citizens?
The Scott report back in the 1990s showed we were happy to flog dodgy material to Saddam whenever it suited us, and now we're pontificating about Assad and Putin?
We pick and choose which international law to follow when it suits us.
Agreed on the picking and choosing - but that's not a good thing.
Ideally, we wouldn't be picking and choosing.
Of course, emphasis on "ideally", because I know that nothing will ever go "ideally".
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except Assad couldn't control Syria, hence why it has been stuck in a civil war for years.
A civil war that was affecting no one but Syria and Russia. All of a sudden its important that the US/UK needs to stick its oar in for reasons?
If US/UK citizens were killed in Syria, then I wouldn't say anything. It seems rather hypocritical to me that in the 6+ years of fighting, with hundreds of civilians dying on both sides with not a twitch from the US or UK. All of a sudden "chemical weapons" were apparently used and so Syria is now worth our time? Chemical weapons might I add that the rebels themselves have, and have been used.
Call me callous, but I'm pretty sure until the last few days, the US/UK had no interest in getting involved in Syria other than political reasons.
Is this a joke? The rise of ISIS is directly linked to the civil war in Syria which is why the West got involved in the first place. Add to that that Assad's complete refusal to adhere to international law directly damages the Western international system and the normative system the West has been trying to build for the last 30 or so years.
Also the rebels as in the extremist Islamic part of rebels have used captured Syrian stocks. Those rebels last I checked didn't sign up to the OPCW in 2015. Last I checked they aren't all on the same side either. Syria's use of these weapons represents one of the most major breaches of a Convention signatory to this day. But we're really equating extremist Islamic terrorists that don't receive international support with the Assad government that people are just happy to leave in place because he managed to murder the moderates? Assad has used chemical weapons on a much larger and more frequent scale than the incidental nature of certain rebel factions.
The US, UK and other Western countries always had an interest to intervene since 2011. But war weariness and voter apathy saw to the current course of inaction.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except Assad couldn't control Syria, hence why it has been stuck in a civil war for years.
It's hard to control a nation when various outside actors are running arms deals, special forces, and war by proxy through your nation.
Like the 30 years war, the Syrian war would have ended sooner, if outside actors hadn't kept stoking the flames for their own interests i.e Saudi Arabia Vs Iran.
Lets not pretend Assad didn't start this by using gunships against protestors.
I'm not pretending anything, Disciple, merely criticizing the two faced rats that run the UK.
China's human rights record is appalling, but they're big and rich, and powerful, and we're desperate for them to buy our stuff = the red carpet treatment when the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party visits the UK.
Saudi Arabia? My opinions on their human rights record would get me permanently banned from dakka, but they buy guns from us = best buddies.
I think Assad missed a trick by not putting some fivers on the table for British guns and jets. He would have magically transformed into a key ally, a great friend etc etc
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If chemical weapons are used (and ignoring the fact that Assad has turned weapons on non-combatants), then by all rights, the international community should punish them for their use of prohibited weaponry. It's a matter of principle - use chemical weapons, and the international community has a duty to enforce the punishment for using them.
Failing to do so implies that you can get away with breaking international regulations, and if you can get away with it, then what's the point of having those rules in the first place?
Realistically, it shouldn't matter if it happens to the citizens of your country or not - if there's a breach of international regulations, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, under that idea, the Holocaust could go ahead just fine, and the UK wouldn't get involved unless the Nazis went for UK citizens?
The Scott report back in the 1990s showed we were happy to flog dodgy material to Saddam whenever it suited us, and now we're pontificating about Assad and Putin?
We pick and choose which international law to follow when it suits us.
Agreed on the picking and choosing - but that's not a good thing.
Ideally, we wouldn't be picking and choosing.
Of course, emphasis on "ideally", because I know that nothing will ever go "ideally".
I'm not against military action to defend the UK or a NATO ally, but I'll be damned if I see working class, British men and women getting killed in the Middle East for some Saudi proxy war with Iran...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: By all accounts, we fired the grand total of 6 missiles, with each missile costing the UK taxpayer £750,000 each.
Probably our entire defence budget for the whole year.
This is one of the reasons it should have gone to parliament so that a proper debate on the effectiveness of the attacks could be debated. I have no issues with punishing those that use Chemical weapons but it has to be effective. However May wanted to act like a Dictator and as she has done since the last election try and avoid parliament at all costs. At the rate she is going she will have disbanded parliament in the next year or so.
Taking down a few concrete buildings is going to make a negligible impact. Chlorine gas is relatively easy to manufacture so the only real costs are the building and the manufacturing equipment. It will almost certainly cost Assad less than the cost of the missiles used to rebuild (especially with Russia and Iran's support). In fact it can make the situation worse because they could use the opportunity to redesign the 'flattened' site to a more efficient site.
May's decision was more based on a political decisions (in that she wants to bend over for Trump) rather than any realistic aspiration to punish the Assad. The opportunity to change things was lost at the beginning. If they wanted to really punish the regime then they would need to start enforcing no fly zones over major urban areas but that raises the spectre of casualties which they are keen to avoid.
May/Boris are trying to look strong in the response but in reality it is pathetic as it will have no lasting impact.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If chemical weapons are used (and ignoring the fact that Assad has turned weapons on non-combatants), then by all rights, the international community should punish them for their use of prohibited weaponry. It's a matter of principle - use chemical weapons, and the international community has a duty to enforce the punishment for using them.
Failing to do so implies that you can get away with breaking international regulations, and if you can get away with it, then what's the point of having those rules in the first place?
Realistically, it shouldn't matter if it happens to the citizens of your country or not - if there's a breach of international regulations, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, under that idea, the Holocaust could go ahead just fine, and the UK wouldn't get involved unless the Nazis went for UK citizens?
The Scott report back in the 1990s showed we were happy to flog dodgy material to Saddam whenever it suited us, and now we're pontificating about Assad and Putin?
We pick and choose which international law to follow when it suits us.
Agreed on the picking and choosing - but that's not a good thing.
Ideally, we wouldn't be picking and choosing.
Of course, emphasis on "ideally", because I know that nothing will ever go "ideally".
I'm not against military action to defend the UK or a NATO ally, but I'll be damned if I see working class, British men and women getting killed in the Middle East for some Saudi proxy war with Iran...
I can understand and empathise with that. Odds are, if conscription is called, I'll be a prime candidate for it. But if we're not willing to uphold the values of law and order that other people seem to blatantly disregard, who will? If no-one will enforce the law, then is that law actually in place?
I don't want to live in a world where chemical bombardment is a thing we can just say "well, it's not OUR people they're bombing".
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm not pretending anything, Disciple, merely criticizing the two faced rats that run the UK.
China's human rights record is appalling, but they're big and rich, and powerful, and we're desperate for them to buy our stuff = the red carpet treatment when the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party visits the UK.
Saudi Arabia? My opinions on their human rights record would get me permanently banned from dakka, but they buy guns from us = best buddies.
I think Assad missed a trick by not putting some fivers on the table for British guns and jets. He would have magically transformed into a key ally, a great friend etc etc
The difference is that both China and SA have plausible deniability when it comes to their abuses. Which is also a good point against letting Syria get away with it. SA and China like to pretend that international law and human rights are just Western constructs, not doing anything in Syria just enforces that notion. Meanwhile Syria is actively violating the laws they themselves signed in front of us. Its much more damaging to the international system.
I don't agree with how we treat China and SA, but they aren't given carte blanche either like Assad gets from Russia.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why are political reasons not good reasons for governments to act upon?
Because, in regards to military action, you are potentially playing with people's lives in order so that you/your party look better. It can blinker you to other opportunities and possibilities because one action is seen as the most likely to gain you approval over another, better, longer term solution that might not be seen in the same positive light (especially to those groups that generally support you). It also makes potentially justifying such action more difficult because contrived 'excuses' have to be made up.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why are political reasons not good reasons for governments to act upon?
Because in the cold light of day, we need to ask this hard question: what's in it for Britain?
There is no clear, present, or immediate threat to the UK that requires swift executive action. I would understand and support the need to bypass Parliament if such an emergency occurred.
There is no danger to any of our NATO allies. And of course, we have no Empire anymore. There is no need to attack and invade Syria to stop Vichy France from allowing the Luftwaffe airfields in Syria..
That's all gone...
Ketara is often fond of saying that national budgets are not run like household budgets, and there is truth in that, but neither are international relations run like a quiz night at your local boozer.
Pragmatism not idealism. Sensible nations act in their own interests.
When the British government approached Washington in 1940 to buy Thompson sub-machine guns, the conversation went like this:
Britain: Can we buy some guns from you guys?
USA: Sure, step right in buddy. Always happy to help.
Britain: How much?
USA: $200 each.
Britain: That's bloody expensive. Can we get a discount for buying in bulk?
USA: Sure, you can buy them in bulk at $200 each. I'll even throw in the triggers for free. Always happy to help.
Britain: We're in a life and death struggle against a brutal and evil regime!
USA: Ok, ok, ok. Special deal. 5 guns for $1000 dollars, and that's the best I can do...
etc etc etc
Of course when France falls, and the USA realizes the world order has changed, and American interests could be threatened, we get lend-lease and bargain basement prices.
This is what good and sensible nations do. They put themselves first and act accordingly.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: By all accounts, we fired the grand total of 6 missiles, with each missile costing the UK taxpayer £750,000 each.
Probably our entire defence budget for the whole year.
This is one of the reasons it should have gone to parliament so that a proper debate on the effectiveness of the attacks could be debated. I have no issues with punishing those that use Chemical weapons but it has to be effective. However May wanted to act like a Dictator and as she has done since the last election try and avoid parliament at all costs. At the rate she is going she will have disbanded parliament in the next year or so.
Taking down a few concrete buildings is going to make a negligible impact. Chlorine gas is relatively easy to manufacture so the only real costs are the building and the manufacturing equipment. It will almost certainly cost Assad less than the cost of the missiles used to rebuild (especially with Russia and Iran's support). In fact it can make the situation worse because they could use the opportunity to redesign the 'flattened' site to a more efficient site.
May's decision was more based on a political decisions (in that she wants to bend over for Trump) rather than any realistic aspiration to punish the Assad. The opportunity to change things was lost at the beginning. If they wanted to really punish the regime then they would need to start enforcing no fly zones over major urban areas but that raises the spectre of casualties which they are keen to avoid.
May/Boris are trying to look strong in the response but in reality it is pathetic as it will have no lasting impact.
If we never talk about the EU again on this thread, it's unlikely that you and I would disagree on anything
But yeah, Parliament needs to be involved. I think the simple reason is that May has calculated that the numbers are against her, especially with Tory Remainers looking to cause mischief, and the last thing she needs is to get defeated on this issue like David Cameron.
Labour+SNP+Lib Dems+ Tory rebels is probably enough to vote down military action.
I agree that we should punish Nations that use chemical weapons. Get the Tornados back in the sky and flatten the Israeli facility that made the white phosphorous shells used in Gaza. Oh wait silly me, I forgot that doesn't count because they pinky promised they'd stop using it.
Da krimson barun wrote: I agree that we should punish Nations that use chemical weapons. Get the Tornados back in the sky and flatten the Israeli facility that made the white phosphorous shells used in Gaza. Oh wait silly me, I forgot that doesn't count because they pinky promised they'd stop using it.
Yeah but Israel are though to have the third largest stockpile of Nuclear warheads so probably not best to go after Israel in this way. I understand the sentiments, depending on the relative strength determines the overall response. Overall global politics is closer to the school playground hierarchy than anything rational in that if you are bigger stronger you can punch those weaker than you in the nose, but you don't do it those more powerful. However I don't really thing 'whataboutism' really helps the discussion on Syria.
If we never talk about the EU again on this thread, it's unlikely that you and I would disagree on anything
I think our principles are relatively closely aligned. With regards being in/out of the EU I think it is how those principles can be implemented that differs...
Da krimson barun wrote: I agree that we should punish Nations that use chemical weapons. Get the Tornados back in the sky and flatten the Israeli facility that made the white phosphorous shells used in Gaza. Oh wait silly me, I forgot that doesn't count because they pinky promised they'd stop using it.
I don’t agree with what Israel did, but:
Using military force to “punish” anoter nation for anything is illigal under international law.
There was a whole series of attacks by Syria, and they kept promising they would not do it again. The whole basis of the strike was that Syria had been given chance after chance to follow international law and did not. All other routes had been tried and failed. Syria had lost all credibility and it was clear that Russia was going to continue to protect them.
I don't quite get the strikes as a punishment either. Who do they actually punish?
Strikes to disable facilities; sure. But surely if you want to punish Assad for breaking the law, you don't do it by blowing up something he doesn't care about. Why not impose some sanctions or freeze western assets until an investigation is complete.
Not that I'm not suspicious about the attacks; what does he gain? Apparently this has stopped US troops from withdrawing home.
Herzlos wrote: I don't quite get the strikes as a punishment either. Who do they actually punish?
Strikes to disable facilities; sure. But surely if you want to punish Assad for breaking the law, you don't do it by blowing up something he doesn't care about. Why not impose some sanctions or freeze western assets until an investigation is complete.
Not that I'm not suspicious about the attacks; what does he gain? Apparently this has stopped US troops from withdrawing home.
Cause sanctions and freezes have long been in place already.
I agree a lot with what Corbyn says economically and socially... but saying that we shouldn’t do anything about Syria without UN backing, knowing full well that Assad’s Russian buddies squash everything with their veto, is deeply disingenuous. Nothing can be done as long as they sit on the council and you have to be prepared to do things without their backing because your opponents sit on a veto against agreed action.
I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I agree a lot with what Corbyn says economically and socially... but saying that we shouldn’t do anything about Syria without UN backing, knowing full well that Assad’s Russian buddies squash everything with their veto, is deeply disingenuous. Nothing can be done as long as they sit on the council and you have to be prepared to do things without their backing because your opponents sit on a veto against agreed action.
I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.
A nation's right to self-defence is enshrined at the UN.
In the unlikely event that Britain suffered a major military attack, we wouldn't have to worry about lawyers and red tape if we fought back. Though in that situation, I wouldn't give two hoots for lawyers at any rate. No politician would when faced with national survival.
I'm no Labour supporter, and I've been highly critical of Corbyn's Trident position, but I don't doubt he would send in the tanks if we were invaded and Corbyn was PM.
People, usually, Blairite warmongers of both colours, think he's a pacifist because he sensibly refuses to start launching cruise missiles at tents and sand dunes in the desert without good reason...
I'm no Labour supporter, and I've been highly critical of Corbyn's Trident position, but I don't doubt he would send in the tanks if we were invaded and Corbyn was PM.
Would he if it were Gibraltar though? He was opposed to the Falklands after all....
I'm no Labour supporter, and I've been highly critical of Corbyn's Trident position, but I don't doubt he would send in the tanks if we were invaded and Corbyn was PM.
Would he if it were Gibraltar though? He was opposed to the Falklands after all....
I'm not sure tanks would be much use on Gibraltar other than monkey swings....
I think in answer to this. If he was PM then yes I do believe he would action to defend the nation. His support would collapse almost overnight if he didn't and that includes the grass roots 'momentum' support. There's almost certainly a view that talks should happen first, in that military action should always be the point of last resort. However if after talks failed and there was an occupying force Labour would quickly replace him if nothing was actioned.
Of course our military might not be able to undertake the same form of military operation as the Falklands now anyway and it would be extremely brutal as (if we assume Spain) would control both sides of that channel allowing horrendous casualties to be inflicted. We might have no option to resort to talks anyway...
Howard A Treesong wrote: I agree a lot with what Corbyn says economically and socially... but saying that we shouldn’t do anything about Syria without UN backing, knowing full well that Assad’s Russian buddies squash everything with their veto, is deeply disingenuous. Nothing can be done as long as they sit on the council and you have to be prepared to do things without their backing because your opponents sit on a veto against agreed action.
I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.
A nation's right to self-defence is enshrined at the UN.
In the unlikely event that Britain suffered a major military attack, we wouldn't have to worry about lawyers and red tape if we fought back. Though in that situation, I wouldn't give two hoots for lawyers at any rate. No politician would when faced with national survival.
I'm no Labour supporter, and I've been highly critical of Corbyn's Trident position, but I don't doubt he would send in the tanks if we were invaded and Corbyn was PM.
People, usually, Blairite warmongers of both colours, think he's a pacifist because he sensibly refuses to start launching cruise missiles at tents and sand dunes in the desert without good reason...
This is a highly value assumed statement of your opinion masquerading as facts.
The Syria strike was aimed at military bases, not tents and sand dunes. The good reasons for launching it were:
Uphold international law against chemical weapons.
Deter Assad from using chemical weapons again.
Deter other people from using chemical weapons.
Let the Russians know we're not going to take their gak.
Maintain the framework of international law in general.
Support our Allies.
Considering these points, Corbyn can be seen as a principled naif when it comes to international diplomacy in the 21st century.
I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.
There's a bit of difference between defending your own nation compared to attacking another
The UN needs updating anyway. The permanent members simply have too much power to veto anything they don't like. This includes the UK. This needs to be balanced by allowing a veto to be over ruled by other non-permanent members in sufficient numbers (so basically if it is everyone against Russia and China abstains then that veto is vetoed!)
When I said hostile nations would murder people in our streets I don’t mean corbyn would do nothing if we were actually invaded. I’m talking about the way Russia thinks it can kill people here freely and treat our country with the freedom of their own back yard. It seems worrying to me that he’d do anything to avoid confrontation, but a strong stance is all they understand because Russia will abuse any slack given to just take more liberties. He argues that Russia can be effectively taken to task through the UN and action taken against Assad, even though Russia shoot everything down with their veto. It’s a nice idea if everything could be done by the book but here Russia are one of the groups deciding what’s written in the book.
I like many of his home policies, but I think he’d play a very weak hand in international affairs.
I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.
There's a bit of difference between defending your own nation compared to attacking another
The UN needs updating anyway. The permanent members simply have too much power to veto anything they don't like. This includes the UK. This needs to be balanced by allowing a veto to be over ruled by other non-permanent members in sufficient numbers (so basically if it is everyone against Russia and China abstains then that veto is vetoed!)
Problem is that you’d have to get all the permanent members on board with that and I doubt Russia would be alone in vetoing any changes!
Uphold international law against chemical weapons. Maintain the framework of international law in general.
The use of military force is however questionable especially when not sanctioned by the UN. if we bombed everyone that broke international law then there would be a lot more holes in the ground.
Deter Assad from using chemical weapons again.
Questionable given that this type of strike has been used before
Deter other people from using chemical weapons.
Again questionable given that Israel used phosphorous on civilian areas in Gaza
Let the Russians know we're not going to take their gak.
Are we sure. Russia's aim was not to allow destabilisation of the Assad regime. The fear mongering effectively worked. The attacks were very limited and unlikely to have long term effects (I'm sure Russia and Iran are helping to rebuild facilities right now)
Support our Allies.
I'm sure the 6 missiles we launched were held in high regard.... Probably only used because they were about to go beyond the use by date. It shows some support but I'm not sure it's going to benefit us when it comes to a trade deal with Trump's adminstration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: When I said hostile nations would murder people in our streets I don’t mean corbyn would do nothing if we were actually invaded. I’m talking about the way Russia thinks it can kill people here freely and treat our country with the freedom of their own back yard. It seems worrying to me that he’d do anything to avoid confrontation, but a strong stance is all they understand because Russia will abuse any slack given to just take more liberties. He argues that Russia can be effectively taken to task through the UN and action taken against Assad, even though Russia shoot everything down with their veto. It’s a nice idea if everything could be done by the book but here Russia are one of the groups deciding what’s written in the book.
I like many of his home policies, but I think he’d play a very weak hand in international affairs.
Well we already have that problem. Where is the difference here between May and Corbyn?
This whole thing with the dead burglar’s family rumbles on. Now they’ve gone back to the street to celebrate his birthday and put more flowers and balloons on people’s fences. Also five police who have better things to do had to escort them, presumably for their protection and that of locals.
At this point it’s gone on long enough. Can’t they give them all an ASBO and tell them to stay out the street. Any coming back can just be arrested. It’s just wasting police time and obviously intimidating and distressing the locals.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm a lot older than a 5-year-old and I think May's done the country a bit of good with this strike.
We've joined forces with our close allies to defy the Russians and stand up for international law.
We've helped administer a good bop on the nose to Assad, which will discourage him from using chemical weapons again.
We've sent a warning to other states who might consider following the same path.
Russia is claiming without providing any evidence that Syrian AA shot down all the missiles.
It will be interesting to see the satellite images of bomb damage assessment.
Bullgak. This is...what? The third time we've launched airstrikes to punish Assad for using Chemical Weapons? It didn't deter him the last time, so why will this be any different?
This whole thing with the dead burglar’s family rumbles on. Now they’ve gone back to the street to celebrate his birthday and put more flowers and balloons on people’s fences. Also five police who have better things to do had to escort them, presumably for their protection and that of locals.
At this point it’s gone on long enough. Can’t they give them all an ASBO and tell them to stay out the street. Any coming back can just be arrested. It’s just wasting police time and obviously intimidating and distressing the locals.
These tributes to a dead criminal are in the wrong place. They belong at the criminal's own home, not the home of his victim.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I agree a lot with what Corbyn says economically and socially... but saying that we shouldn’t do anything about Syria without UN backing, knowing full well that Assad’s Russian buddies squash everything with their veto, is deeply disingenuous. Nothing can be done as long as they sit on the council and you have to be prepared to do things without their backing because your opponents sit on a veto against agreed action.
I want to vote Corbyn... but he’d fiddle while Rome burns. Hostile nations would walk all over us and murder people in our streets while he hand-wrings about playing fair in a grossly unfair system.
A nation's right to self-defence is enshrined at the UN.
In the unlikely event that Britain suffered a major military attack, we wouldn't have to worry about lawyers and red tape if we fought back. Though in that situation, I wouldn't give two hoots for lawyers at any rate. No politician would when faced with national survival.
I'm no Labour supporter, and I've been highly critical of Corbyn's Trident position, but I don't doubt he would send in the tanks if we were invaded and Corbyn was PM.
People, usually, Blairite warmongers of both colours, think he's a pacifist because he sensibly refuses to start launching cruise missiles at tents and sand dunes in the desert without good reason...
This is a highly value assumed statement of your opinion masquerading as facts.
The Syria strike was aimed at military bases, not tents and sand dunes. The good reasons for launching it were:
Uphold international law against chemical weapons.
Deter Assad from using chemical weapons again.
Deter other people from using chemical weapons.
Let the Russians know we're not going to take their gak.
Maintain the framework of international law in general.
Support our Allies.
Considering these points, Corbyn can be seen as a principled naif when it comes to international diplomacy in the 21st century.
Apologies if I have the wrong person, but I thought you were a Labour party member and Corbyn supporter?
Corbyn's track record on refusing to become involved in foreign military adventures, which later turned out to be fething disasters, is pretty good. Iraq being a prime example.
This whole thing with the dead burglar’s family rumbles on. Now they’ve gone back to the street to celebrate his birthday and put more flowers and balloons on people’s fences. Also five police who have better things to do had to escort them, presumably for their protection and that of locals.
At this point it’s gone on long enough. Can’t they give them all an ASBO and tell them to stay out the street. Any coming back can just be arrested. It’s just wasting police time and obviously intimidating and distressing the locals.
These tributes to a dead criminal are in the wrong place. They belong at the criminal's own home, not the home of his victim.
Completely agree. If this really was a tribute to someone they loved, they'd do it elsewhere. This is a deliberate attempt to intimidate and provocate. They can feth right off frankly. Their "loved one" was a scum bag who went armed to rob the elderly.
They want to put up gakky helium filled tat all over their own homes, fill their boots. But any attempt to litter the street with their gak is likely to see it tossed in the bin, and rightly so.
There is no appetite for a second referendum even amongst remainers like myself.
Positions are entrenched, and if facts and figures didn't work last time they're certainly not going to work again in the future.
At the end of the day the Govt wanted direction from the people and they got it. It is now upto them to implement it, or pull out and face the consequences. I'm confident that in a few years time we'll be lobbying to get back in the EU anyway.
r_squared wrote: There is no appetite for a second referendum even amongst remainers like myself.
Positions are entrenched, and if facts and figures didn't work last time they're certainly not going to work again in the future.
At the end of the day the Govt wanted direction from the people and they got it. It is now upto them to implement it, or pull out and face the consequences. I'm confident that in a few years time we'll be lobbying to get back in the EU anyway.
I disagree.
If Leave had a significant margin? OK. I could understand that.
But they didn't. 4% up, when just 2/3rds of the eligible population bothered to vote in the first place. Now, strike out the protest votes, factor in far more being known about what Brexit actually might entail, and strip out the lies and damned lies spewed up by Farage and Co....and you will probably see a very different political landscape.
DINLT, why would you assume that if Russia were capable of all that, that it wouldn't do that anyway?
Why wouldn't they have done any of that as retaliation for the sanctions imposed on them? Or in retaliation for the actions taken against them so far over the Skripal poisonings?
Maybe you should step back from hysterical fearmongering about potential russian retaliation and actually think about why Russia would do any of that when it will inevitably end up worse for them if they do?
Aren't you forgetting that the NHS suffered a major cyber attack only a few months ago?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: DINLT, why would you assume that if Russia were capable of all that, that it wouldn't do that anyway?
Why wouldn't they have done any of that as retaliation for the sanctions imposed on them? Or in retaliation for the actions taken against them so far over the Skripal poisonings?
Maybe you should step back from hysterical fearmongering about potential russian retaliation and actually think about why Russia would do any of that when it will inevitably end up worse for them if they do?
Sanctions? Meaningless, due to the fact that China doesn't give two hoots for them, and Russia just deals with the Chinese.
Skirpal and Syria? Putin's always been known for playing the long game, and he was probably biding his time, with the Syria attacks probably speeding up his timetable.
r_squared wrote: There is no appetite for a second referendum even amongst remainers like myself.
Positions are entrenched, and if facts and figures didn't work last time they're certainly not going to work again in the future.
At the end of the day the Govt wanted direction from the people and they got it. It is now upto them to implement it, or pull out and face the consequences. I'm confident that in a few years time we'll be lobbying to get back in the EU anyway.
I disagree.
If Leave had a significant margin? OK. I could understand that.
But they didn't. 4% up, when just 2/3rds of the eligible population bothered to vote in the first place. Now, strike out the protest votes, factor in far more being known about what Brexit actually might entail, and strip out the lies and damned lies spewed up by Farage and Co....and you will probably see a very different political landscape.
Exactly. Even removing the people who only voted for Brexit to give £350m/week to the NHS would likely change the result (I don't have a citation but somewhere claimed about 40% of Leavers polled claimed to believe the bus). Now we have a better idea of what Brexit *isn't* the odds are the result would be completely different.
But the Brexiteers that worship Farage and Rees-Mogg (which is not all those who voted for Brexit) are utterly terrified they'll lose a second and subsequent referendum, because reality is scary, and they've got nothing left in the tank.
Downing Street has rejected a formal diplomatic request to discuss the immigration problems being experienced by some Windrush-generation British residents at this week’s meeting of the Commonwealth heads of government, rebuffing a request from representatives of 12 Caribbean countries for a meeting with the prime minister.
“We did make a request to the CHOGM summit team for a meeting to be held between the prime minister and the Commonwealth Caribbean heads of government who will be here for the CHOGM and regrettably they have advised us that that is not possible,” said Guy Hewitt, the Barbados high commissioner.
The refusal has given Caribbean diplomats the impression that the UK government is not taking a sufficiently serious approach to the problem that is affecting large numbers of long-term UK residents who came to Britain as children.
pathetic.
What sort of message does this send out to any immigrant ? You'll never belong here, not ever, not even after decades of legally living here.
And then we complain that they don't integrate.
To not even acknowledge there's an issue and agree to meet to discuss the issue even briefly is baffling.
Good to see that the govt. is finally getting serious about the issue of fraudulent UK companies.
Business Minister Andrew Griffiths said:
This prosecution – the first of its kind in the UK – shows the Government will come down hard on people who knowingly break the law and file false information on the company register.
Companies House works hard to protect and continually upgrade the company register, identifying potentially criminal activities and working closely with law enforcement bodies to help bring those perpetrators to justice.
The company register is operated by Companies House and contains information about company addresses, accounts, and those who own and run companies. There are nearly 4 million companies on the UK’s company register and the vast majority of these companies use the register lawfully.
the offence :
Kevin Brewer, a businessman, incorporated John Vincent Cable Services Ltd in 2013, making the former Business Secretary Vince Cable MP a director and shareholder without his knowledge. The company was dissolved and taken off the company register after Companies House took action.
Brewer, 65, then formed another company in 2016, Cleverly Clogs Ltd, making Baroness Neville-Rolfe – the Minister with responsibility for Companies House – James Cleverly MP and an imaginary Israeli national, Ibrahim Aman, all directors and shareholders without their knowledge. Companies House dissolved the company and took it off the company register.
Fake "Vince Cable" sets up bogus firm to show how easy it is for fraudsters
Anti-fraud campaigner starts firm using the Business Secretary's name
You have more security when dealing with UK limited companies as opposed to, say, a sole trader or foreign firm because accurate details of the bosses are a matter of public record.
At least, that used to be the case before it became so easy for fraudsters to register fake details with Companies House.
If you wanted to set up a limited company the traditional route was to contact a professional company formation agent, who had a duty under money laundering regulations to check that you are who you say you are.
Now no such checks are carried out if you set up a company online directly with Companies House. A point proved by company formation expert Kevin Brewer, who set up a firm and listed the director as Vince Cable, even though the Business Secretary had nothing to do with it.
“Fraud is simple to perpetrate and anyone can form a new company in anyone else’s name,” said Kevin, managing director of National Business Register.
“Companies House now forms one third of all new companies and does not perform any identity checks.
"It forms limited companies for anyone worldwide who chooses to use any name they pluck out of the air.”
He wrote to Mr Cable: “To illustrate the point, we have formed a company in your name without your consent and could start trading using your identity.”
Those details for John Vincent Cable Services Limited, company number 8544463, have now been removed by Companies House - but only because Kevin alerted it to the fact that bogus details has been used, something no fraudster is ever going to do.
A spokesman for Companies House admitted: “We carry out basic checks to make sure that documents have been fully completed and signed, but we do not have the statutory power or capability to verify the accuracy of the information that companies send to us.”
"We accept all information that companies deliver to us in good faith and place it on the public record."
This is not a good place to be.
so in summary the UK makes a mistake with regards to the registering of companies
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But the Brexiteers that worship Farage and Rees-Mogg (which is not all those who voted for Brexit) are utterly terrified they'll lose a second and subsequent referendum, because reality is scary, and they've got nothing left in the tank.
They always seem to be dead against any democracy when it doesn't agree with them - parliament having a say, another referendum, and so on. It's almost as if democracy is an excuse :(
TL/DR:A vast amount of UK import/export goes through Rottedam. This is fine as long as we are in a customs union with Holland. The customs union is one of the Brexit "red lines" so we can't be.
In the alliance of incompetents that virtue bombed Syria who I like to refer to as F, UK, US all of whom have various ills on the home front.
Only 1 government claimed the attack was legal and not just "legitimate" only one leader stepped forward and clearly stated she gave the order with no input from anyone else.
Care to guess which half wit and her government that was go on I bet you cannot tell
In fact I have to say intentional or not the Washington Wotsit played this beautifully he has the Maybot saying the above and the French taylors dummy stating he talked the Wotsit into it.
Any blowback and he can say the Europeans said they had evidence and we needed to do it, I did not know the "evidence" was off alqueda and Isis,s fb posts.
Embarrassed to be British I mean hell if your going to commit war crimes at least do a Blair but all that bollocks from May and the UK fired 8 missiles.
Seriously we.could have given moral support like every other nation in Europe and save 7million quid and the last tatters of our credibility.
To keep tying it back to more relevant UK politics, I get really annoyed at this bad habit of firing off overly missiles to indicate international displeasure. It achieves little and costs a fortune. We saved a fraction of money by making all the disabled people go through their bloody ATOS rechecks, and that tiny saving is wiped out in a moment's fit of pique because some nutter dropped a barrel of chlorine on the other side of the world.
Politicians really do know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The UK is a rich enough country to afford 8 Storm Cloud missiles and restore disability benefits to disabled people.
We could probably save more money by not paying a private company to make ATOS assessments that routinely get overturned on appeal because they are so inaccurate.
Herzlos wrote: Almost all of the missiles were shot down, a total of 3 people wounded on the ground.
According to the Syrian government who are surely an impartial source of information, especially when we have satellite images of their destroyed facilities such as in this story: http://time.com/5241113/syria-bombing-before-after-photos/
As for not many casualties, maybe because they knew this attack was coming and decided that it wasn't worth losing their skilled personnel as well as their facilities.
Oh come on. I'm an unapologetic Fenian and Jeremy was one of the people who tried to pull the Armalite from one hand and make sure we held the ballot box in the other. He was never in favour of armed struggle. And no I'm not going to hash out the troubles again here, I'm simply stating Corbyn advocated for peace. The governments were talking to the IRA in secret since 1972, Corbyn just talked openly to the Republican Movement.
He couldn't bring himself to condemn the IRA bombings, couldn't get the words out of his mouth.
Same thing with Venezuela, just says 'I condemn all violence' but refuses to specifically say I condemn the Venezuelan government's actions.
But when it comes to this and similar things, there's no pussyfooting around
And he's great friends with many IRA leaders
Not to mention "our friends in hamas" and his marching with hezbolla.
Not the kind of man I'd trust to be in charge of this country's national security. It's alright when it's his side of the workers' struggle against the capitalist West, but when it's the evil imperialist establishment, big no no.
I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, and I think I'd struggle to raise him above my head.
Unless of course those 8 missiles destroyed the targets they were aiming at.
Almost all of the missiles were shot down, a total of 3 people wounded on the ground. You'd think key military targets would have more people in them.
£7,000,000 that we don't have when anyone asks for funding for anything socialist.
According to ARES, consulting with Western officials and local sources, that is not the case. Rather all the missiles hit their targets successfully. The Syrians sent 40 missiles in response to the Western attack, though they were only launched after the Western missiles struck their targets. Additionally they note that the Syrian missiles were fired without guidance, with the possible intention for them to land on civilian targets - thus causing casualties which they could blame on the West. Meanwhile the Western sources say that civilian casualties do not correlate with their observations at the time of the missiles exploding. Videos showing Syrian missiles intercepting the Western ones are fake; rather they're taken from unrelated conflicts.
Given that the guys firing those missiles presumably know what they're doing, I'd take their word over some tin pot dictator who's main form of communication is propaganda and lies. Its not in the West's interests to cause excessive collateral damage here, but it most definitely is for Assad. I've no clue why people are spouting off information from Syrian and Russian government sources as though they're undeniable facts, given again, both of those country's media run on lies. "Oh, but its in the West's interests for this not to have gone tits up". Yes, sure, again though, in a battle between a literal lying machine vs any source I'll put more weight in the latter before making my own judgements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: To keep tying it back to more relevant UK politics, I get really annoyed at this bad habit of firing off overly missiles to indicate international displeasure. It achieves little and costs a fortune. We saved a fraction of money by making all the disabled people go through their bloody ATOS rechecks, and that tiny saving is wiped out in a moment's fit of pique because some nutter dropped a barrel of chlorine on the other side of the world.
Politicians really do know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
My concern over the conflict is that whilst people say it doesn't effect us at all, the influence of Syrian Refugees has been a big topic in politics for years. The solution presented, other than just banning immigration, has been to attempt to resolve the conflict creating those migrants. The West has been attempting to do that for years, initially planning to over throw the Assad government - before that was vetoed-, before reigning back and just targeting certain military sites in an attempt to stem the flow. However, that's all it could do. In the current situation the war's just going to continue, with the results of Western intervention being minimal (we've pussy footed about the issue so much that our main allies in the region have been wiped out, giving the opposition the excuse that Assad's the only viable option).
How likely is it that all those migrants will return to Syria if the war were to end? How many of them moved out of the country due to Assad's actions, and wouldn't want to go back if he were still in control? Though of course, should Assad be overthrown, what percentage of the population who've thrown their lot in with him would either leave the country (unlikely given their Nationalist bent), or continue the war in a guerrilla fashion (in which case they'd be welcome to join the club among the others). With Assad maintaining power that's perhaps the best option for creating a unified faction in that state - though purely through his forces destroying all of the opposition. In which case, if we allow that happen, how will world opinions shift? Namely in the case that the West backed down from the Russians, and allowed them free reign over that war which we had previously been attempting to curtail ourselves. The implication of Russia coming out as the "victor" here could have positive effects for the Kremlin's propaganda machine, though equally lead to some upheaval here (Corbyn would have a field day over not wanting to stir an ascendant Bear).
The current situation at least is set to dictate foreign policy for years to come. With all this debate over further involvement we could be in for some turmoil in parliament, which could effect future similar decisions in relation to acting against Russia's proxies. My observation of the situation makes it com across as though the West is doing its best to not push Russia too far, whom meanwhile are doing what they can to try their luck without causing a full scale war (which plays more into their hands than ours). The hope I suppose is that sanctions will slowly bleed Syria and Russia, regardless of the propaganda machine's effects on their morale, however what effect their actions then have on demoralising our own populace is definitely a concern.
Unless of course those 8 missiles destroyed the targets they were aiming at.
Almost all of the missiles were shot down, a total of 3 people wounded on the ground. You'd think key military targets would have more people in them.
£7,000,000 that we don't have when anyone asks for funding for anything socialist.
The syrian government claims to have shot down 71 of the 105 missiles launched, but with no evidence and most conventional sources point to them hitting.
Unless of course those 8 missiles destroyed the targets they were aiming at.
Almost all of the missiles were shot down, a total of 3 people wounded on the ground. You'd think key military targets would have more people in them.
£7,000,000 that we don't have when anyone asks for funding for anything socialist.
The syrian government claims to have shot down 71 of the 105 missiles launched, but with no evidence and most conventional sources point to them hitting.
Fair point. I assumed our government was lying but I guess I need to assume everyone was lying.
That said; surely blowing up chemical weapons storage facilities would result in a lot of nasty debris? They say they mitigated for that bit beyond relying on them being isolated I can't see how
Herzlos wrote: Fair point. I assumed our government was lying but I guess I need to assume everyone was lying.
That said; surely blowing up chemical weapons storage facilities would result in a lot of nasty debris? They say they mitigated for that bit beyond relying on them being isolated I can't see how
You use a type of munitions capable of destroying the agents in question. Many chemical agents are unstable and so need to be stored in specific conditions to not degrade.
Using a missile with a warhead which generates extremely high temperatures, for example, could force a chemical reaction in a stored weapon, changing it into less harmful chemicals.
Also, there would be absolutely no point in our government lying about the effectiveness of the strikes as the lies would inevitably be revealed once a satellite flew over and took pictures. Then they'd be slaughtered in the press and parliament.
Herzlos wrote: Fair point. I assumed our government was lying but I guess I need to assume everyone was lying.
I think that if you've reached the point where you automatically disbelieve our government and believe Assad's, you might want to re-evaluate your source credibility. We don't spend six figure sums on advanced missile systems just so that a low key player like Assad could shoot them down.
TL/DR:A vast amount of UK import/export goes through Rottedam. This is fine as long as we are in a customs union with Holland. The customs union is one of the Brexit "red lines" so we can't be.
Well. If it's going to be causing trouble to EU solution is no cargo toward UK through Rotterdam. UK wants cargo, get them on separate boat going direct to UK!
The first is that goods to/from the far east go on super large ships which can't get into UK ports. That's why the goods go through Rotterdam, where they are transferred into smaller ships for delivery to the UK. (Or the the other way round for exports.) This problem won't go away unless the UK builds a larger port, and even then the UK may not have the volume of trade on its own to justify the larger ships.
The second problem is that many goods to/from the EU also go through Rotterdam, just because it is one of the biggest and best port for shipping between the UK and the continent. This includes many perishable goods such as flowers, which lose value quickly if delayed.
In both cases, the Port of Rotterdam authorities are worried about the time it will take to process all these kinds of goods through customs.
Herzlos wrote: Fair point. I assumed our government was lying but I guess I need to assume everyone was lying.
I think that if you've reached the point where you automatically disbelieve our government and believe Assad's, you might want to re-evaluate your source credibility. We don't spend six figure sums on advanced missile systems just so that a low key player like Assad could shoot them down.
I think it's more the general evidence since 2010 points to a level of incompetence in our government which makes bodging a possibly illegal strike quite within the realms of possibility.
....you think Gordon Brown was that much more competent than Cameron/Clegg? Heck, or Tony Blair, master of spin, mirrors, and spending money? That's aside from the bizare assumptions regarding whatever bum is in No.10 affecting MBDA's missile design capabilities.
I try and remember that the Government, like the Civil Service, and every other part of the machine that runs this place, is made up of lots of people of varying complexity and motive. And that generally speaking, most of us want to do the right thing. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we bugger it up spectacularly, sometimes needs get subordinated to other objectives. Just distrusting the Government on principle (whatever party is sitting in there) is precisely what the Russian intelligence network wants us to do. So I generally tend to try and give the benefit of the doubt.
TL/DR: The Home Office ignored warnings from immigration staff and pulped its archive of Caribbean immigration landing cards, making it impossible to determine if these people entered the UK before 1971 and thereby had a right to permanent residency.
Whether or not it was the result of malice and deliberate Government policy, or merely stupidity and bureaucratic incompetence...it is despicable to put the onus on these immigrants to provide documents to prove their immigration status when the Government knows full well that those documents have been destroyed (whether deliberately or accidentally).
The Government has to make a complete U-turn and grant amnesty for all migrants affected by this scandal.
However, to interject my own opinion, it's shameful that this woman is getting 7.5 years, which probably means 5 given how overcrowded our prisons are.
This person stabbed, burnt, jugged (pouring boiling water on someone), starved him and controlled every aspect of his life. This isn't just a 'they hit me' case of domestic abuse. This is sick torture. This woman is a danger to society, and even if not considered so, has done something truly horrific worthy of a lengthy punishment if not to keep her away from people. Life imprisonment in my books.
Dare I say the continual sexism in the courts when it comes to domestic abuse may play a factor, but it seems over time this is getting better.
Who knows, but either way they should have locked her up and thrown away the key.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5625663/Battered-boyfriend-stabbed-starved-controlling-girlfriend-tells-ordeal.html
I know it's the daily mail, which some see as the next Der Stürmer, but it's just a news story, no opinion.
However, to interject my own opinion, it's shameful that this woman is getting 7.5 years, which probably means 5 given how overcrowded our prisons are.
This person stabbed, burnt, jugged (pouring boiling water on someone), starved him and controlled every aspect of his life. This isn't just a 'they hit me' case of domestic abuse. This is sick torture. This woman is a danger to society, and even if not considered so, has done something truly horrific worthy of a lengthy punishment if not to keep her away from people. Life imprisonment in my books.
Dare I say the continual sexism in the courts when it comes to domestic abuse may play a factor, but it seems over time this is getting better.
Who knows, but either way they should have locked her up and thrown away the key.
She sounds like a narcissist. No doubt if he'd ever defended himself physically, he would have been the one going to jail.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5625663/Battered-boyfriend-stabbed-starved-controlling-girlfriend-tells-ordeal.html
I know it's the daily mail, which some see as the next Der Stürmer, but it's just a news story, no opinion.
However, to interject my own opinion, it's shameful that this woman is getting 7.5 years, which probably means 5 given how overcrowded our prisons are.
This person stabbed, burnt, jugged (pouring boiling water on someone), starved him and controlled every aspect of his life. This isn't just a 'they hit me' case of domestic abuse. This is sick torture. This woman is a danger to society, and even if not considered so, has done something truly horrific worthy of a lengthy punishment if not to keep her away from people. Life imprisonment in my books.
Dare I say the continual sexism in the courts when it comes to domestic abuse may play a factor, but it seems over time this is getting better.
Who knows, but either way they should have locked her up and thrown away the key.
She sounds like a narcissist. No doubt if he'd ever defended himself physically, he would have been the one going to jail.
According to the Metro (so citation needed) the abused has Hydrocephalus so probably was vulnerable at least at times if not all the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whether or not it was the result of malice and deliberate Government policy, or merely stupidity and bureaucratic incompetence...it is despicable to put the onus on these immigrants to provide documents to prove their immigration status when the Government knows full well that those documents have been destroyed (whether deliberately or accidentally).
The Government has to make a complete U-turn and grant amnesty for all migrants affected by this scandal.
The question I want to know is whether this is 'isolated' or systemic within the Home Office. If the latter it may only be the 'tip' of the iceberg and we have a bigoted and racist government allowing systematic ejection of anyone not British. I wonder whether the current policy may be apologise if you are caught. It's not like there are not other reports of people trying to be thrown out for stupid reason. Most of the time it is isolated cases we here about :-
It isn't the first case like this to crop up. I remember seeing at least two others in the news over the last decade or so; where a group of people suddenly find that their immigration status was never actually resolved, but nobody ever clocked it. Then suddenly twenty years later it gets raised again, they do a big protest, and when it gets enough publicity, the HO realises they screwed up and issues a blanket amnesty/apology.
In organisations of this size, paperwork always gets lost or shuffled the wrong way. All it takes is someone being on leave and the case passed over, a sudden departure before the replacement is up to speed, something not quite fitting into anyone's department and it getting thrown back and forth until it dies, a badly phrased rule or procedure being misinterpreted. A good administrator can try and minimise these things, but so long as humans are represented in the system somewhere, it will recur.
In virtually every job I've ever held, I've always found there's stack of paper everyone forgot, or a job no-one ever got around to. A box shoved to one side and forgotten, a process done a certain illogical way 'because it's always been done like that'. I'm sure we all have stories of that nature. Unfortunately though, in more important professions than mine, these errors usually results in someone getting badly stuffed up somewhere, whereas that's not the case for the rest of us.
No, I wouldn't start trying to squint deeper into this case right now, any more than I would someone finding a fossilised rat behind the photocopier. It was a procedural thing that got started by many separate hands working at odds, it got flagged to the right people, and now it's been resolved. If it happens again next week, I might worry, but for the most part? Crap like this happens in any large administrative structure; especially ones with so many complex rules and processes.
couldn't get the words out of his mouth.
Same thing with Venezuela, just says 'I condemn all violence' but refuses to specifically say I condemn the Venezuelan government's actions.
But when it comes to this and similar things, there's no pussyfooting around
And he's great friends with many IRA leaders
Not to mention "our friends in hamas" and his marching with hezbolla.
Not the kind of man I'd trust to be in charge of this country's national security. It's alright when it's his side of the workers' struggle against the capitalist West, but when it's the evil imperialist establishment, big no no.
I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, and I think I'd struggle to raise him above my head.
IRA? Check
Venuzela? Check
Hamas? Check
You missed how he's an anti-semite and how Diane Abbot can't do sums.
Nearly there on the Daily Mail Jezza bollocks bingo.
It really helps if you read around a bit more to really get some scary old gubbins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: The cynic in me wonders if they are trying to get rid of them as they hit retirement age and start costing money.
Watched Newsnight earlier and I imagine that the compensation that maybe be paid out by the Govt could add up to a tidy sum, and rightly so.
Especially as all of these people were tax payers, contributed a lifetime of NI contributions and alongside their families have helped rebuild the UK in some way after the war. They, or their parents, were invited here to help, were citizens of the British Empire and were promised citizen status.
They're as British as the next person and they've been treated appallingly.
The HO maybe a huge and faceless burocracy and working for the Govt for 20 years myself I completely understand how the system can get fouled up, but when they do make mistakes such as this, it needs to be rectified as swiftly possible, and every means to rectify any damage caused seen to.
And as for anti-semitism in the Labour Party, I'm just waiting for 2022 so I can be gassed by our glorious socialist saviours in momentum. Maybe to you it's just daily mail scaremongering but to me (a person who doesn't read the mail except when it pops up on msm) it's pretty serious, and aside from the Marxists at jewdas, the community is pretty shook.
Automatically Appended Next Post: University is going to be so much fun as a right of centre jew. If I get through it without being stoned I'll count myself lucky, and I don't mean the drug kind.
University is going to be so much fun as a right of centre jew. If I get through it without being stoned I'll count myself lucky, and I don't mean the drug kind.
University will be absolutely fine. It is incredibly easy to get through Uni without engaging in politics and all universities have jewish societies.
Stop reading right wing garbage about university being a left wing indoctrination centre where you will be harassed and singled out for having a different opinion and just go and enjoy yourself.
Ketara wrote: It isn't the first case like this to crop up. I remember seeing at least two others in the news over the last decade or so; where a group of people suddenly find that their immigration status was never actually resolved, but nobody ever clocked it. Then suddenly twenty years later it gets raised again, they do a big protest, and when it gets enough publicity, the HO realises they screwed up and issues a blanket amnesty/apology.
In organisations of this size, paperwork always gets lost or shuffled the wrong way. All it takes is someone being on leave and the case passed over, a sudden departure before the replacement is up to speed, something not quite fitting into anyone's department and it getting thrown back and forth until it dies, a badly phrased rule or procedure being misinterpreted. A good administrator can try and minimise these things, but so long as humans are represented in the system somewhere, it will recur.
In virtually every job I've ever held, I've always found there's stack of paper everyone forgot, or a job no-one ever got around to. A box shoved to one side and forgotten, a process done a certain illogical way 'because it's always been done like that'. I'm sure we all have stories of that nature. Unfortunately though, in more important professions than mine, these errors usually results in someone getting badly stuffed up somewhere, whereas that's not the case for the rest of us.
No, I wouldn't start trying to squint deeper into this case right now, any more than I would someone finding a fossilised rat behind the photocopier. It was a procedural thing that got started by many separate hands working at odds, it got flagged to the right people, and now it's been resolved. If it happens again next week, I might worry, but for the most part? Crap like this happens in any large administrative structure; especially ones with so many complex rules and processes.
This is all correct.
The difference with the current immigration situation is that the Conservatives under Cameron and May (first as Home Secretary then PM) took a specific decision to set a 100,000 person target -- known to be unrealistic -- and built out a much more hostile rule system to try and enforce it.
The issue is well covered in Laura Kuennsberg's piece on the subject.
The first is that goods to/from the far east go on super large ships which can't get into UK ports. That's why the goods go through Rotterdam, where they are transferred into smaller ships for delivery to the UK. (Or the the other way round for exports.) This problem won't go away unless the UK builds a larger port, and even then the UK may not have the volume of trade on its own to justify the larger ships.
The second problem is that many goods to/from the EU also go through Rotterdam, just because it is one of the biggest and best port for shipping between the UK and the continent. This includes many perishable goods such as flowers, which lose value quickly if delayed.
In both cases, the Port of Rotterdam authorities are worried about the time it will take to process all these kinds of goods through customs.
So again. If this is going to be trouble to EU then solution is simple. No UK headed stuff through Rotterdam. If that means UK doesn't get them because they don't have sufficient port tough luck. Build one fast. Or pay to EU enough that they can use the Rotterdam port allowing sufficient resource increasement to ensure EU doesn't get hurt by UK loads swamping it.
Well. Rotterdam refuses all items toward UK. What UK then does...No concern of EU. UK wanted it's sovereigny. Sort out yourself problems it creates. Build up your own port for your own stuff.
That or you pay up EU for sufficient workforce to handle your case without interfering with non-UK contact.
If this results in UK being blocked from Asia stuff...Well that's too bad. UK voted for it.
It's not that Rotterdam will refuse to service .uk. It's that hauliers will need to charge more to cover the longer delays and subsequent increase in trucks.
If they don't got in the port they'll have to wait outside.
Uk traffic will need a reduced priority to stop time sensitive deliveries to the rest of the planet.
tneva82 wrote: Well. Rotterdam refuses all items toward UK. What UK then does...No concern of EU. UK wanted it's sovereigny. Sort out yourself problems it creates. Build up your own port for your own stuff.
That or you pay up EU for sufficient workforce to handle your case without interfering with non-UK contact.
If this results in UK being blocked from Asia stuff...Well that's too bad. UK voted for it.
These solutions are answers to the potential problems caused by Brexit, however none of them work in the short to medium term, and Rotterdam doesn't want to lose the UK trade.
It doesn't matter if food and energy supplies are threatened, it doesn't matter that every foreigner hating gak bag now feels they have government approval for whatever foulness the want to spout, it doesn't matter that the government are trying every which way to grab as much power as they can, from parliament, the regions, anywhere they can take it from, with as little oversight as possible, with the papers accusing anyone from private individuals to the High Court bench of being TRAITORS if they try and get in the way, and it certainly doesn't matter that it deflects from all the actual problems the poorest in out country face .... it will all be worth it, because Union Jack and blue passports.
"sovereignty" has nothing to do with it. That was just the sop sold to the electorate to allow the Rees-Moggs and de Pfeffel Johnstones and the Murdochs to orchestrate their right-wing coup. It's so much easier these days - no need to go to all that tedious effort of actually shooting people in the streets.
We may very well be seeing the Tory party as we know it in it's death throes.
As I've said before, they've utterly failed to pass the buck on Brexit, and the last General Election result was everything they didn't want. Either win big, or lose was their ideal.
Win Big, and you can force through whatever you wish. Lose? Oh well, it's all Labour's fault actually - all of it. Even the decision to call the referendum. That was them that was....
But now, they've done themselves out of a scapegoat. They allowed their right wing rag masters to drum up anti-EU sentiments via outright lies. They called the referendum. They then lied through their teeth throughout, leading to the Leave outcome. And now? Now they're stuck with it.
They've flipped, they've flopped. They've promised we'll get all we want or more - and then acquiesced entirely to the EU's demands - either because our demands were patently ludicrous (membership but not membership, all the perks, none of the fees twaddle), or through incompetent negotiating.
Much as I want to see Jeremy Corbyn become PM, now is not the time. Now is the time to bear down on that leather strap, and take the pain. Because watching the Tories sign their own political death warrant, and that of neo-liberalism in the UKis absolutely worth it.
Everything they've done, can be undone. Everything they've undone, can be re-done.
All we need is for them to take an absolute kicking in the forthcoming council elections, and lose some 'safe' seats - but for May to do what she does and refuse to vacate the job she wants, but doesn't actually want to do. She wants the title, not the responsibility. Same when she was Home Secretary if you look at her record....
Forcing rape survivors to recount their ordeal in order to access benefits will give them an “opportunity to talk”, the work and pensions secretary has said.
Esther McVey claimed women who have a child as a result of rape would be helped by being made to speak to a charity worker or health professional because it means they could receive “double support”.
She replied: “What we're doing is providing extra help where people have got more children that they couldn’t have planned, and we're providing that extra support.
“This could give them an opportunity to talk about something that's happened that maybe they've never had before, so it is potentially double support there: them getting the money they need and maybe [also] an outlet which they might possibly need."
Ms McVey said the policy was evidence of the “extra support the government has put in place for people who didn’t or weren’t able to make decisions over how many children they've had”, adding: “They have indeed got extra children, so more support will be put there and we've said we'll make allowances in those instances."
One appreciates that , if we are apparently limiting tax credits/similar to 2 children only with exceptions for A/B/C etc then there will have to be some burden of proof to show A/B/C is indeed true.
But I'm not sure this is quite the way to go about it -- and the reaction of the various 3rd parties suggests this further.
..I'm not really sure one could describe this as being indicative of " extra support" in order to help people.
Perhaps we could go further and suggest that being homeless is a great way to get out and meet people, or that being interviewed by the police could also act as a form of therapy.
Dying is a great way to both save money and help pass something onto one's family whilst also losing weight and really cutting back on ones carbon footprint.
The CEO of data firm Cambridge Analytica has refused to appear before MPs for questioning on his firm's use of personal data harvested from Facebook .
He was ordered to face questions from Parliament's 'fake news' inquiry for a second time tomorrow, after MPs grew concerned about "inconsistencies" in his previous evidence.
It follows allegations his firm harvested personal data from some 87 million Facebook profiles, which were analysed to help clients win elections.
Committee chair Damian Collins is considering whether to issue a formal summons for him to appear.
A spokeswoman for the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee said Mr Nix is "refusing" to appear before the committee's public session on Wednesday April 18, as he had been scheduled to, citing an ongoing investigation by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).
..surely he should be seeing this as the Govt. providing "extra support" for him in these troubling times.
... this of course comes after Wetherspoons recently announced they'll be closing and deleting all their social media.
... one wonders if, maybe, the owner of wetherspoons -- who campaigned for brexit and donated £200K odd and so forth -- might be feeling a it jumpy.
Da Boss wrote: What baffles me is how little work the UK seems to be doing to get ready for these disruptions to trade.
Partially because no-one has any idea what disruptions there will be. Our negotiating team still don't seem to know what they want, and give the impression that they think there will be no disruption.
The public on the Leave side seem pretty adamant there will be no disruption either, because "they need us more", or something.
We'll figure it out once the details are on the table. It's not going to be pretty.
Although unfortunately, it seem events would appear to have overtaken it. Corbyn threw down dialogue of a similar vein to the article above today in Parliament, which turned into him shooting himself in the foot. From the BBC feed and article:
Jeremy Corbyn says "all the evidence suggests" that it was her government's policy of "a really hostile environment for immigrants" and it was her government which introduced the 2014 Immigration Act.
He adds that Parliament needs "absolute clarity" on the destruction of the landing cards.... Corbyn said "vital historical records" were shredded and suggested the PM was trying to "blame officials", suggesting Theresa May's government had shown itself "callous and incompetent".
May then turned around and snarkily informed him that 'the decision to destroy the landing cards' was actually in fact taken in 2009 and overseen by the Labour Government. Which killed that one stone dead.
I mean. Ouch. She must have been sitting on that little tidbit for days, waiting for him to say something along those lines. She might not be able to run an election worth a damn, but she laid that one out and he walked right into it.
There are various reasons for the lack of preparation.
The key one is that the government has done nothing to help anyone make any preparations, and they haven't given any realistic idea of the end state that people need to prepare for.
This means whatever you do to prepare is likely to be wrong and an expensive waste of effort.
The mitigating factor is that whatever finally is decided, except for a car crash Brexit on 29th March, there will be about two years of transition during which everyone can prepare.
It's too late to prepare for a car crash Brexit anyway.
He adds that Parliament needs "absolute clarity" on the destruction of the landing cards.... Corbyn said "vital historical records" were shredded and suggested the PM was trying to "blame officials", suggesting Theresa May's government had shown itself "callous and incompetent".
May then turned around and snarkily informed him that 'the decision to destroy the landing cards' was actually in fact taken in 2009 and overseen by the Labour Government. Which killed that one stone dead.
I mean. Ouch. She must have been sitting on that little tidbit for days, waiting for him to say something along those lines. She might not be able to run an election worth a damn, but she laid that one out and he walked right into it.
Except of course she outright lied to parliament to try and do it...
Later, in another briefing, a No.10 spokesman said: “The position is as follows, and this is from the Home Office: in June 2009, the business case was approved by UKBA to dispose of the paper records. That work started in December 2009.
“In October 2010, the operational decision was taken in relation to the specific registry slips themselves. The Prime Minister was not involved in this process, this was an operational decision taken by UKBA.”
Asked if May had been aware of the decision in 2010, the spokesman said: “All I can say is the Prime Minister wasn’t involved...over and beyond that you need to talk to the Home Office. I don’t know if she was made specifically aware retrospectively.”
.....
In the confusion, one thing is already clear: the change in the law in 2014 that meant members of the Windrush generation faced deportation and the loss of their rights, including to healthcare, was made in full view of the fact that the vital information had been destroyed.”
It was the decision of the Home Office during Tory years to destroy the records. Knowing that they had done this they proceeded to change the law to allow them to be deported. Corbyn was right, again, the Tories lied, again.
Whirlwind wrote: It was the decision of the Home Office during Tory years to destroy the records. Knowing that they had done this they proceeded to change the law to allow them to be deported. Corbyn was right, again, the Tories lied, again.
Errr......hate to burst your bubble, but that latest update actually shows that both sides are talking rubbish, not that 'Corbyn was right' or that 'The Tories lied'. They're all slinging mud and trying to blame each other, when really, it's sod all to do with any of them for the most part.
The time line is thus:-
-Landing cards were filled in when the immigrants got here. They were stored in a basement for a number of decades.
-In 2009, a bunch of managers in the Border Agency got together and filed a business case for disposing of old records to save cash. It was approved.
-This was then enacted over the following year, with these specific landing card records binned in late 2010 because nobody involved in the weeding thought them important.
-Nobody bothered to tell May afterwards; because some decades old docket slips being shredded by an intern called Jules two hours a week every Friday afternoon last year isn't exactly the kind of update you forward to the Home Secretary.
So yes. The decision was taken under the Labour Government (which is what May said) in 2009. But it had nothing to do with them. The records were physically disposed of in 2010, under the Tory Government. But none of the Tories were down in the basement doing the weeding.
So Corbyn blathering on the incompetency of the government in destroying the files is just as much pointless misleading muckraking as May trying to palm it off on Labour. It had sweet sod all to do with either party in reality, and it's just a political football. Speaking as someone who spends more time than they'd like buried in the National Archives, weeding of this nature is a routine occurrence with government files. My initial assessment of 'crap like this happens in big organisations' would appear to have been right on the money.
Whirlwind wrote: It was the decision of the Home Office during Tory years to destroy the records. Knowing that they had done this they proceeded to change the law to allow them to be deported. Corbyn was right, again, the Tories lied, again.
Errr......hate to burst your bubble, but that latest update actually shows that both sides are talking rubbish.
No Corbyn was right.
As there seems to be a lack of understanding what a business case is I'll expand. In summary it puts forward a proposal which in this case was likely to save money. It is a broad principle document that looks at the pro's and con's of a certain choice. It makes an assessment of how much saving is likely to be achieved given different scenarios. It is unlikely they knew exactly what was down in the basement at the time and it is not for the business case to find out. So for example it might give examples of if we cleared 25% of the space it would save £X, 50% it would save £Y and so forth. They would then make an assessment on what is the likely scenario and what the risks to this were. One of these could be "There is more confidential information we need to keep than we expect, that will lower our savings as we need to keep these.". What it does not do is specify in detail what should be disposed of, that is not the purpose of the business case. It may indicate that items that need to kept should be scanned for example. The business case is there to provide sign off that the activity can commence under the conditions of the business case. If all the documents identified did not meet the criteria then the business case would have also been to keep them. The business case is there to instigate the project and determine it's boundaries, nothing more.
Now today in PMQ categorically state that " “the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken in 2009 under a Labour government”.
Which is a lie. There was no decision in the Business Case to destroy landing cards undertaken. No. 10 stated later " The position is as follows, and this is from the Home Office: in June 2009, the business case was approved by UKBA to dispose of the paper records. That work started in December 2009." The business case to dispose of paper records does not mean landing cards should be destroyed. Subsequently we have:-
"“In October 2010, the operational decision was taken in relation to the specific registry slips themselves. The Prime Minister was not involved in this process, this was an operational decision taken by UKBA.”
Although noting at the time TM was not Prime Minister so there is a potential double meaning in this sentence. However giving the benefit of the doubt to TM then UKBA decided to destroy these, but this would have been under the Tory government.
Hence May's comment in parliament is a lie. She misled MPs by stating that it was under a Labour government that made that decision. What the decision that was made was to destroy paper records (noting scanning them would have achieved that as well) likely for savings as it costs a fortune to heat/air condition paper.
It was definitely under the Tory government however that the decision was made to actually destroy the specific landing cards. It would have been quite easy to say "These fall outside the scope of the Business Case" and not action the destruction of those items.
However this is semantics when compared to the fact that, having known they destroyed this information they then proceeded to implement legislation to allow them to easier kick these people out because they would no longer have these records available to them.
Theresa May is a liar, and by the looks of things also a bigot and a racist.
I don't think May is a bigot and a racist. However, it was May who warned the Tories they had the reputation of being the "nasty party". May hasn't done anything to shed that, since her tenure as Home Secretary and PM fully covers the period of introducing the "hostile" climate for immigrants.
OTOH it must be admitted that the Tories were responding to the wave of anti-immigration opinion spawned by their supporters and UKIP.
At this point, the fact the 2/3rds of the UK public see the Labour Party as anti-semitic speaks volumes about the health of the body politic.
Did you actually just waste twenty minutes of your life making a multi-paragraph argument that deciding to destroy a batch of documents in 2009 and physically doing it in 2010 is technically different to a statement saying that 'the decision to destroy specific document X was taken in 2009'? Because it's a general decision as opposed to specifically naming the documents to be binned?
I mean, for real?
Mate, if you make a decision to throw a big ass ring binder with Documents A, B, and C in the rubbish in 2009, but don't get around to it until 2010; I don't think most people would call me out for being inaccurate if I said in 2018, 'Yeah, Whirlwind decided to throw document A out back in 2009'. Let alone go on a foaming at the mouth rant dubbing me a 'a liar, and by the looks of things also a bigot and a racist.'
Jesus. There's partisanship, and then there's just abso-bloody-lutely ridiculous.
Did you actually just waste twenty minutes of your life making a multi-paragraph argument that deciding to destroy a batch of documents in 2009 and physically doing it in 2010 is technically different to a statement saying that 'the decision to destroy specific document X was taken in 2009'? Because it's a general decision as opposed to specifically naming the documents to be binned?
I mean, for real?
Yes it is for real. And that's because you don't understand the difference between a business case and the action. As I've pointed out before a business case is about initiating the project what it's remit is and what the boundaries are and what the end points are. To reiterate again as I obviously wasn't clear - it is not about the decision as to what to dispose of in detail. That is not it's role. There's a huge difference in actuality even if from the uninitiated it just seems like that they are saying the same thing. To bring it into a simpler context its a a bit like saying "Lets make a cook book where all the recipes includes vegetables". It doesn't tell you which ones to include or exclude just what the boundaries are (there must be a hundred recipies and each must have a vegetable in). If a year later someone decides to destroy any spouts that are suggested to be used then that is a separate specific decision, however it's not a business case decision.
However then turning round and saying the initial idea is to destroy any brussels intended to be used in a recipe is because of the business case is a lie. Just as May did today in Parliament.
Also apparently I type a lot quicker than you do...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think May is a bigot and a racist. However, it was May who warned the Tories they had the reputation of being the "nasty party". May hasn't done anything to shed that, since her tenure as Home Secretary and PM fully covers the period of introducing the "hostile" climate for immigrants.
OTOH it must be admitted that the Tories were responding to the wave of anti-immigration opinion spawned by their supporters and UKIP.
That in my mind makes you a bigot and a racist. If you really disagreed with the policy then you wouldn't implement it. There is too much suggestive information that infers may actively perpetrated trying to get rid of anyone that is not white, not Christian and/or not British.
Yes it is for real. And that's because you don't understand the difference between a business case and the action.
'Yes, I am doing what you're asking if I'm doing. But you clearly can't understand it (even if you're outlining it for me to agree with), or you'd grasp why I have to make this distinction. Let me explain it a second time...'
No, I get it. I'm just incredulous at the lengths you've gone to here to split an ultra-fine hair in order to make a political attack. You might find it difficult to come to terms with the idea someone comprehends you but still marvels at the lengths of obsessive nitpicking some people will go to, yet there you are....
I work in government, this is typical of the sort of response you get when you ask *and I have to go because I think someone's house just blew up, bbl*
edit: ok, back, was just two trucks colliding outside.
Anyway, this is more or less standard political snow being blown.
Nitpicking about the time of the decision to bin the landing cards versus the time it was done, ignores the larger issue, which is the "hostile immigration environment" which the Tory government built from 2010 onwards.
As I understand it, the business case was a general "we should get rid of the paper in the basement because it costs a fortune to maintain and part of that included digitizing it. That was proposed under Labour.
The actual details of the destruction; what records would go, and the decision not to bother digitizing them, was done under the Tories and coincides with May (home secretaries) hostile government policy. The law change with this in mind was also done under the Tories and May.
So whilst May is technically right if you saying hard enough; destroying the paper copies was their idea. The blame still lies with the Tories for doing it in a hostile way
Automatically Appended Next Post: He's splitting hairs here because the details are important
"There were some who saw it, I shan't name them, as almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the way it's working" - former head of the civil service @SirBobKerslake on the hostile environment policy"
uh huh.
Meanwhile today Gove stated on the radio that GB has "the most liberal attitude towards non-EU immigration in the EU"...
.. given things like the number of refugees Germany took in, the number of Syrian refugees we actually took in and the current debacle with the windrush generation is a bold claim indeed.
Dexter Bristol, who was 57 when he died, moved from Grenada to the UK when he was eight in 1968, to join his mother who was working as an NHS nurse, and spent the rest of his life in the UK. He was sacked from his cleaning job last year because he had no passport, and was denied benefits because officials did not believe he was in the country legally.
He spent the last year of life trying to untangle his immigration situation, repeatedly attempting and failing to get the Home Office to acknowledge that he was not an illegal immigrant. Until he was sacked, he had no idea there was any problem with his immigration status.
He was born a British subject in Grenada, but had never been able to get a British passport, and struggled to gather the extensive documentation required by officials to prove that he was not an overstayer. On 31 March he collapsed in the street outside his home and died. Ahead of an upcoming inquest, the cause of death is unknown
The British government refused to assist a French investigation into suspected money laundering and tax fraud by the UK telecoms giant Lycamobile – citing the fact that the company is the “biggest corporate donor to the Conservative party” and gives money to a trust founded by Prince Charles.
French prosecutors launched a major probe into the firm and arrested 19 people accused of using its accounts to launder money from organised criminal networks two years ago, after BuzzFeed News revealed its suspicious financial activities in the UK. But the Conservatives continued taking Lycamobile’s money – and it can now be revealed that the British authorities stonewalled a formal request from French prosecutors to carry out raids in London as part of the ongoing investigation.
Confidential correspondence between British government officials and their French counterparts, shown to BuzzFeed News by a source in the UK, reveals that the French wanted British authorities to raid Lycamobile’s London headquarters last year and seize evidence as part of their investigation into money laundering and tax fraud by the company.
In an official response dated 30 March 2017, a government official noted that Lycamobile is “a large multinational company” with “vast assets at their disposal” and would be “extremely unlikely to agree to having their premises searched”.
The letter, from the team at HMRC that handles law enforcement requests from foreign governments, continued: “It is of note that they are the biggest corporate donor to the Conservative party led by Prime Minister Theresa May and donated 1.25m Euros to the Prince Charles Trust in 2012.”
The HMRC response went on to say that Lycamobile would be likely to challenge any raids on its properties in court and may succeed because the French request did not contain enough “solid information”. The request stalled, and Lycamobile’s UK offices were never searched.
uh huh.
I'm sure it's perfectly normal behaviour for multinational companies to deposit money in person, in cash carried in back packs, in various post offices across the city.
Herzlos wrote: As I understand it, the business case was a general "we should get rid of the paper in the basement because it costs a fortune to maintain and part of that included digitizing it. That was proposed under Labour.
The actual details of the destruction; what records would go, and the decision not to bother digitizing them, was done under the Tories and coincides with May (home secretaries) hostile government policy. The law change with this in mind was also done under the Tories and May.
So whilst May is technically right if you saying hard enough; destroying the paper copies was their idea. The blame still lies with the Tories for doing it in a hostile way
Automatically Appended Next Post: He's splitting hairs here because the details are important
The thing is, he's splitting hairs that don't even necessarily exist, he's making huge assumptions to even reach that stage. I'll elaborate, because sometimes you gents here in OT like to hear historical stuff.
I know the details of a number of government documents weedings going from the 1880's up to the 1990's, from the WO papers, the SUPP papers, the T/TS papers, the ADM papers, the FO papers, and so on. I quite literally handle these things directly, it's my historical bread and butter. I'm going in to the NA immediately after finishing writing this to try and track down the titles of some destroyed files (because that's sometimes possible with a lot of tiresome work if you know the right correspondence register).
In all my time and reading on the matter, I've never seen two document weedings handled in exactly the same way. The 'business case' can consist of an outstation writing in to say 'Hey, we've got a basement full of supply documents, can we chuck them?' with no further details or discussions beyond one senior management bod going 'Yeah sure, don't think they'll be of use to anyone' (a profound irritation when they would have been). Other times, they'll go into great detail about what there is straight off the bat, and try and figure out if they should be donating them to a museum or keeping them for reference purposes. Other times still they'll go into huge details through the course of the weed itself without a 'business case' beyond 'ditch stuff we don't want anyone seeing' (usually called a targeted weed) where loads gets referred back to higher ups and it's overseen by one. The point I'm making is that there's considerable irregularity at that stage of the game, and to even call it a 'business case' is laughable for a large number of them, including more modern decisions.
That's without even going into the truly vast number of decisions made on the basis whereby they don't even know what the documents they're holding were for. State departments hold gigantic amounts of paperwork. You get a lot of cases where departments have moved location, archivists have begun refiling under different headings but left halfway through without anyone else knowing their system, etcetc. It takes historians literally years to dig through these things file by file, busy managers under pressure to get work done don't usually have the staff to commit to spending years cataloguing.
So even on what's on the 'operational' level here, more likely than not for some weird looking dockets forty years old? I would actually bet money that one bloke will have taken one look at an item or two at either end to see where the run began and left off, realised he knew nothing about the dockets, made a snap assessment that they didn't seem important and just shredded the lot. That's the procedure more often than it isn't. I wasn't really joking about an intern called Jules doing it for two hours every Friday afternoon over a year. It's vastly frustrating the simple lack of interest taken in document weeds in most cases, and the amount of valuable material destroyed.
There was one case literally a few years back where a guy doing a weed at the MOD actually sent a friend of mine at the NMM the ship plans for a type of nuclear submarine. Full schematics of the reactor and everything, proper top secret stuff. They'd been chucking out documents to make room, and rather than bin them, some gent (a bit of a naval enthusiast) thought they'd be better suited going to a happier place. Thing is, upper brass would never have sanctioned binning that kind of material in the first place, but the vagueness with which most weeds are undertaken (aka, clear that room over there) meant that it happened anyway.
My friend notified the MOD entertainingly enough and had the secret service turn up to collect them the next day! I have another similar story involving files regarding a closed down mental institute dated about ten years ago. That's without going into the cases I know from last century.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that trying to split hairs over what decision was taken where and when in disposing of state files is utterly pointless speculation if you weren't involved in that specific weed. Trying to sling insults at political figures based off that speculation is a bigger jump still. It's just the way things work, and it sucks that these people got caught in the middle of one. They weren't the first, and they won't be the last. But it isn't really anyone's fault in that way, politician, senior civil servant, or anyone. It's....just how things work in a world of less than infinite administrative resources.
Another conclusion to be drawn is that it's ironic that a major department of government can be so slack about its paperwork and simultaneously expect some chap who came to the UK in 1968 when he was 6 years old to have kept four items of official documentation for every year from then until the present day, to satisfy immigration rules that weren't even created until 2012.
The thing is, he's splitting hairs that don't even necessarily exist, he's making huge assumptions to even reach that stage. I'll elaborate, because sometimes you gents here in OT like to hear historical stuff.
I think your explanation just confirms our point - the decision on what to destroy without archiving was done by whoever did the destruction, not whoever proposed it.
Maybe May wasn't aware of it, but I'd have thought it the files were accessed regularly, and they were advised against, people further up the tree would have some awareness.
May's Home Office still insisted on impossible records from those whose only records were destroyed by the home office, though.
Errrr....I literally stated that these things are done on an as hoc case by case basis. Maybe it was. Maybe it was a targeted weed and the docket numbers were predetermined by series in 2009. Maybe nobody took a specific decision at all as regards things. No way to know, is the point.
The thing is, he's splitting hairs that don't even necessarily exist, he's making huge assumptions to even reach that stage. I'll elaborate, because sometimes you gents here in OT like to hear historical stuff.
I think your explanation just confirms our point - the decision on what to destroy without archiving was done by whoever did the destruction, not whoever proposed it. Maybe May wasn't aware of it, but I'd have thought it the files were accessed regularly, and they were advised against, people further up the tree would have some awareness.
May's Home Office still insisted on impossible records from those whose only records were destroyed by the home office, though.
I doubt any sort of elected Politician had any knowledge of the decision, much less involvement. Kilkrazy is right, this is a petty, trivial argument that only distracts from the wider issue.
You are right too however, that it was very hypocritical of the Government to demand documentation from immigrants when those documents had been destroyed.
Anyone catch the load gumph that vile Toad Gove came out with?
Apparently, Brexit has made the UK the most immigration friendly country in the EU.
Which is funny, because I thought his entire campaign was a xenophobic shriek fest designed to prey upon the 'us v them' mentality carefully culture over a few decades by Das Daily Heil, with the promise of being able to stop anyone coming in.
I really, really, really, really, really, really, really hate that man.
Apparently, Brexit has made the UK the most immigration friendly country in the EU.
Which is funny, because I thought his entire campaign was a xenophobic shriek fest designed to prey upon the 'us v them' mentality carefully culture over a few decades by Das Daily Heil, with the promise of being able to stop anyone coming in.
I really, really, really, really, really, really, really hate that man.
I don't agree with all your sentiments or tone of voice in expressing them, however, it seems to me a logical backflip for Gove to say that a campaign based on excluding foreigners makes the country more foreigner friendly when successfully completed.
I think Gove based his comments on some set of opinion polling stats that says the UK is now the country with the fewest people who say they would be worried if a foreigner moved in next door to them.
This might be because the xenophobes among us have been reassured by the prospect of Brexit meaning that far fewer foreigners will be moving in next door, so they aren't worried.
This was mentioned in the spectator recently. The theory basically goes that people are more open to immigration when it’s precieved to be controlled. That they feel more relaxed about the immigrants they see when it’s believed that they had to pass some sort of test to be here, rather than simply coming in unhindered.
