despite what you may have heard/read it seems the MP in question is not opposed to private bills.
shocker eh ?!
some of you might recall him from the HoC documentary -- he along with Bone camped out in the offices to grab all the members bill slots.
Yes I read last night that the spin being put out about the guy is utter garbage. He basically objects to those that are not his own or his friends. Definitely the light of democracy in the UK...not. Still typical Tory then.
I still do question people that will just vote for him anyway. It's these type of examples that I like to point to when people argue against PR and state that it's about voting for a direct representative of their constituency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: ..I think it's a case of it being one of those areas where if you pin the right coloured rosette on an inanimate object it'd win.
despite what you may have heard/read it seems the MP in question is not opposed to private bills.
shocker eh ?!
some of you might recall him from the HoC documentary -- he along with Bone camped out in the offices to grab all the members bill slots.
Yes I read last night that the spin being put out about the guy is utter garbage. He basically objects to those that are not his own or his friends. Definitely the light of democracy in the UK...not. Still typical Tory then.
I still do question people that will just vote for him anyway. It's these type of examples that I like to point to when people argue against PR and state that it's about voting for a direct representative of their constituency.
Isnt the average age in his constituency 65? or is that the one that filibusters for a living.
despite what you may have heard/read it seems the MP in question is not opposed to private bills.
shocker eh ?!
some of you might recall him from the HoC documentary -- he along with Bone camped out in the offices to grab all the members bill slots.
Yes I read last night that the spin being put out about the guy is utter garbage. He basically objects to those that are not his own or his friends. Definitely the light of democracy in the UK...not. Still typical Tory then.
I still do question people that will just vote for him anyway. It's these type of examples that I like to point to when people argue against PR and state that it's about voting for a direct representative of their constituency.
Wow, that guy is like a real-life internet troll: It is like he is trying to get people mad at him.
From what I gather, the guy has a fair (general) point about not allowing Bills to be passed without adequate debate in a poorly attended Friday session...but of all the hills to die on, this really is an odd choice. And his past track record makes his "principle" ring rather hollow.
I dunno; he seems to just object to other people putting forward bills, since he doesn't seem to ask for more time for them; just filibuster or object.
Plus I'd rather see a law go through thats8a step in the right direction and have him propose improvements via new motions than to keep kicking them to the back until it times out.
They seem to have changed the headline, but the original BBC article on Chope was pretty hilariously spun into a pro-Tory take: ‘Tories angry at MP blocking upskirting law: ministers are amongst those furious at Sir Christopher Chope for stopping the new law progressing’. And then there’s their illustration...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: From what I gather, the guy has a fair (general) point about not allowing Bills to be passed without adequate debate in a poorly attended Friday session...but of all the hills to die on, this really is an odd choice. And his past track record makes his "principle" ring rather hollow.
The solution to this would be to persuade a change in when these laws are put to Parliament. A view of "I object to the fact that no one is here and I am" is not a rational way of making a decision. My suspicion is that this is a general Tory strategy and that the outrage is just skin deep. Having things brought independently can be see to undermine government so they place a few toss heads in the Friday discussions to object to anything and then the Government will pick and choose the ones they want so they can be seen as listening and that they are making the decisions. It wasn't just Chope either. Philip Davies also was at fault for filibustering the whole session and also including changes to the use of force in Mental Health Units. This is likely an underlying tactic of the Tory party and the people doing it are in seats that have enough people that are too idiotic to ever vote for another party.
In other news apparently May is going to announce another £20bn for the NHS over the next 5 years. Allegedly she is going to claim that this is from the Wrexit dividend, even though this has caused a £400m a loss per week already for the NHS. On top that it will only last to 2023; as effectively we leave the EU in 2021 as it stands that 3/5ths of this money cannot arise from the laughable claim that it is from the Wrexit dividend.
Taxes will also have to go up, which I am not opposed to but that the burden shouldn't be borne by those on the lower incomes (which I expect it will be).
However I'd take a moment to look at the figures and see what is actually happening based on the current financial position of the NHS.
Given the tendancy of the Tories to reuse figures already quoted lets look at what is already promised.
From 2017 £5bn has already been committed (pre-wage increase) up to 2019/20.
The wage increases already announced add £4.3bn to the already £43bn wage bill over three years.
Assuming an inflation rate of 2.5% pa over the three years after 2020 then that's another £3bn per annum just for inflationary increases (£9bn) in total.
So adding these together we have 5 + 4 + 9 = £18bn that would have been needed just to keep to existing commitments and assume at least we continue to fund the NHS at inflationary levels.
Then the actual increase being applied is £2bn. This is nothing in the grand scheme of things (and a slightly higher actual inflationary costs on some items such as medicines) then it will soon disappear.
In effect this is a bait and switch annoucement. Persuade people that the tax rises needed are going to create extra funding when in reality it is just to try and band aid the service.
Still I'm sure the Daily Facism, Sunday Distress and Scum papers will lap it up and their readership won't question the garbage they are being fed.
----Also
The UK/Germany high speed rail connection has now been cancelled due to a changed economic environment.
Refused to say whether it was Wrexit related. Which hence means it was a signficant factor. I suppose you can't have a high speed rail connection if you get stopped at the border whilst immigration officials finger everyone that isn't a UK citizen.
Chope was appointed a Knight Bachelor in the 2018 New Year Honours for political and public service
I saw Andrew Marr asking Teresa May why he was given a kinghthood - she flat out ignored the questions and he bottled out of persuing this line of enquiry.
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it emerged that Chope claimed £136,992 in parliamentary expenses in 2007-8. This included claiming £881 to repair a sofa
Did anything good ever come of this exposure - it seems like they are all still there doing the same thing?
I always thought BBC bias was mostly only about stuff like Northern Ireland. Then I saw the Scottish indy ref and thought "Christ, that is a bit biased!". So I thought "Makes sense, they have a pro-Union bias. Nothing too sinister, can probably still be trusted on other issues."
But holy god, the last 2 years have really put paid to that! Pro-Tory bias is clear as day, and the limp reporting on Brexit is a scandal. Really disappointed, grew up thinking the BBC was the thing to aim for in public service broadcasting and Sir David Attenborough is probably the main reason I am in the job I am in.
It’s almost as if journalists were briefed late on Saturday and none had a calculator, or independent thought
It’s almost as if journalists were briefed on Saturday and had no calculators available
THE ONLY RELEVANT FIGURE IS THE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE REAL INCREASE.
It's all a bluff to keep the Tories in power in the short term.
This is a good article from RTE about the current state of the Brexit talks. It is more focused on what Brussels, the EU 27 and the Irish government think about what is going on in the UK and might be interesting for an outsiders perspective. I don't feel that the UK press is doing a great job of reporting on the "other side" given the distracting drama in the Hoc.
Da Boss wrote: I always thought BBC bias was mostly only about stuff like Northern Ireland. Then I saw the Scottish indy ref and thought "Christ, that is a bit biased!". So I thought "Makes sense, they have a pro-Union bias. Nothing too sinister, can probably still be trusted on other issues."
But holy god, the last 2 years have really put paid to that! Pro-Tory bias is clear as day, and the limp reporting on Brexit is a scandal. Really disappointed, grew up thinking the BBC was the thing to aim for in public service broadcasting and Sir David Attenborough is probably the main reason I am in the job I am in.
Poor BBC. The left accuse it of being pro-Tory. The right accuse it of pushing a left wing agenda.
Maybe that’s a good indication that it genuinely is trying to be politically neutral?
Da Boss wrote: I always thought BBC bias was mostly only about stuff like Northern Ireland. Then I saw the Scottish indy ref and thought "Christ, that is a bit biased!". So I thought "Makes sense, they have a pro-Union bias. Nothing too sinister, can probably still be trusted on other issues."
But holy god, the last 2 years have really put paid to that! Pro-Tory bias is clear as day, and the limp reporting on Brexit is a scandal. Really disappointed, grew up thinking the BBC was the thing to aim for in public service broadcasting and Sir David Attenborough is probably the main reason I am in the job I am in.
Poor BBC. The left accuse it of being pro-Tory. The right accuse it of pushing a left wing agenda.
Maybe that’s a good indication that it genuinely is trying to be politically neutral?
In some areas there does appear to be some bias. For example QT is well known to be managed by a UKIP right wing head of program (or whatever they call you). Hence the view why we get to see Farage every three weeks on it despite not really having any influence on anything and why we see other left wing parties much less well represented (e.g Greens etc) despite the fact they have had an MP for much longer. Laura K has also been accused of Tory bias in the past (but then if you get paid shed loads is that not expected?). There's also concern that because the Tories have placed people they favour in charge of the BBC they are getting a much more neutral steer from any negative news.
The real issue for the BBC though despite all this is their lack of investigative journalism. They hardly challenge anything these days. They always try to find someone from the opposite side to balance the views. If they were talking to someone about why the Earth is a sphere then they'd travel the country to find a flat earther, same with climate change and so forth. In some ways it is worse than fake news because it becomes no news because they give the artificial impression that the arguments are balanced. Here is why you can get accusations from both sides. The BBC is less of a news service and more of a here's two people with different views, you decide why we don't ask any useful questions. Channel 4 as a independent state owned news company provides much better inciteful journalism and tends to be balanced based on evidence.
Da Boss wrote: I always thought BBC bias was mostly only about stuff like Northern Ireland. Then I saw the Scottish indy ref and thought "Christ, that is a bit biased!". So I thought "Makes sense, they have a pro-Union bias. Nothing too sinister, can probably still be trusted on other issues."
But holy god, the last 2 years have really put paid to that! Pro-Tory bias is clear as day, and the limp reporting on Brexit is a scandal. Really disappointed, grew up thinking the BBC was the thing to aim for in public service broadcasting and Sir David Attenborough is probably the main reason I am in the job I am in.
Poor BBC. The left accuse it of being pro-Tory. The right accuse it of pushing a left wing agenda.
Maybe that’s a good indication that it genuinely is trying to be politically neutral?
In some areas there does appear to be some bias. For example QT is well known to be managed by a UKIP right wing head of program (or whatever they call you). Hence the view why we get to see Farage every three weeks on it despite not really having any influence on anything and why we see other left wing parties much less well represented (e.g Greens etc) despite the fact they have had an MP for much longer. Laura K has also been accused of Tory bias in the past (but then if you get paid shed loads is that not expected?). There's also concern that because the Tories have placed people they favour in charge of the BBC they are getting a much more neutral steer from any negative news.
The real issue for the BBC though despite all this is their lack of investigative journalism. They hardly challenge anything these days. They always try to find someone from the opposite side to balance the views. If they were talking to someone about why the Earth is a sphere then they'd travel the country to find a flat earther, same with climate change and so forth. In some ways it is worse than fake news because it becomes no news because they give the artificial impression that the arguments are balanced. Here is why you can get accusations from both sides. The BBC is less of a news service and more of a here's two people with different views, you decide why we don't ask any useful questions. Channel 4 as a independent state owned news company provides much better inciteful journalism and tends to be balanced based on evidence.
These are all fair points and I can’t say I disagree with any of them. I do think that, on the whole, the BBC tries to be unbiased but often does a bad job of it.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: [quote=Da Boss 724548 10026946
These are all fair points and I can’t say I disagree with any of them. I do think that, on the whole, the BBC tries to be unbiased but often does a bad job of it.
That's the problem though they try and be unbiased and by doing so end up being incredibly biased to the non-factual side. It's like the Nigel Lawson climate sceptic issue. They basically let everyone speak their bit but don't engage in the investigative journalism part. It's the Jeremy Hunt's of this world just saying we don't believe the figures when it suits them and so forth. You can't have a meaningful debate if one side uses actual data and evidence and the other side is just allowed to say "boulderdash" and never be challenged on it. That actually biases to the latter argument because there is simply no way you can argue against such a statement because they aren't actually presenting a debate, just a statement.
I encourage everyone to watch this video. Now not every person supporting Brexit is like this, but well I'll let everyone make up their own mind...
And finally after 30 years the family have a chance at justice, especially good to hear after Teresa May twice made false statements about legacy issues.
And finally after 30 years the family have a chance at justice, especially good to hear after Teresa May twice made false statements about legacy issues.
That makes it sound like you think the person is guilty and that only a guilty verdict is the correct result. That isn't justice...justice is about using the evidence to hand to put forward a case as to whether someone committed the crime they are accused of and that, in this country, a jury decides innocence or guilt.
In other news another item on the Wrexiters wish list goes bye-bye. No more access to the European Arrest Warrant because they want to get out of the ECJ.
And finally after 30 years the family have a chance at justice, especially good to hear after Teresa May twice made false statements about legacy issues.
That makes it sound like you think the person is guilty and that only a guilty verdict is the correct result. That isn't justice...justice is about using the evidence to hand to put forward a case as to whether someone committed the crime they are accused of and that, in this country, a jury decides innocence or guilt.
I do believe the man to be guilty, the PSNI have even stated that his events are the ''least likely version'' and that chances of it were ''so remote as to be virtually disregarded.'' The army had been threatening to kill him for over a year and then he gets shot in the back of the head at 300 metres by an accidental slip of the finger?
I said a ''chance for justice'' a progression in a case that's over 30 years old is defiantly an improvement and is giving the family a chance at justice because they can finally have the man who killed their brother trailed for it under new evidence. A chance for justice that this case can finally be given a proper investigation and is being treated fairly instead of being swept under the rug as many of the killings in Ireland were.
The trial will also be unlikely to have a jury due to it political nature.
And finally after 30 years the family have a chance at justice, especially good to hear after Teresa May twice made false statements about legacy issues.
That makes it sound like you think the person is guilty and that only a guilty verdict is the correct result. That isn't justice...justice is about using the evidence to hand to put forward a case as to whether someone committed the crime they are accused of and that, in this country, a jury decides innocence or guilt.
In other news another item on the Wrexiters wish list goes bye-bye. No more access to the European Arrest Warrant because they want to get out of the ECJ.
I do believe the man to be guilty, the PSNI have even stated that his events are the ''least likely version'' and that chances of it were ''so remote as to be virtually disregarded.'' The army had been threatening to kill him for over a year and then he gets shot in the back of the head at 300 metres by an accidental slip of the finger?
But not impossible? Also if we assume it was a targeted attack as inferred are we saying that an 18 year old, not far out of training was the one actually giving the orders and deciding. Although my background is sketchy on the actual event, you state that the army had been threatening to kill him, not the individual. That in itself would imply that taking this person for prosecution is actually not really the person you want for justice, does it not? If a soldier is trained to follow the orders of their commanding officer then who should be held responsible the person that pulled the trigger or the person that gave the order.
I said a ''chance for justice'' a progression in a case that's over 30 years old is defiantly an improvement and is giving the family a chance at justice because they can finally have the man who killed their brother trailed for it under new evidence. A chance for justice that this case can finally be given a proper investigation and is being treated fairly instead of being swept under the rug as many of the killings in Ireland were.
So if he is found innocent then you would be happy that this is justice?
The trial will also be unlikely to have a jury due to it political nature.
Doesn't the article indicate that it is the Public Prosecution Service taking forward the case. That would mean a trial by Jury, it's not a military case being taken forward.
Herzlos wrote: I'm largely ignorant about it; what's wrong with european arrest warrants?
Do we want to return to the days of criminals moving to Spain and being untouchable?
Nothing really. It just means that if a criminal potters off to another European Country and that another wants them for a criminal investigation then they can issue a European Arrest warrant and they can't hide anywhere in Europe. Instead the UK (and EU) will have to sort out an extradition process between them which is more costly and bureaucratic. In addition there is always the chance that as we are not aligned with the ECJ that the person in question may then take the issue to the ECJ if our rules are misaligned. If the ECJ find that for whatever reason a decision might not be made in line the ECHR then the courts may refuse that extradition. That potentially is years of legal wrangling if it is over small technical points.
There have been some niggles and complaints with the EAW.
As with much else about leaving the EU, the best answer is to reform it (which already has been done once) than to simply dump it. At any rate, Europe needs some Europe wide system of extradition in the modern age of international mobility.
Interpol is not an EU institution and the UK will remain a member after Brexit.
But not impossible? Also if we assume it was a targeted attack as inferred are we saying that an 18 year old, not far out of training was the one actually giving the orders and deciding. Although my background is sketchy on the actual event, you state that the army had been threatening to kill him, not the individual. That in itself would imply that taking this person for prosecution is actually not really the person you want for justice, does it not? If a soldier is trained to follow the orders of their commanding officer then who should be held responsible the person that pulled the trigger or the person that gave the order.
Well of course not impossible , but even if the incident was an accident he would still be found guilty of negligence for having the gun loaded, safety off and then applying 9lbs of pressure to the trigger.
So following orders is now a legitimate excuse to kill an innocent man walking to a football match? What about Bloody Sunday, should those soldiers be allowed to get away with it for following orders?
There was a wider shoot to kill policy at the time but this particular case wasn't coming from a high up this was threats targeted at a man because he was known to be a catholic nationalist (who in the area were regularly threatened) and he crossed that checkpoint twice a day to get too work which made him known to the soldiers and became a target to vent their anger. This solider may just been going along with his mates and maybe one of his superiors told him to fire but he pulled the trigger so he must be held responsible! We've seen the 'following orders' excuse used throughout history and it very rarely holds up in peoples minds.
A few weeks a go everyone rightly criticised DNLT for suggesting the army or ex troops should be acting as a police force because it would result in unnecessary deaths and people would start becoming a law onto their own, well that's what happened in Ireland and I'm sure if this had happened in England people would agree its not right for the trooper to get away with it.
So if he is found innocent then you would be happy that this is justice?
I personally believe the man to be guilty and actually believe he intentionally killed Aidan, however hes being charged with manslaughter due to negligence which he will almost certainly be found guilty of as I mentioned above.
I'd be upset if he was found not guilty, I'd be happen though at the precedent it set that there is a chance of justice and prosecutions for the many incidents of the murder of innocents.
Bloody Sunday
The Ballymurphy Massacre
Springhill Massacre
Dublin and Monaghen bombings
The rest of the Glenanne gang killings (74 of their killings are believed to have involved the security forces)
Some of the events surrounding the Shankill butchers.
Along with multiple other smaller scale events
Doesn't the article indicate that it is the Public Prosecution Service taking forward the case. That would mean a trial by Jury, it's not a military case being taken forward.
If he's trailed over here the PPS can issue a certificate to have it a no jury trial and in a case like this that's basically a necessity due to the bias that would be in a jury.
Herzlos wrote: I'm largely ignorant about it; what's wrong with european arrest warrants?
Do we want to return to the days of criminals moving to Spain and being untouchable?
Nothing really. It just means that if a criminal potters off to another European Country and that another wants them for a criminal investigation then they can issue a European Arrest warrant and they can't hide anywhere in Europe. Instead the UK (and EU) will have to sort out an extradition process between them which is more costly and bureaucratic. In addition there is always the chance that as we are not aligned with the ECJ that the person in question may then take the issue to the ECJ if our rules are misaligned. If the ECJ find that for whatever reason a decision might not be made in line the ECHR then the courts may refuse that extradition. That potentially is years of legal wrangling if it is over small technical points.
Thanks. So basically it's just cutting our nose off to spite our face, and making everything more time consuming and expensive (the Brexit way)?
Well of course not impossible , but even if the incident was an accident he would still be found guilty of negligence for having the gun loaded, safety off and then applying 9lbs of pressure to the trigger.
That largely depends on the circumstances of the day. *If* it was standard practice to keep guns loaded and safety's off at that checkpoint then these first two are irrelevant because they were acting along the standard practice allowed for by the senior officer. At that point the only piece of negligence is the 'slip'. Looking into this a bit more he was shot in the back (rather than back of the head) from one of three bullets the forensics indicated ricocheted of the ground about 2m behind him. The quotation of "so remote as to be virtually disregarded" actually relates to the two points in that both for the gun to slip and the bullets to ricochet was highly unlikely. That they were behind him from 300m away would indicate that the gun wasn't pointed at the person directly. A slip could cause this, however I can also imagine that anyone passing through the gates were tracked in front or behind of the person which makes then any slip more likely to result in bullets ricocheting from nearby. A more insidious possibility and one which I could accept as a manslaughter charge was where the bullets were fired deliberately to spook the person and they bounced into his back. However reviewing previous statements it is a bit misleading to say this person directly shot the person because that isn't what happened.
So following orders is now a legitimate excuse to kill an innocent man walking to a football match? What about Bloody Sunday, should those soldiers be allowed to get away with it for following orders?
I have sympathy with the soldiers in this regards. They are trained to act on orders not mull over the details and make an individual decision. People tend to die when that happens. It is a good reason why soldiers shouldn't be acting as the Police (who have a different directive). If your commanding officer says shoot, then they do, no questions asked. They don't have the following conversation
CO - "Shoot him!"
Solider - "Why sir, I can't see anything wrong with him"
CO - "He has a bomb on him"
Soldier - "I see nothing, what is the evidence for this bomb"
CO - "FFS, I got a call from MI6, they didn't give me the details"
Soldier - "But if they get it wrong, I might be prosecute....." *BOOOOOOOM*
CO (as multiple body parts fly over their heads) - "Are these body parts evidence enough for you?"
I have no sympathy if you are solider working in a concentration camp where there is consideration time for your actions. However I think it is unreasonable to blame the soldier when they are acting as they have trained to be. In that case you need to question why and if those orders were given.
There was a wider shoot to kill policy at the time but this particular case wasn't coming from a high up this was threats targeted at a man because he was known to be a catholic nationalist (who in the area were regularly threatened) and he crossed that checkpoint twice a day to get too work which made him known to the soldiers and became a target to vent their anger.
Do you have evidence for this statement that they shot the person to vent their anger at …[please insert why]
This solider may just been going along with his mates and maybe one of his superiors told him to fire but he pulled the trigger so he must be held responsible! We've seen the 'following orders' excuse used throughout history and it very rarely holds up in peoples minds.
This effectively amounts to "someone must be blamed". I tend not to side on this type of rhetoric because it tends to mean that people ignore the reasons behind the incident and can compartmentalize it behind a veil of "it was *all* someone else's fault". Hillsborough is another example of where that mentality is pervading society.
I personally believe the man to be guilty and actually believe he intentionally killed Aidan, however hes being charged with manslaughter due to negligence which he will almost certainly be found guilty of as I mentioned above.
So basically your view of justice is that he is guilty or murder without having all the facts and information to hand and a trial by jury...that really isn't justice at all.
Thanks. So basically it's just cutting our nose off to spite our face, and making everything more time consuming and expensive (the Brexit way)?
Pretty much, it's not perfect but better than the alternative. The UK Government doesn't actually want to lose it and want to stay part of it. But again they are blinded by wanting to leave the ECJ. It's another example of trying to cherry pick that they were warned about but didn't want to see that the two areas were inseparable.
If the man who shot McAnspie is innocent then why did a chunk of him go missing, never to be seen again? The part containing the information on the trajectory?
Why was the soldiers finger on the trigger in the first place? This same thing had happened before on the border. Was trigger discipline not taught in the BA at the time?
Why did he excert 9lb's of pressure on his trigger pointing a loaded weapon at a civilian?
A civilian who was constantly harrased and threatened? Who was also a SF election worker?
So to sum it up, A British soldier pointed a loaded weapon in the direction of a Shinner and accidentally put a bullet in him. The piece of him containing the exit wound went missing. Why the piece of rib cage was removed without his family's knowledge is a complete mystery with no record kept. The Irish government was unwilling to release even a censored version of the report into the incident.
I haven't had my suspension of disbelief tested so much since sharknado.
UKPM May says pictures of children "being held in what appear to be cages" are "deeply disturbing,” and the Trump administration's "zero-tolerance" policy is "wrong" and she "doesn't agree with it."
.... wonder if the visit will still happen ?
meanwhile
Spoiler:
.. so Davis has threatened to resign more often than the number of times he's met his counterpart this year ?
That largely depends on the circumstances of the day. *If* it was standard practice to keep guns loaded and safety's off at that checkpoint then these first two are irrelevant because they were acting along the standard practice allowed for by the senior officer. At that point the only piece of negligence is the 'slip'. Looking into this a bit more he was shot in the back (rather than back of the head) from one of three bullets the forensics indicated ricocheted of the ground about 2m behind him. The quotation of "so remote as to be virtually disregarded" actually relates to the two points in that both for the gun to slip and the bullets to ricochet was highly unlikely. That they were behind him from 300m away would indicate that the gun wasn't pointed at the person directly. A slip could cause this, however I can also imagine that anyone passing through the gates were tracked in front or behind of the person which makes then any slip more likely to result in bullets ricocheting from nearby. A more insidious possibility and one which I could accept as a manslaughter charge was where the bullets were fired deliberately to spook the person and they bounced into his back. However reviewing previous statements it is a bit misleading to say this person directly shot the person because that isn't what happened.
While I cant be 100% sure I'd be pretty confident that when moving a gun the safety would at least be on or else there'd be a lot more incidents of troops shooting each other, it was also found that the gun was mounted on a pivot that meant there was no reason for it to be moved at all.
The notion of the slip is also disputed the enquiry has already found that a 'firm grip' was required for the trigger to be activated, the soldiers reasons for the slip was wet hands from cleaning the gun even though the gun had been cleaned half an hour previously by a maintenance party, so either he was cleaning a gun that had just been cleaned or it was just something thought up after the act.
How would them being 300m behind mean they weren't aiming the gun at him? Surely at this increased distance the chance of a slip and then ricocheting up and killing Aidan would be decreased.
Your second point of them tracking him through, if tracking him why would they be moving the gun while doing so?
You can't say that the bullets weren't directly aimed at him, as you have as much evidence for saying that as I do for saying they were.
I have sympathy with the soldiers in this regards. They are trained to act on orders not mull over the details and make an individual decision. People tend to die when that happens. It is a good reason why soldiers shouldn't be acting as the Police (who have a different directive). If your commanding officer says shoot, then they do, no questions asked. They don't have the following conversation
CO - "Shoot him!"
Solider - "Why sir, I can't see anything wrong with him"
CO - "He has a bomb on him"
Soldier - "I see nothing, what is the evidence for this bomb"
CO - "FFS, I got a call from MI6, they didn't give me the details"
Soldier - "But if they get it wrong, I might be prosecute....." *BOOOOOOOM*
CO (as multiple body parts fly over their heads) - "Are these body parts evidence enough for you?"
I have no sympathy if you are solider working in a concentration camp where there is consideration time for your actions. However I think it is unreasonable to blame the soldier when they are acting as they have trained to be. In that case you need to question why and if those orders were given.
He was 300m away walking away, what threat was he posing to them. There was no call from MI6 though as he wasn't a member of the IRA he was an innocent man killed for no good reason.
There was a wider shoot to kill policy at the time but this particular case wasn't coming from a high up this was threats targeted at a man because he was known to be a catholic nationalist (who in the area were regularly threatened) and he crossed that checkpoint twice a day to get too work which made him known to the soldiers and became a target to vent their anger.
They threatened him daily to such an extent that he had to be accompanied by a family member as much as possible when near that checkpoint because they were scared of what might happen, his father was told ''I've a bullet in this gun for your son Aidan.''
Troops asked the family after the incident if they'd seen Aidan recently. If this doesn't show there was something malicious going on I don't know what will.
It's no secret either that there were soldiers who hated the Irish and saw them as the enemy.
This effectively amounts to "someone must be blamed". I tend not to side on this type of rhetoric because it tends to mean that people ignore the reasons behind the incident and can compartmentalize it behind a veil of "it was *all* someone else's fault". Hillsborough is another example of where that mentality is pervading society.
People know why it happened, it was because he was an Irish nationalist and was therefore seen as the enemy. Of course someone should be blamed a man died after bullets were fired in his direction after over a year of threats to kill him were made.
So basically your view of justice is that he is guilty or murder without having all the facts and information to hand and a trial by jury...that really isn't justice at all.
No that's not what I said. I said I believed him to be guilty but that there was finally a chance for justice because there'll finally be a real investigation and a day in court will be had. Is it not justice that after years someone will be in court for killing a man? Will you be arguing with those calling for justice for grenfell because they want someone to end up in court?
Unless I'm missing something, you track someone by moving a gun to have them roughly in-sight. That the gun was loaded is a given - it'd be useless otherwise. Safety off could be protocol or a mess up. Slipping and accidentally discharging is possible.
If he'd been threatened for a year, why was he shot that day, in such an obvious way?
He shouldn't have died and a trial should be carried out to assess the evidence, but it's not as open and shut as you claim.
Herzlos wrote: Unless I'm missing something, you track someone by moving a gun to have them roughly in-sight. That the gun was loaded is a given - it'd be useless otherwise. Safety off could be protocol or a mess up. Slipping and accidentally discharging is possible.
If he'd been threatened for a year, why was he shot that day, in such an obvious way?
He shouldn't have died and a trial should be carried out to assess the evidence, but it's not as open and shut as you claim.
Yes but according to the solider it wasn't tracking him as it slipped from his hands meaning he was moving the gun in his hands even though the gun did not require being moved by hand at all.
In the BBC article you can see the towers where the solider was situated look how small the windows are, the machine gun was apparently dropped the soldiers hand then wrapped round the grip and applied 9 lbs of pressure to the trigger the bullets not only made it out of that small hole but then hit the ground just behind a target they weren't tracking ricocheting up and accidentally killed him, they then thought it'd be a good idea to taunt the family at a later stage.
OR
They had previously threatened to kill a man and eventually they acted on it and missed there target slightly but the bullets ricocheted and killed him. In all honesty which seems the most likely?
And as to why they would be so obvious in shooting him, if you have to ask that question you really must not know much about the Troubles as obviously shooting at innocent people for no good reason happened plenty.
I'll be honest, I've never heard of this incident and only seen your reports on it. Maybe there's solid evidence, but it sounds as if there's plenty of room for interpretation.
It won't help a key piece of evidence was disposed of, it's all part of a wider problem the soldiers did kill innocent people the majority of the time and the seeming belief by many that it was ok to do so simply because of the persons religion or political view
There are many murky incidents in the history of the Troubles, and it's right that they should be investigated and, if there is enough suspicion and evidence, put on trial.
That said, I believe we have made a long diversion about one specific case, so we should now await the trial result.
I'll be honest, I've never heard of this incident and only seen your reports on it. Maybe there's solid evidence, but it sounds as if there's plenty of room for interpretation.
This is really the original point I was concerned with. The quoted statement was
And finally after 30 years the family have a chance at justice, especially good to hear after Teresa May twice made false statements about legacy issues.
And that because one person assumes they are guilty implied that only justice would be served if found guilty. Which isn't justice at all.
----------------------
In other news the Remainer 'rebels' have backed down again over a meanignless statement. They really do like putting party before the Country despite all their bluster. And for what, that they will be allowed to table debates as they are allowed to anyway. The idea that they wanted a meaningful debate on the issue has disappeared out the window (again).
When the IRA and other republican groups and members of the community start to cooperate into the investigations of the many murders committed by their members, then I think there will be a sense that justice is being sought in Northern Ireland.
r_squared wrote: When the IRA and other republican groups and members of the community start to cooperate into the investigations of the many murders committed by their members, then I think there will be a sense that justice is being sought in Northern Ireland.
Don't see many security force members coming forward about the crimes they committed? Are you not calling for loyalists to come forward either seeing as they killed more civilians than republicans actually did?
Republicans are being investigated over issues relating to the troubles (despite the lies May is pushing), it's just the army are getting a slightly disproportionate amount of investigations due to no one have been convicted for them at the time unlike those relating to paramilitaries.
Justice isn't about quid pro quo, or the other side's worse so we're fine.
Another piece of justice came out today, the revelation that between 1988 and 2001 an NHS hospital in Gosport, Hampshire killed at least 450 people with overdoses of opioid drugs like morphine.
The scandal isn't only the death toll, it's the fact that suspicions, allegations and whistle-blowing were denied and obfuscated by a variety of vested interests who preferred to protect the hospital establishment rather than properly investigate what had happened.
Kilkrazy wrote: Justice isn't about quid pro quo, or the other side's worse so we're fine.
Another piece of justice came out today, the revelation that between 1988 and 2001 an NHS hospital in Gosport, Hampshire killed at least 450 people with overdoses of opioid drugs like morphine.
The scandal isn't only the death toll, it's the fact that suspicions, allegations and whistle-blowing were denied and obfuscated by a variety of vested interests who preferred to protect the hospital establishment rather than properly investigate what had happened.
You find THAT shocking? Wait till you see how often it happens in Nursing Homes.
r_squared wrote: When the IRA and other republican groups and members of the community start to cooperate into the investigations of the many murders committed by their members, then I think there will be a sense that justice is being sought in Northern Ireland.
Don't see many security force members coming forward about the crimes they committed? Are you not calling for loyalists to come forward either seeing as they killed more civilians than republicans actually did?
Republicans are being investigated over issues relating to the troubles (despite the lies May is pushing), it's just the army are getting a slightly disproportionate amount of investigations due to no one have been convicted for them at the time unlike those relating to paramilitaries.
I didn't say come forward, I said co-operate. Republican's have never co-operated in investigations to bring justice to the families of victims such as the Omagh bombing where shoppers and children were murdered in cold blood. When I start to see progress here, then I may change my views on the idea of "justice" in Northern Ireland.
But thanks for bringing political violence and murder into the politics thread.
r_squared wrote: When the IRA and other republican groups and members of the community start to cooperate into the investigations of the many murders committed by their members, then I think there will be a sense that justice is being sought in Northern Ireland.
Don't see many security force members coming forward about the crimes they committed? Are you not calling for loyalists to come forward either seeing as they killed more civilians than republicans actually did?
Republicans are being investigated over issues relating to the troubles (despite the lies May is pushing), it's just the army are getting a slightly disproportionate amount of investigations due to no one have been convicted for them at the time unlike those relating to paramilitaries.
I didn't say come forward, I said co-operate. Republican's have never co-operated in investigations to bring justice to the families of victims such as the Omagh bombing where shoppers and children were murdered in cold blood. When I start to see progress here, then I may change my views on the idea of "justice" in Northern Ireland.
But thanks for bringing political violence and murder into the politics thread.
So republicans should co-operate but no one else? Your idea of justice would appear to be republicans first then everyone else, paramilitaries are seen as criminals so surely the army who were there to protect people should be held to a higher moral standard. My problems with the issue stems from this belief that because these men wore a uniform they should be exempt or put to the end of the queue for inquires.
The Omagh bomb was carried out by a sub sect within a sub sect of republicanism that has cut ties with the main branches, so people are unlikely t come forward because the only ones who know anything are the ones who actually planted the bombs.
It's politically related and affects the UK so why shouldn't it be brought up in the UK politics thread, legacy issues were brought up a few weeks a go on this thread.
Kilkrazy wrote: Justice isn't about quid pro quo, or the other side's worse so we're fine.
Another piece of justice came out today, the revelation that between 1988 and 2001 an NHS hospital in Gosport, Hampshire killed at least 450 people with overdoses of opioid drugs like morphine.
The scandal isn't only the death toll, it's the fact that suspicions, allegations and whistle-blowing were denied and obfuscated by a variety of vested interests who preferred to protect the hospital establishment rather than properly investigate what had happened.
You find THAT shocking? Wait till you see how often it happens in Nursing Homes.
We had a nursing home revelation over here last week, it was actually terrifying what people can just let happen by sheer incompetence.
The application process for EU citizens to regularise their UK immigration status after Brexit was unveiled today in more-or-less what'll be its final form. It's basically what we reported it would be back in March – a commendably simple website biased towards granting permission, with the Home Office doing most of the work to prove someone's residence. They'll do this by checking Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) databases for tax or welfare payments.
The scheme will be open to any EU citizen who is in the UK between now and the end of the transition period on December 31st 2020. It is also expected to include EEA citizens from Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein, but that hasn't quite been signed off yet. It will include the close relations of EU citizens as well – their children, parents, grandparents and spouses.
At the point of application, the app will check records to see if you have been here for five years. If you have, you get settled status. If it's been less time – even if you arrived on December 29th 2020 – you get pre-settled status. Once you can show you have been here for five years, that upgrades to settled status.
The cost of the application is £65, which is set at roughly the cost of a passport. For kids it's half that. For people who already have residence it's free.
The app is slightly more complicated that I wrote in that March piece, but it remains commendably short and simple. At the start you enter your name, date of birth, and some kind of proof of identity, like a passport or European ID card number - and then take a selfie so this can be compared with the official document. There's an app for this bit which scans your passport, but it seems the Home Office have only managed to get it to work with Android and are having difficulties getting it authorised with Apple.
Then you need to show how long you've been resident. The quickest way to do this will be uploading a national insurance number. That'll then be used to check HMRC and DWP databases. The Home Office is insisting it won't care about or keep any of your personal tax information, it's just using it as a proxy for residence. This will then scan your records, see how long you've been in the UK, and give you either settled or pre-settled status.
If you want to dodge the national insurance number route - for instance if you haven't been working or claiming benefit - or if the system is saying you've been in the UK for less time than you really have been, you can start uploading documents.
The Home Office's preferred documents are things like bank statements, employer letters, P60s, care home letters or student finance letters. But they'll also accept lots of other types of proof, like payslips, invoices, utility bills, GPs, domestic bills or even a travel ticket to the UK. This second category of non-preferred document would require more uploads than the first.
The third and final part of the app will ask about criminal records, but only those with serious convictions who could pose a threat to the public – defined to the European legal standard – would be caught out by this.
When something doesn't work, the application is spat out to a case worker. But unlike most experiences with case workers, this time they are being instructed by the Home Office to help people pass. The expectation is that nearly everyone will.
The app is intended to start rolling out later this year and to be available to everyone by Brexit Day in March next year. It'll stay online until June 30th 2021.
So far, so good. It is not as good as free movement, of course, despite the promises made by government, because while you are in pre-settled status you can only leave the UK for six months in any one year. Your ability to come and go is restricted. But it is decent, and there's a pleasant surprise to seeing the Home Office create a system designed to pass applicants rather than make their life a misery. It is also proof of concept for a humane immigration model which can be raised by migrant rights in future as a gold standard for how things should be done.
But. There is a sense of over-confidence in the Home Office plans. They insist they are up to the logistical challenge of handling 3.7 million applications in a few years (roughly 5,000 a day, every day) because they do seven million passports and three million visas a year. But these are systems they already know well and which have been chugging along for years. The app is a completely new IT system, which has to be up and running quickly. The better comparisons are the infamous NHS IT system or universal credit, both of which were disasters.
The most obvious risk is a spike in demand. Some of this you can plan for – there will be spikes at the start and the end of the period, for instance. But there may also be spikes you did not see coming, perhaps because of some scare story on social media or other unforeseen problem. Can it handle that?
System resilience analysts often talk about the double-crisis: a system which can handle one problem, but collapses when two hit at once. What happens if there is a spike in demand at the same time as the national insurance number tracker finds a disproportionate number of two-year data point gaps in the HMRC database? That's where you'd have an issue.
The system is also heavily biased towards the young, the urban and the tech-literate. What about older people, who don't use the internet, let alone apps? What about the fruit-pickers who come for seasonal work and do not even speak English. What about people who do not read or care about the news? What about those with mental health problems, who are unaware this is happening or that their status could be in any way questioned?
The Home Office insists it is working hard with community groups and employers to access and help these types of people. But a lot of futures will be defined by how many people they can help and how dedicated they are to doing so.
The final danger is the future. At the moment, the promises are fine and dandy. But in some other part of that department, the colleagues of the people doing this were just weeks ago pursuing the Windrush Generation. People who'd lived here their whole lives – who'd received plenty of assurances about their status – were experiencing dawn raids, detention centres and deportation. Given that this is more in line with how the Home Office typically behaves, EU citizens could be forgiven for treating today's assurances with a pinch of salt.
I share the doubts about the strength of the IT systems, but cautiously supportive of the rest.
My next door neighbour was burgled last night whilst he was in his garden. My street is a really quiet mostly-retired sort of affair, so I've never known a serious crime in the 3.5 years I've been there.
Given a 1-day increase in crime roughly in the area of infinity percent, I now expect a daily struggle against the much-discussed hordes of beweaponed ne'erdowells.
Republicans have attempted to come forward. Peace and reconciliation commission. That's our offer. We've handed in as many of the disappeared as we could haven't we? If Gerry comes forward and says he's former OC Belfast will the files on Dublin-Monaghan be opened? Nope. McGurks bar? Doubt it. What motivation does the Republican movement have to point fingers at eachother? while the British government secretly cut up our dead and "lost" the evidence? I support the lads who did Enniskillen being sent to prison. But why should they go there, while the British government denies us the truth about Glennane?
Kilkrazy wrote: If it works, I think it actually sounds a pretty good system, especially with an Android app to let you do it easily with a smartphone.
It needs to be as simple and hurdle free as possible, and cheap.
The issue is that they are still second class citizens because they only are allocated a 'settled status'. There are concerns that if they go home to look after an ill relative for too long then that might be revoked. They can easily change those rules once we have left because of the 'settled' status as the remaining people in the Tory party become more right wing and desperate to please the anti-immigration crowd.
Javid is quoted as saying that there would have to be very good reasons things to be refused but decline to state what they are. Leaked reports show that the following red lines have been concluded by the Tory party:-
1) We are the Tory party and are racist donkey-caves
2) We are the Tory party and are racist donkey-caves pandering to racist donkey-caves
3) We are the Tory party and hate the idea of anyone other than being UK born being anything but slaves to the country (and we are racist donkey-caves).
On an aside note as a UK and EU individual member, can any UK citizen apply and be considered by the UK as a continued EU citizen?
Kilkrazy wrote: If it works, I think it actually sounds a pretty good system, especially with an Android app to let you do it easily with a smartphone.
It needs to be as simple and hurdle free as possible, and cheap.
The issue is that they are still second class citizens because they only are allocated a 'settled status'. There are concerns that if they go home to look after an ill relative for too long then that might be revoked. ... ...
Not sure what you want, really.
This is a route which gives EU citizens a fast track to remaining in the UK, much quicker, easier and cheaper than other nationalities.
Anyone who lives here long enough is entitled to apply for citizenship, if that's what they want. One of my work colleagues did it, who is a Polish lady.
This is a route which gives EU citizens a fast track to remaining in the UK, much quicker, easier and cheaper than other nationalities.
Anyone who lives here long enough is entitled to apply for citizenship, if that's what they want. One of my work colleagues did it, who is a Polish lady.
Basically treat them as any other UK human being in the country with no 'stigma' of being settled etc and allowing future changes to this defintion result in them beign considered differently. A dual nationality of sorts with no questions asked, no silly questions and so forth. If they don't wnat it then guarantueed to considered the same as any other UK human being. This is typical Tory gold plating a turd. Give you what you they think is acceptable only to show them that it really is a turd when they can get away with it.
I'd be ok with a settled status if it's irrevocable to prevent people getting screwed by going back to the EU for a while to look after family. Though I'd much rather see dual nationality.
r_squared wrote: When the IRA and other republican groups and members of the community start to cooperate into the investigations of the many murders committed by their members, then I think there will be a sense that justice is being sought in Northern Ireland.
Don't see many security force members coming forward about the crimes they committed? Are you not calling for loyalists to come forward either seeing as they killed more civilians than republicans actually did?
Republicans are being investigated over issues relating to the troubles (despite the lies May is pushing), it's just the army are getting a slightly disproportionate amount of investigations due to no one have been convicted for them at the time unlike those relating to paramilitaries.
I didn't say come forward, I said co-operate. Republican's have never co-operated in investigations to bring justice to the families of victims such as the Omagh bombing where shoppers and children were murdered in cold blood. When I start to see progress here, then I may change my views on the idea of "justice" in Northern Ireland.
But thanks for bringing political violence and murder into the politics thread.
So republicans should co-operate but no one else? Your idea of justice would appear to be republicans first then everyone else, paramilitaries are seen as criminals so surely the army who were there to protect people should be held to a higher moral standard. My problems with the issue stems from this belief that because these men wore a uniform they should be exempt or put to the end of the queue for inquires.
The Omagh bomb was carried out by a sub sect within a sub sect of republicanism that has cut ties with the main branches, so people are unlikely t come forward because the only ones who know anything are the ones who actually planted the bombs.
It's politically related and affects the UK so why shouldn't it be brought up in the UK politics thread, legacy issues were brought up a few weeks a go on this thread.
I never said that no one else should not co-operate, I just pointed out that republicans are not blameless and that there is a burning desire for justice on the British side too for the murders committed by republicans whatever "sub-sect" they belong too.
It boils my fething piss to see posts like this which are so one sided, so self righteous and so utterly dismissive of the pain that has been caused by this fething gak show. By all means demand justice, but be mindful of the fact that if you only focus on one side, you alienate and inflame the anger and resentment everywhere.
Republicans are just as guilty of atrocities in Northern Ireland, and after painful reflection I reconciled myself to the amnesty afforded by the GFA.
We learned from the experience of reconciliation in South Africa how best to go forward, yet it seems British soldiers are not being afforded any amnesty, and are being hung out to dry by these sort of proceedings.
It fething pisses me off more than I can reasonably express, me and every single serviceman and woman I know. It's fething bollocks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Everyone should be held to account for any wrong-doings on both sides.
Absolutely, however, the GFA took the path shown by Nelson Mandela in South Africa and pursued a "Truth and reconcilliation" policy which allowed us to move forward.
I remember very clearly that this was a chance for us to move past the horrors and violence of the past, and genuinely hoped that it would be lead to a long lasting peace. It seems that some people just want to drag us back into that quagmire.
Everybody involved in The Troubles should have been held accountable for their crimes, but we supposedly chose to forgive and forget in the GFA in the interests of peace. Now we appear to be reneging on that agreement, but we're only holding one side accountable. What is just and equitable about that?
I fully agree that any British Army or loyalist paramilitary veterans suspected of murder should be investigated, prosecuted and convicted. But can we please pursue the IRA with the same zeal?
Otherwise, it just looks to me like you're taking revenge, not seeking justice.
And feth me, I'm in agreement with R_squared. This has been a strange week for me.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Everybody involved in The Troubles should have been held accountable for their crimes, but we supposedly chose to forgive and forget in the GFA in the interests of peace. Now we appear to be reneging on that agreement, but we're only holding one side accountable. What is just and equitable about that?
I fully agree that any British Army or loyalist paramilitary veterans suspected of murder should be investigated, prosecuted and convicted.
But can we please pursue the IRA with the same zeal?
Otherwise, it just looks to me like you're taking revenge.
And feth me, I'm in agreement with R_squared. This has been a strange week for me.
We very rarely agree on anything, but in this instance I'm in full agreement with you.
If soldiers and loyalists are suspected of murder or war crimes, I WANT them to be prosecuted. I also want the IRA to be prosecuted too. Many of them were released early due to the GFA, I think that was wrong. Many more escaped justice. Some of them may even be in Government.
I have met you halfway and conceded that my "side" of the Troubles should be held accountable. Will you also meet me halfway and accept that the Republicans should also be held accountable?
Or will you confirm my characterisation of your bias and motivations?
The UK has reached the point where companies are making strategic decisions based on the worst case scenario because there still is no clarity on the post-Brexit set-up and it's too late for them -- they can't wait any longer.
How did we manage to get ourselves into this mess?
Kilkrazy wrote: How did we manage to get ourselves into this mess?
By voting yes for brexit. It was inevitable from that moment onward. Nothing anybody could do to prevent it as long as voting result would be taken as inviolable requirement. Now if goverment would have ignored it UK wouldn't be mess heading for self destruct but since they didn't...Well have fun.
A bizarre double think combination of the Tories hard core leavers believing there own hype about how easy things would be and at the same time being terrified that people would change there minds once they realized the truth. Leading them to invoke article 50 way to early and without any kind of plan.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Everybody involved in The Troubles should have been held accountable for their crimes, but we supposedly chose to forgive and forget in the GFA in the interests of peace. Now we appear to be reneging on that agreement, but we're only holding one side accountable. What is just and equitable about that?
I fully agree that any British Army or loyalist paramilitary veterans suspected of murder should be investigated, prosecuted and convicted.
But can we please pursue the IRA with the same zeal?
Otherwise, it just looks to me like you're taking revenge, not seeking justice.
And feth me, I'm in agreement with R_squared. This has been a strange week for me.
r_squared wrote:
I never said that no one else should not co-operate, I just pointed out that republicans are not blameless and that there is a burning desire for justice on the British side too for the murders committed by republicans whatever "sub-sect" they belong too.
It boils my fething piss to see posts like this which are so one sided, so self righteous and so utterly dismissive of the pain that has been caused by this fething gak show. By all means demand justice, but be mindful of the fact that if you only focus on one side, you alienate and inflame the anger and resentment everywhere.
Republicans are just as guilty of atrocities in Northern Ireland, and after painful reflection I reconciled myself to the amnesty afforded by the GFA.
We learned from the experience of reconciliation in South Africa how best to go forward, yet it seems British soldiers are not being afforded any amnesty, and are being hung out to dry by these sort of proceedings.
It fething pisses me off more than I can reasonably express, me and every single serviceman and woman I know. It's fething bollocks.
But republicans are being investigated, and there's more investigations concerning republican crimes during the troubles than security forces. The main reason the security forces cases are so high profile is that the nationalist and loyalist community accept that their people will be investigated and are in fact glad their actually being investigated instead of just lifting ransomers from the street and beating them to get some confessions, whereas the security forces either believe they shouldn't be investigated or have decided they're being victimised.
And the OTR letters received by republicans is not a get out of jail free card as so many like to push, it simply said that unless new evidence comes forward they won't be prosecuted as in many cases there is very little actual evidence.
If republicans have this so called amnesty, why was Gerry Adams arrested in 2014 relating to an event from 1972?
The UK has reached the point where companies are making strategic decisions based on the worst case scenario because there still is no clarity on the post-Brexit set-up and it's too late for them -- they can't wait any longer.
It's curious on how many ways the UK-Airbus relationship mimics the wider UK-EU history.
The UK didn't really commit to Airbus until it was already off the ground, with Hawker-Siddeley doing some work, but not a full member. Much in the same way the UK formed EFTA instead of joining the EC.
Only with the A300 already a technical success (and a relatively commercial success as well) they joined as a full member.... to jump ship again with the A380 development problems and uncertainty over the A350.
If soldiers and loyalists are suspected of murder or war crimes, I WANT them to be prosecuted.
I also want the IRA to be prosecuted too. Many of them were released early due to the GFA, I think that was wrong. Many more escaped justice. Some of them may even be in Government.
I have met you halfway and conceded that my "side" of the Troubles should be held accountable.
Will you also meet me halfway and accept that the Republicans should also be held accountable?
Or will you confirm my characterisation of your bias and motivations?
Indeed I firmly believe that people who intentionally killed civilians on both sides should serve time. I have no interest in British soldiers being dragged into the dock for stuff like getting Joe McCann: as Spence put it, he was a soldier of the Irish Republic and he died. It's the ones who did stuff like Enniskillen and kingsmills who I want in. The GFA gives only two years for a troubles conviction. I don't particularly care if the soldier gets his two years: I just want the judge to pronounce what he did as murder. I want the truth. I want the people who colluded to be called colluders. I want the people who threw bombs into pubs to be known as pub bombers.
That's the key thing many families have asked for. The truth. We can all jail eachother but nobody is coming back to life from it. We can at least give closure.
r_squared wrote: When the IRA and other republican groups and members of the community start to cooperate into the investigations of the many murders committed by their members, then I think there will be a sense that justice is being sought in Northern Ireland.
Don't see many security force members coming forward about the crimes they committed? Are you not calling for loyalists to come forward either seeing as they killed more civilians than republicans actually did?
Republicans are being investigated over issues relating to the troubles (despite the lies May is pushing), it's just the army are getting a slightly disproportionate amount of investigations due to no one have been convicted for them at the time unlike those relating to paramilitaries.
I didn't say come forward, I said co-operate. Republican's have never co-operated in investigations to bring justice to the families of victims such as the Omagh bombing where shoppers and children were murdered in cold blood. When I start to see progress here, then I may change my views on the idea of "justice" in Northern Ireland.
But thanks for bringing political violence and murder into the politics thread.
So republicans should co-operate but no one else? Your idea of justice would appear to be republicans first then everyone else, paramilitaries are seen as criminals so surely the army who were there to protect people should be held to a higher moral standard. My problems with the issue stems from this belief that because these men wore a uniform they should be exempt or put to the end of the queue for inquires.
The Omagh bomb was carried out by a sub sect within a sub sect of republicanism that has cut ties with the main branches, so people are unlikely t come forward because the only ones who know anything are the ones who actually planted the bombs.
It's politically related and affects the UK so why shouldn't it be brought up in the UK politics thread, legacy issues were brought up a few weeks a go on this thread.
I never said that no one else should not co-operate, I just pointed out that republicans are not blameless and that there is a burning desire for justice on the British side too for the murders committed by republicans whatever "sub-sect" they belong too.
It boils my fething piss to see posts like this which are so one sided, so self righteous and so utterly dismissive of the pain that has been caused by this fething gak show. By all means demand justice, but be mindful of the fact that if you only focus on one side, you alienate and inflame the anger and resentment everywhere.
Republicans are just as guilty of atrocities in Northern Ireland, and after painful reflection I reconciled myself to the amnesty afforded by the GFA.
We learned from the experience of reconciliation in South Africa how best to go forward, yet it seems British soldiers are not being afforded any amnesty, and are being hung out to dry by these sort of proceedings.
It fething pisses me off more than I can reasonably express, me and every single serviceman and woman I know. It's fething bollocks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Everyone should be held to account for any wrong-doings on both sides.
Absolutely, however, the GFA took the path shown by Nelson Mandela in South Africa and pursued a "Truth and reconcilliation" policy which allowed us to move forward.
I remember very clearly that this was a chance for us to move past the horrors and violence of the past, and genuinely hoped that it would be lead to a long lasting peace. It seems that some people just want to drag us back into that quagmire.
Gerry Adams was questioned by the police pretty recently about this stuff. To say they are not pursuing Republicans or are only pursuing one side is blatantly untrue. We have known cases of British soldiers illegally massacring unarmed civillians which were in the first instance covered up and then when later uncovered no one is prosecuted. So I think it is frankly bs to say that there is a pro-republican bias. There are cases of serial killers walking free because they were informants in Unionist terrorist groups, unionist terrorist groups being armed by security forces and the whole lot.
I personally think it would be much healther to have a proper truth and reconcilliation process, but it is blocked by both sides for various reasons. I absolutely object to the idea that there is an unfair witch hunt of British service personnel though, as it is just not a realistic complaint. Cases are pursued on both sides, but it is inarguable that the British army has gotten off very lightly for it's terrible behaviour in Northern Ireland.
The real problem is the situation that created the Troubles (systematic oppression of Catholics aided and abetted by the police and militias) and the decision to send in the Army in the first place. Nationalists were British citizens too, but they have and are always treated like a foreign group inside the country and it really sticks in my craw to see the double standards applied to NI and the rest of the UK in terms of what was allowed to go on there.
I am not pro-IRA btw, would never in my fething life vote Sinn Fein. My dad is a Garda and one of his colleagues was shot by the bastards. He had to worry about being shot by them often enough, himself.
If soldiers and loyalists are suspected of murder or war crimes, I WANT them to be prosecuted.
I also want the IRA to be prosecuted too. Many of them were released early due to the GFA, I think that was wrong. Many more escaped justice. Some of them may even be in Government.
I have met you halfway and conceded that my "side" of the Troubles should be held accountable.
Will you also meet me halfway and accept that the Republicans should also be held accountable?
Or will you confirm my characterisation of your bias and motivations?
Indeed I firmly believe that people who intentionally killed civilians on both sides should serve time. I have no interest in British soldiers being dragged into the dock for stuff like getting Joe McCann: as Spence put it, he was a soldier of the Irish Republic and he died. It's the ones who did stuff like Enniskillen and kingsmills who I want in. The GFA gives only two years for a troubles conviction. I don't particularly care if the soldier gets his two years: I just want the judge to pronounce what he did as murder. I want the truth. I want the people who colluded to be called colluders. I want the people who threw bombs into pubs to be known as pub bombers.
That's the key thing many families have asked for. The truth. We can all jail eachother but nobody is coming back to life from it. We can at least give closure.
The car giant BMW has followed plane maker Airbus in warning of the adverse consequences of Brexit.
BMW UK boss Ian Robertson told the BBC it needed clarity by the end of the summer. It makes the Mini and Rolls Royce in the UK.
Earlier, Airbus warned it could leave the UK if it exits the European Union single market and customs union without a transition deal.
The UK government says it is confident of getting a good deal for industry.
The customs union brings together the EU's 28 members in a duty-free area, in which they pay the same rate of duty on non-EU goods
Prime Minister Theresa May has ruled out staying in the customs union. The UK is due to leave the EU on 29 March 2019.
Mr Robertson said he needed to know what the government's preferred position is on customs and trade within months or his company - and the UK's - competitive position could be harmed.
"If we don't get clarity in the next couple of months we have to start making those contingency plans - which means investing money in systems that we might not need... which means making the UK less competitive than it is in a very competitive world right now," he said.
He said it was a decisive issue that ultimately could damage his industry.
Airbus, in its Brexit "risk assessment" published on Thursday, said if the UK left the EU next year without a deal - meaning it left both the single market and customs union immediately and without any agreed transition - it would "lead to severe disruption and interruption of UK production"
but remember when we leave the Eu we hold all the cards !
They said so.
They said Germany would fold really quickly as they'll want to keep selling us cars.
but remember when we leave the Eu we hold all the cards !
They said so.
They said Germany would fold really quickly as they'll want to keep selling us cars.
The 6pm news also said something similar. That basically the EU were playing hard ball now but at the last moment will cave and give us a good deal.
This of course being delusional thinking. There is little appetite in the EU countries to give the UK a soft time. I was talking to people from the northern Europe whilst in South Africa and the populace themselves don't want the EU to break their lines on any deal. There is neither the political or public will for this to happen.
And you have to question why they would do this? The high tech companies that rely on global and European supplies will be hit by even a softish Wrexit. Although the high tech companies might not leave immediately, they will be planning to move abroad as it avoids the extra Wrexit costs. The aerospace industry is reliant of both the customs union *and* freedom of movement. Take Rolls Royce - what I hadnt appreciated was that they make a loss on every engine they sell. The profit comes from the engineering support they subsequently provide. They are constantly moving high tech engineers back and forth. Any extra delays here results in extra costs that they can avoid somewhere in the EU.
We may still be able to make our cakes and biscuits but the highly advanced work will just leave.
There's also an interesting discussion on just in time systems here and why Wrexit is such a bad idea *even with* a Norway model.
Why are they incapable of understanding pretty basic concepts ?
Spoiler:
.... well after all what's a mere 10% of your economy eh ?
..one could be nitpicky and point out that the fishing industry is about 1% of our economy -- dwarfed by the pet insurance industry for example IIRC -- and that was worth sailing up the Thames for and --illegally -- dumping dead fish in the river.
Why are they incapable of understanding pretty basic concepts ?
I think it shows the type of people that got us into this mess and there will be a type of people out there that agree with them. Never going to accept their responsibility in this mess. It will always be someone else's fault. Of course given that we are in a capitalist market I wonder what exact proposals they have in mind to stop them? Guns perhaps?
Spoiler:
.... well after all what's a mere 10% of your economy eh ?
..one could be nitpicky and point out that the fishing industry is about 1% of our economy -- dwarfed by the pet insurance industry for example IIRC -- and that was worth sailing up the Thames for and --illegally -- dumping dead fish in the river.
He also thinks we should ignore the 80% service industry that will get hit. But to hell with the 90% if he gets his disaster Wrexit.
Still at least the Times has a credible answer for all those people put out of a job at Airbus...
As usual, the Remoaners are pointing out the serious problems they see, with facts and figures to back it up, and the Be-Leavers' response is, "You're only saying that because you're political. Everything will be marvellous because we say so."
I thought one of the things (wrongly) claimed by anti EU lot and Farage was that we didn’t make anything and leaving the EU would somehow fix this because manufacturing was vital to the UK?
A lot of people are brushing it off and saying it won’t happen, it’s just talk, but the reality is companies are folding before Brexit has even happened. I don’t know what is going to happen here,” said Lawless. “We just need to try and stick together and hope that the government will fight for us.”
Lawless voted leave in the EU referendum but said he did not regret his decision.“I was in two minds. I wanted to leave but obviously a lot of people were asking questions before about if we were to leave, how it would affect us,” he said.
“People were saying it would never affect us here because it’s too big a company. I’m still happy I voted for it but I thought we had more of a hold and a footing here in Broughton.”
A number of intellectual leaps here.
1. A vague hope that the Govt will fight for them and protect them from his decision. Good luck with that sunshine.
2. A lack of regret for making a decision that will directly impoverish him, his colleagues, their families and the whole community.
3. Happy to vote for something that will almost certainly destroy his livelihood and that of many thousands of people throughout the country because he believed that he'd be "alright jack". But, even now seeing that it's going to happen, still thinks he made the right decision.
I think I may avoid flying on any aircraft contributed to by this intellectual stunner. What a pillock.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: I thought one of the things (wrongly) claimed by anti EU lot and Farage was that we didn’t make anything and leaving the EU would somehow fix this because manufacturing was vital to the UK?
I've worked on the basic premise that anything Nigel Farage says, thinks or proposes is utter worthless bollocks, and that any normal, thinking individual should automatically hold the opposite view just to be on the safe side.
Steve steveson wrote: I thought one of the things (wrongly) claimed by anti EU lot and Farage was that we didn’t make anything and leaving the EU would somehow fix this because manufacturing was vital to the UK?
This would be called a lie...unfortunately it managed to permeate the argument because too many people just didn't question the basic fact that we are between the 8th - 12th largest manufacturing country in the world with a heavy focus on high tech industries that rely on free movement of people and trade.
3. Happy to vote for something that will almost certainly destroy his livelihood and that of many thousands of people throughout the country because he believed that he'd be "alright jack". But, even now seeing that it's going to happen, still thinks he made the right decision.
I think I may avoid flying on any aircraft contributed to by this intellectual stunner. What a pillock.
Not everyone builds a plane needs to be that bright. In fact I can imagine a lot of the assembly line stuff is likely really boring an tedious (though I would have hoped that might have given people a bit more time to think things over).
In the end it is cogitative dissonance. The change of tact in the conversation is that they are already lining someone else up for the blame and not looking at their own role in the fiasco.
---------------------------------
I see both Boris and Davis are obnoxiouly blazing away again (just happens to be that a large march is happening on Wrexit. Apparently Davis thinks it will be fantastic to leave the EU. Probably for him. Of course those people who will be losing their jobs well he doesn't care about.
Also the Scum is talking about Boris's comment on bog rolls. For once they are correct....
.
.
.
Boris does indeed talk sh*t!
Strawberry and other soft fruit farmers are warning of potential shortages because they are struggling to find enough workers to pick fruit.
The British Summer Fruits (BSF) trade body said its members were 10% to 15% short of labour and expect to be more than 30% short by the autumn as the government drags its feet on a seasonal agricultural workers scheme.
Nick Marston, the BSF chairman, said: “The industry is now threatened by lack of government action with regard to seasonal labour.”
He said more than three-quarters of British berry-growers were already scaling back production and trimming investment plans amid fears that fruit would be left rotting in the fields.
“Any fall in home-grown production not only increases our dependence on imported fruit but will inevitably lead to significant price rises,” Marston said.
Farmers have already raised the pay of pickers to more than £10 an hour to try to attract EU workers after the fall of the pound against the euro reduced the value of their take-home pay.
But they are also suffering labour shortages caused by a fall in the number of Romanian and Bulgarian workers looking for work abroad because they now have better job prospects at home.
Other EU countries, such as Germany, have tackled the problem with visa schemes that enable Ukrainians, Moldovans and other non-EU nationals to do seasonal work.
But Marston said the British government had not fulfilled its promise to do the same in the short term and there was still no clarity on a visa system for EU workers after Brexit.
“While this is not an issue caused directly by Brexit, solutions are being hamstrung by Brexit and the government’s inability to make firm decisions,” he said.
Marston said he believed progress was being blocked by No 10. “We urge the prime minister to do what she knows is the right thing,” he said.
.. well so much for the jam exports that were going to save the country.
I'm sure any minute though those bold patriots who voted for this garbage will roll up their sleeves and go forth and help out here.
reds8n wrote: 2016 : “Brexit will provide more opportunities for business”
easy and endless trade deals and we'll all be better off.
2018
Spoiler:
Boris is a gak, talks gak and would gak over his own grandmother if he thought it would give him more power. Hence the reality that he doesn't care about anything other than himself.
Please don't bypass the language filter like this.
This is a good review of who Boris really is.
.. well so much for the jam exports that were going to save the country.
I'm sure any minute though those bold patriots who voted for this garbage will roll up their sleeves and go forth and help out here.
I'm wondering just how long it will now be until the Tories start invoking forced labour on any group that they think can be exploited for their own gains on the basis of making them more 'patriotic'.
People like the MP Victoria Atkins who thinks it is entirely reasonable that a family of criminal; that have committed no crimes themselves should be kicked out of their Council housing.
I repeat she is talking about people that have not committed *any* crime, could be their children, elderly grandparents. People that are already on the lowest income scales because they are in Council Housing should be thrown onto the street for simply being associated as a blood relative to a criminal. No prosecution, no court case, just guilt by association. No wonder the Tories want to get out of the ECJ and ECHR.
and I am sure the EU has taken note of these comments by Rees Mogg. That whatever deal is made there are some (and likely to be next leaders of the Tory party) are happy to throw under a bus.
An interesting piece in The Guardina looking at the Tory Party's possible lack of a future.
It has been obvious for years that the referendum and the mess over Brexit was caused by Conservative party leaders trying to avoid their party splitting apart or lose too many votes to UKIP (which turns out largely to have been a right-wing party rather than an anti-EU party with broad support.)
It's still going on now, that's why May has these weekly crises of her own ministers contradicting her and repudiating official policy.
The EU trying very hard to politely explain that it’s “sign up to their rules or GTFO”, in case there’s any Brexiters still occupying a space other than reality.
The EU trying very hard to politely explain that it’s “sign up to their rules or GTFO”, in case there’s any Brexiters still occupying a space other than reality.
With the funniest part being that Britain actually participated in writing these very same rules they now seem to have trouble comprehending.
The EU trying very hard to politely explain that it’s “sign up to their rules or GTFO”, in case there’s any Brexiters still occupying a space other than reality.
What they should do is play this clip over and over and over at the 6pm ands 10pm news until these people with obviously very thick skulls get this message into their brains that the EU is not going to sacrifice the pillars it stands on just because we are the UK.
In other news Jeremy Hunt has claimed Airbus and BMW are threatening the UK.
Apparently he knows what businesses want, despite the fact that businesses are screaming at them about the direction they are heading in.
But we should all get behind Theresa May...erh no she can f' off if she thinks all the right minded people in this country are quite happy to see her throw it all down the drain for her and the Tory's hunger for dictatorial power.
"We are in an absolutely critical moment in the Brexit discussions and what that means is that we need to get behind Theresa May to deliver the best possible Brexit."
Yes goverment might need. Companies meanwhile need to do what's right for them. The fool hunt seems to have little grasp of real world.
So Godwin himself has started godwinning. These days are dark indeed. A clear omen that the End Times are nigh.
tneva82 wrote: "We are in an absolutely critical moment in the Brexit discussions and what that means is that we need to get behind Theresa May to deliver the best possible Brexit."
Yes goverment might need. Companies meanwhile need to do what's right for them. The fool hunt seems to have little grasp of real world.
And little grasp of what 'threat' means. Dear Mister Hunt, a warning is not a threat.
This is why I am hoping England wins the World Cup this year, or at least does very well. I think poor old England feels a bit insecure and needs cheering up.
Da Boss wrote: This is why I am hoping England wins the World Cup this year, or at least does very well. I think poor old England feels a bit insecure and needs cheering up.
Only if you never, ever, ever want to hear the end of it.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Brexiteers spin these things as "threats" to maintain the "Plucky Brits versus Evil EU Empire" narrative which underpins their identity crisis.
Of course that becomes flawed when it becomes Tory Government claiming it knows what businesses want vs what UK businesses want (apart from a couple of nonsense exploit the staff companies like Weatherspoon's).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: This is why I am hoping England wins the World Cup this year, or at least does very well. I think poor old England feels a bit insecure and needs cheering up.
I really think there is very little chance of this happening. We've scraped a win against a league 2 side and trounced a conference league side. Still I'm sure there will be plenty of people this evening plotting our inevitable course to victory.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Brexiteers spin these things as "threats" to maintain the "Plucky Brits versus Evil EU Empire" narrative which underpins their identity crisis.
Of course that becomes flawed when it becomes Tory Government claiming it knows what businesses want vs what UK businesses want (apart from a couple of nonsense exploit the staff companies like Weatherspoon's).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: This is why I am hoping England wins the World Cup this year, or at least does very well. I think poor old England feels a bit insecure and needs cheering up.
I really think there is very little chance of this happening. We've scraped a win against a league 2 side and trounced a conference league side. Still I'm sure there will be plenty of people this evening plotting our inevitable course to victory.
Da Boss wrote: This is why I am hoping England wins the World Cup this year, or at least does very well. I think poor old England feels a bit insecure and needs cheering up.
Da Boss wrote: This is why I am hoping England wins the World Cup this year, or at least does very well. I think poor old England feels a bit insecure and needs cheering up.
Little England (a specific entity, not related to the whole) has been feeling insecure since, well, my entire life at least. Hence the ‘aaaargh! Foreigners’ drivel that’s been a constant lynchpin of the right wing.
tneva82 wrote: "We are in an absolutely critical moment in the Brexit discussions and what that means is that we need to get behind Theresa May to deliver the best possible Brexit."
Yes goverment might need. Companies meanwhile need to do what's right for them. The fool hunt seems to have little grasp of real world.
yep but getting behind someone is the best place to stick the knife in...
Da Boss wrote: This is why I am hoping England wins the World Cup this year, or at least does very well. I think poor old England feels a bit insecure and needs cheering up.
Little England (a specific entity, not related to the whole) has been feeling insecure since, well, my entire life at least. Hence the ‘aaaargh! Foreigners’ drivel that’s been a constant lynchpin of the right wing.
Da Boss wrote: This is why I am hoping England wins the World Cup this year, or at least does very well. I think poor old England feels a bit insecure and needs cheering up.
Little England (a specific entity, not related to the whole) has been feeling insecure since, well, my entire life at least. Hence the ‘aaaargh! Foreigners’ drivel that’s been a constant lynchpin of the right wing.
Winning would least let everyone forget brexit for abit and just go down pub and get hammered for a day.
TL/DR: Brexit: Car investment slumps as 'uncertainty bites'
And we already had an investment problem before this.
But you forget - Jeremy Hunt and Theresa May know exactly what businesses want without asking them (or only those that give them the answer they want).
It's not a surprise really, why invest money in new facilities if you are goign tofind the costs of staying in that area will outweight the benefits of investing there. Better off movign the money to somewhere with more certainty.
But Project Fear right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Graphite wrote: And then they'll call a general election on the back of the feelgood mood of the country.
After the last time I don't think May will ever risk that gamble ever again. That Tory rebels will in the end vote for the party rather than the best interests of the country shows just how much they fear that the next GE will give Labour power (or a left wing coalition).
But this would mean the whole narrative about this being against "The Elites" -- who are currently busy making sure their life, work and travel will not be affected too much by Brexit -- is nothing but a shallow soap bubble construct and the reality is we've been suckered into a short term cash grab by the rich off of disaster capitalism.
.. who knew ..?
EU free trade negotiating mandates for Australia and New Zealand now public.
But this would mean the whole narrative about this being against "The Elites" -- who are currently busy making sure their life, work and travel will not be affected too much by Brexit -- is nothing but a shallow soap bubble construct and the reality is we've been suckered into a short term cash grab by the rich off of disaster capitalism.
.. who knew ..?
The whole Wrexit referendum gets more shadier the more people look into the details. Here is another review of the investigation.
EU free trade negotiating mandates for Australia and New Zealand now public.
UBS survey of 600 companies spells out Brexit "dividend":
Spoiler:
so that's
35% of companies plan to reduce UK investment post-Brexit
- 41% plan to move a large amount of capacity out of UK - 42% plan to shift capacity to euro zone
You hoover up all the rotting fruit in the fields
Mash it together with chlorinated chicken
Let it sit for a few weeks stewing stuck at the ports
And then serve it raw on make believe cakes
UK Government knows what the public want and it is the will of the people to eat this tripe.
UK Government expects it to bring in £350m a week (*Civil servants that dispute this figure and claim no one will ever buy it are summarily executed through firing and then minced into the jam for good measure).
So the summit is tomorrow and as far as I can see, Britain is just walking into it shrugging and saying "No plan, whaddayagonnado?"
Either the UK has to capitulate and come to the table on NI, or the EU should take transition back off the table as the UK has violated the December agreement. I wonder if the EU will have the stones to do that, or are we in for another frustrating, disappointing fudge. I think it would be better to deliver the shock therapy now, giving the UK time to come to it's senses, rather than waiting to the last minute and risking a catastrophiic crash out.
Da Boss wrote: So the summit is tomorrow and as far as I can see, Britain is just walking into it shrugging and saying "No plan, whaddayagonnado?"
Either the UK has to capitulate and come to the table on NI, or the EU should take transition back off the table as the UK has violated the December agreement. I wonder if the EU will have the stones to do that, or are we in for another frustrating, disappointing fudge. I think it would be better to deliver the shock therapy now, giving the UK time to come to it's senses, rather than waiting to the last minute and risking a catastrophiic crash out.
If I was the EU, I would go to this meeting and see what the UK has to say. If it's more nonsense, I would tell the UK that they've blown their chance, run out of time, so we're not going to bother with any more negotiations. We're now preparing for a chaotic Brexit designed to give maximum protection to the EU.
But it won't work like that. The EU is used to negotiating and negotiating on and on until everything is worked out. The EU will happily continue to negotiate with the UK for another 10 years, if the UK wants to carry on with it.
Unfortunately for the UK, the UK has set various time limits and red lines which make it impossible to carry on without a massive climb-down by the PM which would result in the Conservative Party exploding, so it won't happen.
No they won't if there's no point visible and UK isn't giving any reason to think the waste of money of prolonged discussions are going to go. Seeing 2 year time limit extension requires unanimous aproval by 27 countries you can bet somebody will say "we are tired of paying more because UK can't get their gak together"
They can potentially just spend less and less effort/money as time goes on. But you're right, at some point they'll say enough is enough and we'll just crash out. Hopefully the UK gov will be able to decide on something when the run out of time for stalling.
The EU really should host these negotiations with a live broad/cast audience, just to show how unprepared the UK is.
This is something else that they should show as the first thing on the news for the next year until people get it into their heads what is about to happen. On the other hand you can see why Trump would want a trade deal. Weak country desperate for anything will surrender almost anything.
Tory approach to Wrexit...
They haven't actually done a lot of, sort of, macroeconomic modelling of this, almost, like deliberately. Like "We don't want to know, because leaving is going to be great and it's what people voted for so lets not spend government money on analysis that suggests that maybe people got it wrong"
Unfortunately for the UK, the UK has set various time limits and red lines which make it impossible to carry on without a massive climb-down by the PM which would result in the Conservative Party exploding, so it won't happen.
They will probably do that anyway when the public realise just how much of a turd they been given for a few people's benefit.
It's a funny thing that human contentment seems to work in relative terms, not absolute. We're okay as long as we're better off than most people we know in whatever metric is important to us. Status is a very common metric, and money is heavily tied into this.
So when you look at many of the leading Brexiteers it's a common thread to find that they are wealthy individuals already, and that most of that wealth is independent of a functioning economy. People who own vast estates, or property portfolios, or foreign investment funds, etc don't have to worry about actually being employed to have income rolling in. Terms like rising GDP or falling unemployment are actually an anathema to such types, as it shows a burgeoning middle class whose status is rising to meet theirs.
So what can they do about it? Simple, use whatever means necessary to tank the economy completely. Make anyone dependent on wages suffer for a generation or two whilst maintaining your own position of privilege.You may not actually gain anything (unless you're in a position to "gamble" on forewarned currency markets) but if you make the bulk of the population worse off then your contentment level rises automatically as they gap has enlarged.
Riquende wrote: It's a funny thing that human contentment seems to work in relative terms, not absolute. We're okay as long as we're better off than most people we know in whatever metric is important to us. Status is a very common metric, and money is heavily tied into this.
So when you look at many of the leading Brexiteers it's a common thread to find that they are wealthy individuals already, and that most of that wealth is independent of a functioning economy. People who own vast estates, or property portfolios, or foreign investment funds, etc don't have to worry about actually being employed to have income rolling in. Terms like rising GDP or falling unemployment are actually an anathema to such types, as it shows a burgeoning middle class whose status is rising to meet theirs.
So what can they do about it? Simple, use whatever means necessary to tank the economy completely. Make anyone dependent on wages suffer for a generation or two whilst maintaining your own position of privilege.You may not actually gain anything (unless you're in a position to "gamble" on forewarned currency markets) but if you make the bulk of the population worse off then your contentment level rises automatically as they gap has enlarged.
So basically what you are saying is that these are the people that support Wrexit...(and most of the Tories)
and this is what happens when a lower person (in their eyes) becomes successful...
Neil Hamilton adopting the visual cues and language of alt-right YouTube stars (the map!) as part of some reverse cultural takeover of UKIP.
I’d like to welcome @PrisonPlanet, Sargon of Akkad, @CountDankulaTV and Milo Yiannopoulos to UKIP. I look forward to them developing truly dank memes that will trigger lefty luvvies like @GaryLineker, @mrjamesob and their politically correct establishment chums. Onwards!
...given recent events this has well quickly eh ?
..somewhat laughable that Hamilton claims not to be establishment eh ?
I'm sure the guy from Prison Planet/infowars will quickly help UKIP gain credibility,.
I’d like to welcome @PrisonPlanet, Sargon of Akkad, @CountDankulaTV and Milo Yiannopoulos to UKIP. I look forward to them developing truly dank memes that will trigger lefty luvvies like @GaryLineker, @mrjamesob and their politically correct establishment chums. Onwards!
Like a naive fool who still believed there was at least some maturity in even fringe politics, I assumed this was some sort of Onion-themed spoof but... no?
Neil Hamilton adopting the visual cues and language of alt-right YouTube stars (the map!) as part of some reverse cultural takeover of UKIP.
I’d like to welcome @PrisonPlanet, Sargon of Akkad, @CountDankulaTV and Milo Yiannopoulos to UKIP. I look forward to them developing truly dank memes that will trigger lefty luvvies like @GaryLineker, @mrjamesob and their politically correct establishment chums. Onwards!
...given recent events this has well quickly eh ?
..somewhat laughable that Hamilton claims not to be establishment eh ?
I'm sure the guy from Prison Planet/infowars will quickly help UKIP gain credibility,.
Like...they aren't even pretending to stand for anything, they've literally abandoned any pretense of an actual ideology beyond "because it pisses off the left". A true braintrust there.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Can we get a summary that isn't an hour's worth of Youtube videos?
He's an idiot who cannot read.
He also got banned from Twitter for sending gay porn to people.
You posted a youtube rant to discredit someone who...does youtube rants. Thats rather petty.
He sent interracial gay porn to the Alt Right, to piss them off and get them to stop following him. Kinda exposes the lie that he's Alt-Right, doesn't it? The Alt-Right hates him as much as the Far-Left does.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: ...You posted a youtube rant to discredit someone who...does youtube rants. Thats rather petty.
He sent interracial gay porn to the Alt Right, to piss them off and get them to stop following him. Kinda exposes the lie that he's Alt-Right, doesn't it? The Alt-Right hates him as much as the Far-Left does.
I don't think it matters, he seems like a kind of lazy, uninformed pseudo-intellectual dill weed to me.
But a good fit for the rest of them all the same tbh.
Someone would have some serious issues If these people were the people they chose to best represent your ideals and worldview.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Can we get a summary that isn't an hour's worth of Youtube videos?
He's an idiot who cannot read.
He also got banned from Twitter for sending gay porn to people.
You posted a youtube rant to discredit someone who...does youtube rants. Thats rather petty.
He sent interracial gay porn to the Alt Right, to piss them off and get them to stop following him. Kinda exposes the lie that he's Alt-Right, doesn't it? The Alt-Right hates him as much as the Far-Left does.
First, all of the videos I posted use peer reviewed research to back up their points and the studies say what they say they say, unlike Carl's videos.
No the alt-right likes him because he exposes their arguments to a wider audience. You dont need to send gay porn to get people to stop following you if you don't say what they want to hear in the first place.
He uses the same flawed anti-feminism, anti-islam arguments that the alt right uses but then gets confused why the alt right likes him. He then cries about some left wing conspiracy when twitter bans him for breaking its terms of service.
Basically, if you don't want the alt-right to follow you, don't push their talking points with the same lack of understanding of basic data analysis and how peer review works as they have. If you do push their talking points, don't act surprised when people lump you in with them. And don't start a petition to ban social studies courses in universities under the guise that they are left wing indoctrination classes telling you to hate men.
As soon as the words "cultural marxism" exit your mouth and not in the context of telling everyone that the conspiracy theory is bs, you need to stop and have a long hard look at yourself, because there is a very high chance you are parroting alt-right talking points.
From Politico.eu's summary of important points from the EU summit:
politico.eu wrote:As a former U.K. home secretary, May was in her element in the marathon negotiation on migration policy. You could almost have forgotten that Brexit was on the agenda too.
While the core of the eventual compromise was a proposal championed by France’s Emmanuel Macron to create “controlled centers” for asylum seekers on EU territory, May intervened helpfully to describe the U.K.’s efforts at strategic communications to discourage migrants from turning to smugglers.
She made clear Britain’s own interest in helping Europe manage migration and asylum and helped to negotiate important changes in the (English) language of the leaders’ conclusions. When the nine-hour debate ended just before dawn, May emerged looking as exhausted — and as happy — as her EU27 colleagues.
Of course, the U.K. remains a full member of the EU until formal withdrawal on March 29, 2019, and London has a clear interest in cultivating good will.
“You have to give it to her,” said a senior EU official. “She did in fact contribute constructively and positively to the migration debate. We will miss the U.K. for so many reasons. This is just another one of them.”
The common idea that it was always the UK against the rest isn't even true now.
monarda wrote: From Politico.eu's summary of important points from the EU summit:
politico.eu wrote:As a former U.K. home secretary, May was in her element in the marathon negotiation on migration policy. You could almost have forgotten that Brexit was on the agenda too.
While the core of the eventual compromise was a proposal championed by France’s Emmanuel Macron to create “controlled centers” for asylum seekers on EU territory, May intervened helpfully to describe the U.K.’s efforts at strategic communications to discourage migrants from turning to smugglers.
She made clear Britain’s own interest in helping Europe manage migration and asylum and helped to negotiate important changes in the (English) language of the leaders’ conclusions. When the nine-hour debate ended just before dawn, May emerged looking as exhausted — and as happy — as her EU27 colleagues.
Of course, the U.K. remains a full member of the EU until formal withdrawal on March 29, 2019, and London has a clear interest in cultivating good will.
“You have to give it to her,” said a senior EU official. “She did in fact contribute constructively and positively to the migration debate. We will miss the U.K. for so many reasons. This is just another one of them.”
The common idea that it was always the UK against the rest isn't even true now.
It was never true; the idea that it was the UK vs the rest of the EU is an invention of the right wing to provide a scape goat for unpopular/ill considered domestic policies. Some examples: you can’t have nationalised railways (yes you can), you can’t subsidise or protect strategic industries like steel (yes you can), you can’t have blue passports (yes you can), etc., etc.
While Mr. Banks was spending more than eight million British pounds to promote a break with the European Union — an outcome the Russians eagerly hoped for — his contacts at the Russian Embassy in London were opening the door to at least three potentially lucrative investment opportunities in Russian-owned gold or diamond mines.
One of Mr. Banks’s business partners, and a fellow backer of Britain’s exit from the European Union, or Brexit, took the Russians up on at least one of the deals.
The extent of these business discussions, which have not been previously reported, raise new questions about whether the Kremlin sought to reward critical figures in the Brexit campaign. Much as in Washington, where investigations are underway into the possibility that Donald J. Trump’s campaign may have cooperated with the Russians, Britain is now grappling with whether Moscow tried to use its close ties with any British citizens to promote Brexit
perfectly normal behaviour.
Who isn't casually offered part ownership of gold and diamond mines.
David Davis has spent just 4 hours in talks with Michel Barnier this year
David Davis, Britain’s chief Brexit negotiator, has held only four hours of talks with his Brussels opposite number this year, according to government records.
The lack of political engagement was cited by EU leaders on Friday as they rebuked the UK for slow progress on Brexit. In a joint summit statement, they insisted on “the need for intensified efforts” and warned that there had been “no substantial” advances on the vexed issue of the Irish border.
Theresa May, UK prime minister, hopes to breathe new life into Brexit talks by agreeing a shift in position with her cabinet next week, but the time left for serious negotiations in Brussels is running out.
In a sign of the relative stasis in recent months, Mr Davis has met Michel Barnier, the EU lead on the talks, only three times in the first half of 2018 for talks lasting a total of four hours.
The pair met in London in February, in Brussels in March and again at the EU capital in June. While British officials have worked behind the scenes on detailed talks, high-level political discussions between the two principals have lasted on average 40 minutes a month since the start of the year.
Mr Davis has devoted more time to touring European capitals, aiming to raise awareness on Brexit issues with national ministers and increase pressure on the European Commission to take a more flexible approach.
A spokesperson for the Department for Exiting the EU said Mr Davis “oversees the full sweep of the negotiations and stays in regular contact with his counterpart”.
“He is also responsible for our domestic preparations for exit and the legislation that entails,” the spokesperson said. “In addition this year he has travelled to the majority of member states.”
Day-to-day negotiations with the commission have meanwhile passed to Olly Robbins, a senior civil servant who is Mrs May’s chief EU adviser and representative in talks. Brexit talks have to conclude by the end of the year, leaving time for the British parliament and European Parliament to approve any final deal.
“This desultory amount of face-to-face time shows the government has been treading water since December,” said Pat McFadden, Labour member of the Commons Brexit committee.
“They are more interested in negotiating with one another than getting a good deal for the UK.”
Mr Barnier on Friday warned that “huge and serious” differences have to be overcome on exit talks, and warned Mrs May the EU would not accept any move to keep Britain in a single market-style arrangement for goods only.
“Now we are waiting for the UK white paper,” he said. “And I hope it will contain workable and realistic proposals.” He added: “Time is very short.”
Mr Barnier’s comments reflect a growing fear in Brussels that Mrs May will take on the Eurosceptics in her cabinet to push for a softer form of Brexit, only to come up with a compromise that the EU cannot accept.
In particular, the EU negotiator fears that Mrs May will try to flesh out plans to keep Britain aligned with Brussels rules for industrial goods, while leaving the UK with more freedom to diverge on services.
Mr Barnier argues that this would break up the “indivisible” single market freedoms — free movement of goods, services, capital and people — and amount to the kind of cherry-picking that Brussels has consistently rejected.
On Friday, he briefed the EU27 leaders on progress on Brexit talks, urging them to stay calm and respect the EU’s red lines, while expressing confidence that an exit deal would ultimately be agreed.
The EU27 adopted a summit communiqué reprimanding Mrs May for the slow progress made in exit talks, notably on the Irish border, saying there had been “no substantial progress”.
But the conclusions also held open the prospect that the EU could improve its offer to the UK should Mrs May drop some of her red lines, particularly her insistence on the ending of European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the UK after Brexit.
The leaders agreed that “if the UK positions were to evolve, the union will be prepared to reconsider its offer”.
But they also called on all member states and EU institutions to prepare for the possibility of a highly disruptive “no deal” Brexit.
Donald Tusk, European Council president, said at the end of the summit: “The most difficult things are still unresolved. This is the last call to put cards on the table.”
Still with Fox and Davis on the case we're bound to be fine.
... perhaps it is time to move your business HQ to Malta after all.
Whole fiasco gets more like a political version of "The Producers" by the day.
Wonder why Russia would be so happy with Brexit. Couldn't be because it obviously weakens the UK?
Also that statistics for Davis is terrible. I am pretty frustrated that the can has been kicked again, but surely we have to run out of road soon?
Chequers needs to end with Cabinet accepting the Norway deal, and then we need to finally have the showdown between the Brexiteers and the sane people in government. Hard Brexit looms otherwise.
It can happen by accident if the UK is not careful. I think it is likely that if the UK begged, the EU might extend Article 50, but it would have to unanimous and there is a lot of space for mischief making. Also extending is politically complicated due to the EU budget decisions and elections coming up. These are probably hurdles that can be overcome but the UK would need to ask for it, and I am unsure if the current government would do that.
No, spouting alt-right talking points like cultural marxism, islamophobia, etc. makes you alt-right.
All of which Sargon did. Then he got flustered when people started grouping him with other alt-right scumbags and began posting gay porn to alt-right people following him. He didn't examine why he was being grouped with the alt-right and seek to change his behaviour, because that would mean admitting that he was spouting alt-right bs to begin with.
He wants to spout alt-right bs, capture the alt-right audience on youtube for ad revenue but at the same time not be grouped with the alt-right.
As a rule of thumb in Whitehall, the greater the levels of dysfunction at the top, the pettier the reactions that follow.
Current dysfunction levels are high. This month alone Boris Johnson attacked the prime minister’s handling of Brexit and branded the Treasury the “heart of remain”; the defence secretary appeared to question the security qualifications of Theresa May; and Liz Truss, chief secretary to the Treasury, criticised almost everyone.
Sajid Javid, the home secretary, teamed up with Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, to lead a revolt against the prime minister first on relaxing rules on immigration in the NHS and then on the medical use of cannabis.
A dispute with David Davis, the Brexit secretary, nearly led to his departure from government while Steve Baker, a junior minister, got as far as packing the contents of his ministerial office in a box because of a row over Brexit.
So, as one government aide said this week, is the cabinet “fractured beyond repair”? It certainly seems as if calm leadership is needed, although sometimes, as happened last week, the temptation for pettiness overwhelms.
Early on Thursday afternoon, Downing Street was circulating a provisional press release welcoming a decision by the Australian government to award a British company a multibillion-pound contract for anti-submarine warships. After a scratchy week in government-business relations, it was a rare piece of unambiguously good news and they were keen to boast about it.
The internal document being prepared to be fed into the next day’s papers carried quotes from Theresa May, Liam Fox, the trade secretary, Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, and Guto Bebb, a junior defence minister.
Yet at the point of victory, collective Tory discipline broke down once again. No 10 was caught off guard when the Australian government announced the deal online eight hours earlier than expected, and a ministerial scramble for credit began.
First Mr Williamson put out his own comments welcoming the deal, jumping ahead of Mrs May.
Some sources said that Mr Williamson had middle of the night conversations with the Australian defence industry minister Christopher Pyne to secure the deal. This prompted counter briefing from a Tory MP that the Australian defence minister “nearly scrapped the whole thing [because] when Gavin went to lobby for it he berated them about technical crap he clearly didn’t understand.”
As MPs started criticising the slow response to the news from Number 10, one senior member of the government was insisting that it did not understand the time difference between London and Canberra.
Then allies of Michael Fallon, Mr Williamson’s predecessor, weighed in to demand his share of the political spoils. Downing Street, which can be sensitive to comments on Twitter, grew increasingly irate as the debate threatened to spoil their good news story.
Finally, in a highly unusual act of petulant retribution which will not be forgotten, someone in Number 10 decided to remove Mr Williamson’s remarks — which had been in the earlier draft — from the Downing Street press notice, and sent it out without mentioning his contribution.
Public rebukes that stark do not come often; and it reveals a growing enmity between the MoD and parts of No 10.
“If they can’t send out a press release, how can they deliver Brexit”, wailed one veteran Tory MP yesterday.
Articulating a point increasingly made by others, they went on: “There have been a number of party leaders who the party have been frightened of. Margaret Thatcher and Michael Howard most obviously, and under David Cameron my colleagues were afraid of George Osborne because he was on top of the job and in charge of promotions.
“People were afraid of Mrs May until she called the election. Now you get the sense she can’t do anything to anybody. Indeed if you have discussions with her about why she should get rid of Boris, you get a blank look and then a feeble smile.”
As unprecedented a situation as this feels to many, one source said that despite the incredible week of briefing and counter-briefing at the highest levels, the cabinet remains serene — boring even.
“The weekly cabinet just carries on regardless. Yes I suppose it might be getting a little more awkward; more and more people have fallen out with one another. There is the odd remark. But it just carries on,” one weary attendee said.
Few are denying the seriousness of Mrs May’s predicament.
There are long-delayed Brexit decisions to be taken in the cabinet day out at Chequers on Friday which could spark resignations from senior cabinet figures, the foundations of western security are at threat during the Nato conference and the visit of President Trump requires exquisitely awkward domestic political handling.
“The true problem is that there is a vacuum on so many different things,” the cabinet minister added. “Without that, it makes it more difficult to be focused on the job in hand.”
In truth, the problem for Mrs May is that she is allowing decision making to be made behind cabinet ministers’ back in the name of Brexit — undermining the very nature of collective responsibility.
Yesterday it emerged that immigration policy might not be decided until the autumn, and could form part of the EU Brexit talks, effectively stripping responsibility for a key portfolio from home secretary days after suggestions that Mr Javid did not want to replicate free movement after Brexit.
Olly Robbins, Mrs May’s official in charge of Brexit, will no longer appear before MPs alongside Mr Davis next week, as the man whose power outstrips most of the cabinet again avoids scrutiny because of a “diary clash”. There are suggestions that while Mr Davis is writing the Brexit white paper — this weekend he is working on version 10 and highly unlikely to fly with Brussels — Mr Robbins is preparing his own “briefing notes” in parallel, paving the way for alternative outcomes.
One government source said: “How, honestly, can you enforce collective cabinet responsibility when the cabinet doesn’t have responsibility for decisions.”
At the top of government, allies of the prime minister hold the view that she could withstand the loss of Boris Johnson but not survive if David Davis went alongside him, loudly declaring she was betraying Brexit voters.
Rank and file Tory MPs are at boiling point. They are being made to stay in the Commons on a three line whip, on the off chance that Labour call an unexpected vote. Labour, however, have happily released their troops to go elsewhere. This was noted bitterly on Wednesday night when Labour MPs were able to get to the ITV summer party hours before Tory MPs.
One embittered Tory MP said: “We are showing a level of discipline the cabinet is not able to match.”
The reason for government paralysis is simple. Despite a series of small decisions now taken on Brexit, the cabinet is split — potentially irrevocably — over the fundamental question of how similar to the EU Britain should be after Brexit.
Take customs. Eighteen months on Theresa May continues to push the customs partnership, hated by Brexiteers for retaining too much EU infrastructure and inhibiting trade deals. Mr Davis wants max-fac but accepts that this requires the EU to waive 80 per cent of cross border trade. The dividing line, as always with the Brexit Secretary, is about levels of ambition: Mr Davis thinks that the commission will accept the proposal when staring down the barrel of the gun.
Yet No 10 sees public signs and private evidence that the commission, backed by France and Germany, is holding firm and doesn’t want to leave this issue until the end. While max-fac after a long, long implementation delay suits some cabinet remainers, No 10 hate temporary solutions that last longer than the next election. It is unclear whether Chequers will solve things, and how much brexiteers will insist on leaving all vestiges of EU structures.
There are further reasons for pessimism. On Monday, Sir Jeremy Heywood stood down as cabinet secretary for further cancer treatment. It is hard to overstate the gap he leaves.
Every cabinet secretary does the job differently, and Sir Jeremy operates by calling in team after team of senior officials each day to interrogate how well different parts of government are functioning. Public spending teams, universal credit bosses and immigration officials are all hauled in “for what can best be described as a form of university viva”. His sessions leave those on the receiving end “exhausted” because they are so challenging intellectually and practically.
Each night Sir Jeremy writes a note to the prime minister with his conclusions. Sir Mark Sedwill, his temporary successor, who is a foreign policy expert, needs to prove he has the domestic policy acumen otherwise things that Sir Jeremy would have stopped going wrong now will cause political bedlam when the consequences play out in about 18 months’ time.
Other events have left some people in government even more shaken.
One member of the government reports concern “we’d be having to do ‘the’ announcement on the Queen this week. Thank goodness not”. Although suggestions that Her Majesty’s cold was more serious than publicly acknowledged are firmly dismissed, it underlines just how little in politics and the British state can truly be described as strong and stable right now.
... bodes well.
.. one notes the tactful sidestep the Times makes with regards to the ship building too.
The fact that Russia had a hand in Brexit should be pretty obvious. Russia has been trying to weaken and undermine the European Union in various ways for years now. Brexit was a golden opportunity they seized with both hands. It is the greatest blow to the EU since its founding. The Kremlin is overjoyed.
No, spouting alt-right talking points like cultural marxism, islamophobia, etc. makes you alt-right.
All of which Sargon did. Then he got flustered when people started grouping him with other alt-right scumbags and began posting gay porn to alt-right people following him. He didn't examine why he was being grouped with the alt-right and seek to change his behaviour, because that would mean admitting that he was spouting alt-right bs to begin with.
He wants to spout alt-right bs, capture the alt-right audience on youtube for ad revenue but at the same time not be grouped with the alt-right.
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
Yes. And just for the record: "cultural marxism" is not an actual left-wing thing. It is something made up by the alt-right. There is in fact nothing left or marxist about "cultural marxism" at all. It is just a wacko alt-right conspiracy that they propagate to justify their blatant racism and discrimination. Also, it is basically exactly the same rhetoric the Nazis (and every fascist ever) used to discredit their opponents.
No, spouting alt-right talking points like cultural marxism, islamophobia, etc. makes you alt-right.
No it doesn't. There is a degree of overlap with the moderate right and centre. Not everybody who cares about those issues are Alt-Right. You're defining politics in dogmatic, binary terms. Essentially you're saying you're either Left Wing, or you're Far Right.
This is why so many people are being driven into the arms of the Far Right. We have serious issues, such as uncontrolled mass migration and Islamic extremism that people on all sides of the politcal spectrum care about. But instead of dealing with those issues, the Left's message is "If you're worried about these things, you're a Far Right bigot".
No, spouting alt-right talking points like cultural marxism, islamophobia, etc. makes you alt-right.
No it doesn't. There is a degree of overlap with the moderate right and centre. Not everybody who cares about those issues are Alt-Right. You're defining politics in dogmatic, binary terms. Essentially you're saying you're either Left Wing, or you're Far Right.
This is why so many people are being driven into the arms of the Far Right. We have serious issues, such as uncontrolled mass migration and Islamic extremism that people on all sides of the politcal spectrum care about. But instead of dealing with those issues, the Left's message is "If you're worried about these things, you're a Far Right bigot".
That drives people to the Right.
He is not saying that everyone who is not a leftist is far-right. He is saying that people who care about the political issues the far right cares about are far right. Which they are. I know plenty of center-right political parties and people, but none of them has ever talked about "cultural marxism", "white genocide", a ban on mosques or Muslim immigration, or any of the ridiculous political issues the far right concerns itself with. There is a pretty clear border between center right and far right, just as there is between left and far left. There is some overlap of course, but the far-right and far-left are much more extreme in their opinions than their moderate counterparts. They have a completely different way of rhetoric and normally believe in conspiracy theories. If you are worried about immigration, integration of Muslims, Islamic extremism and the preservation of your own culture, you are not necessarily far-right. Those are legitimate political issues that plenty of people in the center and on the left are worried about that as well. But if you want to "put a stop to Muslims and immigrants", and are worried about Muslims, immigrants and "cultural marxists" collaborating to destroy your culture, then you are most definitely far-right. Because those are far-right issues.They are far more extreme than center-right issues. I am not saying people don't get falsely accused of being far-right, but if you do get falsely accused, it should be trivially easy to rebuke with arguments. In most cases however, people who do get accused of being far-right are actually far-right but are just uncomfortable about admitting it, and since they can't rebuke the accusations they instead seek to slander their accusers or do weird stuff like this Sargon dude to establish that they are "totally not far-right".
Malus is right. If someone spouts Islamophobic nonsense and talks about "cultural marxism", the chance is 99.99% that person is far-right. Because if he wasn't, he would not be advocating far-right viewpoints.
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope we keep crippling sanctions on Russia and continue to seek further ways to hurt them. They are our enemies at this point.
Only at this point? Russia has been Britain's enemy for like the past 200-300 years now. Russia has a special grudge against Britain, perhaps even more so than against the US. But it is not too late to set aside mutual grievances and become friends though. Having friends is better than being enemies. Especially if the enemy in question is a country like Russia. Certainly, being hostile to one another is to the benefit of neither country.
“You have to give it to her,” said a senior EU official. “She did in fact contribute constructively and positively to the migration debate. We will miss the U.K. for so many reasons. This is just another one of them.”
The common idea that it was always the UK against the rest isn't even true now.
It was never true; the idea that it was the UK vs the rest of the EU is an invention of the right wing to provide a scape goat for unpopular/ill considered domestic policies. Some examples: you can’t have nationalised railways (yes you can), you can’t subsidise or protect strategic industries like steel (yes you can), you can’t have blue passports (yes you can), etc., etc.
The sad thing is that she only did it because she is bigoted against any non British people coming to the country and only grudgingly accepts those that are allowed to stay. By leaving the EU we don't have to accept EU migrant quotas. The EU hence becomes a shield against people wanting a better life for themselves. If it fell apart then what would likely happen is more such people would end on the UKs doorstep that her and the bigoted Tory government want to avoid. An EU agreement only helps her bigoted mindset - nothing more.
In other news. School academies are now using German POW style punishment for children. Isolating them for the whole day without being allowed to talk or do anything else.
If parents did this, social services would be called. However it's fine for schools to do it. Too many school managers rooting for the Germans in the Great Escape?
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope we keep crippling sanctions on Russia and continue to seek further ways to hurt them. They are our enemies at this point.
Only at this point? Russia has been Britain's enemy for like the past 200-300 years now. Russia has a special grudge against Britain, perhaps even more so than against the US.
But it is not too late to set aside mutual grievances and become friends though. Having friends is better than being enemies. Especially if the enemy in question is a country like Russia. Certainly, being hostile to one another is to the benefit of neither country.
I am Irish, I see what Russia has done as an attack on Ireland as well, who have never been an enemy of Russia. We are caught in the splash damage from Russia's geopolitical games. We did not ever seek to be Russia's enemies, but they have forced us into a very difficult position with their bs.
So I want to see Russia hurt to the point that the populace wake up and realize that Putin is no good for them and that he benefits only his oligarch buddies. I do not think friendship is really possible while Putin remains in power, there is no trust or foundation for trust. Unfortunately, because Russia is a dictatorship and not a real democracy, Putin has many advantages over European leaders. He can play a longer game and does not need to worry about domestic backlash as much. So we must be quite blunt in our approach, because Russia is weaker than Europe.
As to the Academy thing, this has been a long time coming. Isolation was common practice 8-9 years ago when I was working in the UK, it was only a matter of time before someone systemised it, given the British love of standard systems. You guys are a lot more culturally similar to the Germans than you seem to realize. (And that is not meant as an insult).
Yes. And just for the record: "cultural marxism" is not an actual left-wing thing. It is something made up by the alt-right. There is in fact nothing left or marxist about "cultural marxism" at all. It is just a wacko alt-right conspiracy that they propagate to justify their blatant racism and discrimination. Also, it is basically exactly the same rhetoric the Nazis (and every fascist ever) used to discredit their opponents.
Yup. Basically, there was an old group of philosophers called the Frankfurt school who were marxists. They developed some philosophical theories such as critical theory.
From there Nazis and alt-right have extrapolated with no evidence that somehow some shady cabal of jewish marxists are behind every "decline" in civilisation from the sexual revolution to drugs, rock n roll, miley cyrus turning from disney idol to wild child, etc.
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope we keep crippling sanctions on Russia and continue to seek further ways to hurt them. They are our enemies at this point.
Only at this point? Russia has been Britain's enemy for like the past 200-300 years now. Russia has a special grudge against Britain, perhaps even more so than against the US.
But it is not too late to set aside mutual grievances and become friends though. Having friends is better than being enemies. Especially if the enemy in question is a country like Russia. Certainly, being hostile to one another is to the benefit of neither country.
I am Irish, I see what Russia has done as an attack on Ireland as well, who have never been an enemy of Russia. We are caught in the splash damage from Russia's geopolitical games. We did not ever seek to be Russia's enemies, but they have forced us into a very difficult position with their bs.
So I want to see Russia hurt to the point that the populace wake up and realize that Putin is no good for them and that he benefits only his oligarch buddies. I do not think friendship is really possible while Putin remains in power, there is no trust or foundation for trust. Unfortunately, because Russia is a dictatorship and not a real democracy, Putin has many advantages over European leaders. He can play a longer game and does not need to worry about domestic backlash as much. So we must be quite blunt in our approach, because Russia is weaker than Europe.
As to the Academy thing, this has been a long time coming. Isolation was common practice 8-9 years ago when I was working in the UK, it was only a matter of time before someone systemised it, given the British love of standard systems. You guys are a lot more culturally similar to the Germans than you seem to realize. (And that is not meant as an insult).
How has Russia forced Ireland to be its enemy exactly? Russia has never done anything against Ireland.
Also, hurting Russia is exactly what you should not do if your aim is to weaken Putin's hold on power. Russians are an incredibly stubborn people. The more difficult things get, the more they will set aside their differences and personal goals to band together for the greater good of the nation. Difficult times will only strengthen Putin's position. And on the other side, if things get better, people will attribute that to Putin as well, making them support him even more. So really, there is no way to weaken Putin's hold on power. It is absolute. The security services control everything. It is a very enviable position for any authoritarian leader to be in.
As an aside, Putin got popular precisely because he does not just benefit his oligarch buddies, like Yeltsin and most other post-Soviet leaders did. Russia has made massive progress under Putin in all areas (except for democracy of course). But Putin is also a pretty reasonable guy. He is not an extremist or anything. He does not want conflict. So really, there is no real reason for Russia and Ireland (or any country in the West) to be hostile to one another.
Ireland is directly impacted by Brexit, and may be even more vulnerable to it than the UK due to our small size and economic dependence on Britain. That is before you get to the trashing of relations in Northern Ireland due to Brexit potentially leading us back into civil war. My parents business has suffered a 75% decline in revenues from Brexit.
So yeah. Russia helped to cause Brexit to harm the UK? That harms Ireland, and my family directly, as well. So forgive me, but I am not in the mood to be sympathetic.
If Russians want to hang on to Putin, fine. We keep the sanctions on, keep cranking them up, go after Oligarchs in our cities and generally make life difficult for them.
If Russia wants to be our friend, then disinformation campaigns, interference in political culture and direct meddling in elections, along with shooting down passenger jets and illegal annexations are a pretty fething weird way to go about it.
Da Boss wrote: Ireland is directly impacted by Brexit, and may be even more vulnerable to it than the UK due to our small size and economic dependence on Britain. That is before you get to the trashing of relations in Northern Ireland due to Brexit potentially leading us back into civil war. My parents business has suffered a 75% decline in revenues from Brexit.
So yeah. Russia helped to cause Brexit to harm the UK? That harms Ireland, and my family directly, as well. So forgive me, but I am not in the mood to be sympathetic.
If Russians want to hang on to Putin, fine. We keep the sanctions on, keep cranking them up, go after Oligarchs in our cities and generally make life difficult for them.
If Russia wants to be our friend, then disinformation campaigns, interference in political culture and direct meddling in elections, along with shooting down passenger jets and illegal annexations are a pretty fething weird way to go about it.
From the Russian point of view you could say the same thing. Sanctions are a pretty fething weird way to go about friendship, no? Where two people (or nations) are at odds, it is virtually always the fault of both.
Russia has never caused harm to Ireland in any direct way. Russia may have had a hand in promoting Brexit, but ultimately it is Britain's fault, and not Russia's. Interfering in foreign politics and elections is something virtually every country does (at least the bigger ones), shooting down a passenger jet was an accident (and also not directly done by Russia, and the attempted cover-up is shameful), and the re-annexation of Crimea is something that does not affect Ireland or any other country but Russia and Ukraine in the slightest. Certainly it seems strange to declare a country to be your "enemy" over such minor, indirect offenses.
But well, if any country wants to consider Russia an enemy, Russia is more than happy to reply in kind. As I said, it only makes Putin even stronger. The best way to deal with Russia is economic integration, not confrontation. If Russia's economy were to grow and become more dependent on trade and foreign countries, sanctions would actually have effect, which would make Putin & Co. much more careful about their actions. If you are angry and want to hurt Russia, it may seem counterintuitive, but really the only way to hurt Russia in the long term is to be friendly to it. Anger and strife will only make it stronger. Russia has little in the way of economy, so the only thing that sets Russia apart from other European countries in terms of power is its vast military. Economic integration would tie Russia together to other European countries. It takes away Russia's ability to use that military power. And without its military power, Russia will no longer be a great power, it would just be any other post-soviet European country. Basically a larger version of Belarus, where all they have is potatoes.
From an Irish pov, anything that normalizes annexation makes us nervous, yes. For fairly valid historical reasons. Also, I have plenty of blame for Britain, but don't worry, I have some to spare for Russia too. And as someone who is not closed mindedly Irish, I also see what Russia was doing in the run up to the French and German elections, the way they fund the far right in Europe, and the way they are threatening our eastern brothers, and I show solidarity to my EU partners.
Add to that that Russia helped to get Trump elected, which negatively impacts many things I care about (the Paris Climate Accord for example) and you might begin to see why my patience with Russia is short.
As to sanctions, which came first, Russian bad behaviour or EU sanctions?
I disagree about the method of defanging the Russian bear. I think the Russian people have to become disatisfied enough with Putin's stupid games to want a change. Perhaps I am wrong in my feelings, but I think the effort Putin is going through to try and get sanctions removed shows that he is not super happy with them.
Btw, I have not up to now been "anti-russia". I never really felt any particular animosity and felt sorry for how the Russians were always portrayed as these ridiculous villains in American movies and stuff. It is the last 10 years or so that have gradually made me shift my stance, and the last 4-5 years in particular, when Putin is trying to shore up support given the failing economy with adventures abroad.
As to sanctions, which came first, Russian bad behaviour or EU sanctions?
How about nato's steady push eastwards...
We ourselves here in the west are hardly guilt-free of stoking this fire. The eu played a starring role in fermenting the Ukrainian crisis in the first place as well.
'The west' has been doing an aweful lot to prod and poke the russian bear, ever since the fall of communism, and has seen them as 'the enemy' for a lot longer. It's not a mystery that the west dislikes Putin, and remembers Yeltsin fondly, when he wrecked Russia.
Remember too, it's still within living memory when a certain Austrian led an army east and thirty million Russians died. Previous to that, a Frenchman did the same thing. Russia sees the west as invariably hostile, and their stance is one that can best be summed up as 'survival'. From the Russian perspective, it's understandable why they seek to weaken and divide their potential enemies. And we do exactly the same. Heck, even us in Ireland - there is No doubt In My mind we have stoked and manipulated individuals and groups in Northern Ireland for our ends.
And da boss, I'm Irish. Just do you know. I know how ruinous brexit is.
As to sanctions, which came first, Russian bad behaviour or EU sanctions?
How about nato's steady push eastwards...
You mean when those sovereign nations voluntarily decided that they wanted to join an organisation that would protect them from invasion, following decades of dictatorial oppression? And offer them improved economic opportunities to boot. NATO didn’t invade or coerce anyone, in fact the main motivation was the appalling way those countries had been treated under the Soviet Union, which they wanted to make damn sure wasn’t repeated. I know that gets up the nose of the hardliners in Russia, but tough gak. Russia has no claim to those nations and needs to drop the idea that is somehow entitled to rule Eastern Europe.
As to sanctions, which came first, Russian bad behaviour or EU sanctions?
How about nato's steady push eastwards...
You mean when those sovereign nations voluntarily decided that they wanted to join an organisation that would protect them from invasion, following decades of dictatorial oppression? And offer them improved economic opportunities to boot. NATO didn’t invade or coerce anyone, in fact the main motivation was the appalling way those countries had been treated under the Soviet Union, which they wanted to make damn sure wasn’t repeated. I know that gets up the nose of the hardliners in Russia, but tough gak. Russia has no claim to those nations and needs to drop the idea that is somehow entitled to rule Eastern Europe.
Actually I don't disagree at all jadenim - every nation will have a different perspective, especially Eastern European countries that suffered under the boot of the ussr (my aunts husband's dad for example. was a pole who fought in monte casino (his war story was actually facinating, by the way), and never was able to return home after the war, though many of his friends who served and did, disappeared). My point was referencing the Russian perspective. Which is based on - from their POV - survival (again, previous references to european armies, still within living memory who caused the deaths of millions of Russians), and their perceived need for buffer zones and spheres of influence. It's all about survival and cold hearted pragmatism from them.
Oh, no, their former slaves have joined NATO, not wanting to be meat shields for all time.
Point was raised specifically towards 'which came first'. I'm not discussing 'right' or 'wrong', only 'perspective'. We in the west have played our role here too. I completely understand much of eastern europe's antipathy towards Russia - I have polish connections in my family. Russian ones too, interestingly. So I try to understand the Russian perspective in this too.
Da Boss wrote: From an Irish pov, anything that normalizes annexation makes us nervous, yes. For fairly valid historical reasons. Also, I have plenty of blame for Britain, but don't worry, I have some to spare for Russia too. And as someone who is not closed mindedly Irish, I also see what Russia was doing in the run up to the French and German elections, the way they fund the far right in Europe, and the way they are threatening our eastern brothers, and I show solidarity to my EU partners.
Add to that that Russia helped to get Trump elected, which negatively impacts many things I care about (the Paris Climate Accord for example) and you might begin to see why my patience with Russia is short.
As to sanctions, which came first, Russian bad behaviour or EU sanctions?
Well, EU and NATO bad behaviour came first. Then came Russian bad behaviour, then came sanctions. What will follow is more Russian bad behaviour. Russia's patience with the West has already long since run out, which is why they are now doing all this. As I said, two fight, two at fault. Fixing the relationship will not just require commitment from Russia, it will require commitment from Western nations as well. So far, they have never shown anything but hostility towards Russia.
Ireland, as a neutral country, isn't really involved in this though. Which makes your feelings towards Russia I don't know, seem a bit odd. Most of those things you list are things that Russia has only had a very minor role in. Sure, Russia indirectly meddled in the US election. So did Ukraine and a whole lot of other countries. It is not like those few posts on Facebook had any major effect. It is not like Russian agents were stuffing ballot boxes full of false votes. What determined the outcome of the elections was way more American internal affairs than it was foreign meddling. Russia is not responsible for Trump. The American people are (and James Comey in particular, with his letter). Russia is not responsible for the rise of the far right in Europe. European peoples and governments are. Russia plays a role in all this, but it is so minor it doesn't really justify all the anger I read in your posts. It is like instead of getting mad at a bully on the playground you are getting mad at one of the kids who is cheering the bully on from the sidelines. Is that kid doing something bad? Yes. Does that kid deserve a stern talk about his behaviour? Yes. But he does he deserve the same kind of anger that the bully does? No. Russia is definitely misbehaving, but it is not misbehaving to a degree where you should consider Russia an 'enemy'. You talk about your 'Eastern brothers'. Are the Russians not your Eastern brothers as well? Russia is part of the European family. The European Union will never be actually European nor a full Union without Russia. In the long term, further integration is the only way forward. It is much preferable over conflict.
It makes me really sad to see that Russia and a large part of Europe hate each other so much now.
Da Boss wrote: .I disagree about the method of defanging the Russian bear. I think the Russian people have to become disatisfied enough with Putin's stupid games to want a change. Perhaps I am wrong in my feelings, but I think the effort Putin is going through to try and get sanctions removed shows that he is not super happy with them.
Nobody is happy with sanctions. And definitely not Putin, as because I have said, Putin does not want conflict. He is moderate and relatively pro-Western as far as Russian politicians go. But economic sanctions aren't really hurting Russia. Russia barely has an economy that could be hurt. It imports little, and the stuff that it exports is stuff that you can't really put sanctions on (unless you want Eastern Europe to freeze to death in winter). Russia's economy continues to grow despite sanctions. The real effect of the sanctions is that it imprints on the mind of the Russian people the idea of a hostile West that is out to get them (as if that idea needed any more imprinting...). Which causes the Russian people to rally behind the banner of their leader, Putin, to oppose the foreign aggressors. That is just the way Russian people are. Basically, the more Russia is pressured, the more belligerent and aggressive it will become. Which in turn only increases the near-absolute power and influence that the military and intelligence services already have in Russia. It is a vicious cycle that probably will lead to some great future disaster. It is a cycle that needs to be broken somehow. And the current policies of the UK and other European countries are only feeding it.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:This is why so many people are being driven into the arms of the Far Right. We have serious issues, such as uncontrolled mass migration and Islamic extremism that people on all sides of the politcal spectrum care about. But instead of dealing with those issues, the Left's message is "If you're worried about these things, you're a Far Right bigot".
That drives people to the Right.
feth off with that "driven into the arms of the Far Right" bs. All kinds of people take serious and talk about the the problems with islamic extremism, issues with immigration and all that. The problem is that the Far Right's view on those issues is so very exaggerated, simplistic, and generalising. It's just a useless starting point for discussions and that's why it gets dismissed even if more moderate right wing conservatives use the same talking points (because they found some bits they like somewhere in there). If I remember correctly in the last few years far right nationalistic/"patriotic" extremists have killed many more people than islamic extremists in the developed world (islamic extremists do nearly all of their killing in Africa and the Middle East) but for some reason that topic doesn't get the attention and worry. Instead we get people wringing their hand about antifa because some trashcans were pushed over in a protest and some windows broke.
Here's what's driving people to the Far Right, a shift in the overton window that made those types of extreme bigoted views acceptable. As a result people who already thought like that aligned themselves with those ideologies now that they are more visible. If some pink hair teenager saying some harsh words about you on tumblr leads to you immediately agreeing and becoming friends with Neo-Nazis and white supremacists then either you are really mentally weak or you already agreed with a lot of their ideas and want to use that "criticism" as an excuse. But both of those issues are on you not on some whiny kid's tumblr diary.
For some reason the same tactic hasn't worked with feminists who were called feminazis all the time. Somehow they didn't turn into alt-right and Neo-Nazi cheerleaders and sympathisers when they were equated with Nazis.
No, spouting alt-right talking points like cultural marxism, islamophobia, etc. makes you alt-right.
No it doesn't. There is a degree of overlap with the moderate right and centre. Not everybody who cares about those issues are Alt-Right. You're defining politics in dogmatic, binary terms. Essentially you're saying you're either Left Wing, or you're Far Right.
This is why so many people are being driven into the arms of the Far Right. We have serious issues, such as uncontrolled mass migration and Islamic extremism that people on all sides of the politcal spectrum care about. But instead of dealing with those issues, the Left's message is "If you're worried about these things, you're a Far Right bigot".
That drives people to the Right.
There is nobody who says that cultural marxism is something to worry about who is not alt-right, because cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory invented by the literal Nazis, as in Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, Himmler. You know, that lot.
If someone is posting videos to youtube about how the bourgeois are oppressing the proletariat and that we must seize the means of production, then it would be perfectly fair to call them a marxist. If someone is on youtube claiming that there is some shadowy cabal of secret jewish marxists and feminists that are behind the decline of civilisation in order to topple capitalism and the west, then it is perfectly fair to cal them alt-right.
If you don't want to be called alt-right, don't peddle alt-right conspiracy theories.
Oh, and read the sources you are citing as evidence for your arguments. And don't complain that the video someone made critiquing your arguments is too long when you yourself make extremely long videos in which you read an article line by line and spout off points to say how awful the article is when those very points you raise as issues missed by the article are addressed later in the article.
I'm not talking about cultural Marxism. You're conflating that with the other issues that you cited like Islamo"phobia". Have you somehow missed the out of control mass immigration crisis that's been crippling Europe? The decade long wave of Islamic extremism? The grooming gang scandals? The New Years Eve mass sexual assaults in Germany?
These are issues that Europeans care about. But the message from the Left is if you're worried about these things, you're a racist Nazi. And the only people willing to talk openly about it is the Right, and especially Far Right.
When there's a severe social issue that voters are worried about, but one side calls you a bigot for wanting it to be addressed whereas the other side, however distasteful or extreme, actually offers to do something about it...who do you think voters are going to turn to?
And what the actual feth are you talking about? I didn't cite any videos as evidence. Do you think I'M Sargon?
For some reason the same tactic hasn't worked with feminists who were called feminazis all the time. Somehow they didn't turn into alt-right and Neo-Nazi cheerleaders and sympathisers when they were equated with Nazis.
You're right. They went the opposite direction, to the Far Left.
The EU is privately telling European countries to prepare their airports for a no-deal Brexit
European Union member states should prepare their airports for no-deal Brexit, the European Commission reportedly warned earlier in June.
A lack of progress in Brexit negotiations has increased the chances of no-deal.
A no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for Britain and Europe's aviation industry.
It would immediately ground flights between the UK and EU because EU-issued aviation licenses would no longer be valid.
Trade minister Liam Fox warned over the weekend that the UK was "not bluffing" about its readiness to walk away without a deal.
LONDON — European Union member states should prepare their airports and aviation sector for a no-deal Brexit, the European Commission reportedly told diplomats earlier in June.
The warning was made during a June 12 meeting chaired by Filip Cornelis, the director of aviation at the Commission's transport department, Politico reported. It was attended by diplomats from the EU27 countries as well as representatives from their civil aviation authorities.
Cornelis reportedly told member states to prepare for the United Kingdom to crash out of the EU without a deal in March next year by focusing on areas of aviation including security, market access, safety regulations, and passenger rights.
It also advised airports to consider increasing their customs capacity. That is because a lot of cargo from outside the EU is currently processed in UK airports before entering the European single market. In a no-deal scenario, all cargo would need to be processed by customs officers on the continent.
The UK and EU have agreed on a 20-month transition period from March but it will not be ratified until negotiators can agree on issues such as the solution to avoid a hard border in Ireland, which is still a long way from being resolved.
That lack of progress means the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit appears to have increased significantly.
"A sense of no deal rising again. It's a total shambles. Nobody can make any sense of what's going on," a source close to the European Parliament's Brexit taskforce told BI.
A no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for Britain and Europe's aviation industry. It would immediately ground flights between the UK and EU because EU-issued aviation licences would no longer be valid.
Trade minister Liam Fox warned on the weekend that the UK was "not bluffing" about its readiness to walk away from the EU without a deal.
"None of us, including me, want no deal," he said.
"I sincerely hope we get a good deal and I think that is in the interests of the European Union as well as the United Kingdom, but if politics is put ahead of the economic well-being, the long-term well-being of the United Kingdom, we would have to walk away."
....might not even get to use those blue passports anyway then.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm not talking about cultural Marxism. You're conflating that with the other issues that you cited like Islamo"phobia". Have you somehow missed the out of control mass immigration crisis that's been crippling Europe? The decade long wave of Islamic extremism? The grooming gang scandals? The New Years Eve mass sexual assaults in Germany?
The problem is, that the right has not managed to hold up any actual evidence that mass immigration has actually caused many of the issues it blames it for.
Has Europe been crippled by mass immigration? Hardly, Europe as a whole is getting richer and stronger in many measures. It had an issue dealing with a large influx of refugees fleeing a warzone on its doorstep, but that is an isolated issue from immigration as a whole as refugees are a special class of person in terms of international law.
Decade long wave of Islamic Extremism? Sure, but that is tied to a rise in geopolitical instability in the middle east, which has given rise to many violent political groups. Blaming it exclusively on Islam is not helpful as it ignores the many other issues which drive terrorism. We are also seeing more right wing extremism and violence now, so should we impose the same restrictions on right-wing groups that many on the right wing want to impose on Islam? What is your proposed solution to islamic extremism that does not adversely affect the entire muslim population of our country, the vast, vast majority of whom live peacefully integrated in our society?
Grooming gangs are not unique to muslim offenders. Before that we had the catholic church paedophilia scandal, there have been scandals involving scout leaders, politicians, celebrities like Jimmy Saville etc. People preying on young people is an issue that transcends religion, social standing etc. It is also a crime that can be very difficult for the justice system to prosecute.
The New Years Eve mass sexual assaults that happened 2 years ago? Germany's population of muslims haven't gone anywhere, why has there not been a repeat every year since? Why were there not yearly reports of this happening before? It's almost as if there were other circumstances that lead to this than just "lots of muslims". One issue raised by the report following the incident was less police on the street than requested by the police. That will cause issues anywhere you have a lot of people and alcohol.
And what the actual feth are you talking about? I didn't cite any videos as evidence. Do you think I'M Sargon?
That is just a continuation of my posts discussion about Sargon's lack of credibility when he tries to claim he is not alt-right. He exhibits the same behaviours as the alt-right such as a focus on single sentences or headlines in articles rather than the points raised by an article as a whole. As such they miss out on context and often have "issues" with the article which the article actually addresses, they just either don't read that far into the article or ignore it.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm not talking about cultural Marxism. You're conflating that with the other issues that you cited like Islamo"phobia". Have you somehow missed the out of control mass immigration crisis that's been crippling Europe? The decade long wave of Islamic extremism? The grooming gang scandals? The New Years Eve mass sexual assaults in Germany?
These are issues that Europeans care about. But the message from the Left is if you're worried about these things, you're a racist Nazi. And the only people willing to talk openly about it is the Right, and especially Far Right.
When there's a severe social issue that voters are worried about, but one side calls you a bigot for wanting it to be addressed whereas the other side, however distasteful or extreme, actually offers to do something about it...who do you think voters are going to turn to?
And what the actual feth are you talking about? I didn't cite any videos as evidence. Do you think I'M Sargon?
For some reason the same tactic hasn't worked with feminists who were called feminazis all the time. Somehow they didn't turn into alt-right and Neo-Nazi cheerleaders and sympathisers when they were equated with Nazis.
You're right. They went the opposite direction, to the Far Left.
The vast majority of Europe doesn't care about that stuff. Most of the rest seem to think it's either overblown or fictitious (Like the new years eve stuff). The only ones being particularly vocal about it are the far right.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm not talking about cultural Marxism. You're conflating that with the other issues that you cited like Islamo"phobia". Have you somehow missed the out of control mass immigration crisis that's been crippling Europe? The decade long wave of Islamic extremism? The grooming gang scandals? The New Years Eve mass sexual assaults in Germany?
These are issues that Europeans care about. But the message from the Left is if you're worried about these things, you're a racist Nazi. And the only people willing to talk openly about it is the Right, and especially Far Right.
There's no such thing as an immigration crisis. The crisis is coming from an inability of politicians to push back the increasingly loud (and obnoxious) elements that effectively don't like, or trust, people that "aren't from around here" (which is a general trait we've evolved from developing along the evolutionary tree as a certain type of ape). Because they are failing to deal with imagined fear then people are becoming both more hostile and scared and hence reacting by becoming more insular, nationalistic, less accepting and less tolerant. Many politicians are pandering to this to maintain their power. These are the people that deep down are artificially shocked that people are dying in the Med, but are really are just happy that there are hence less immigrants. That is the crisis the western world is facing. We can quite easily accept all the migrants if we wanted to. The crisis is because a loud group of people don't want to - and will find any reason why they shouldn't.
The difference between the 'far right' and the centre left in this context is this. The centre left are worried about crimes but see them as the act of individuals and that there should be appropriate measures to catch and prosecute crimes. The actions of the individuals are what should be dealt with. The current right wing trend sees these crimes as the actions of a broadly related group of people and hence think that all of these people should be punished for those actions. Hence islamic extremists and so forth. That leads to bigotry, racism and beyond that worse things. The 8 year old child being brought up under an islamic religous education is not the same at the terrorist who tells people they do it because of their, twisted, interpretation of islam. By all means curse the individual that might be a terrorist, rapist, paedophile but when there is an accusation against a whole broad group as perpetrating these things then yes this becomes racist, intolerant, right wing ideology.
Da Boss wrote: Ireland is directly impacted by Brexit, and may be even more vulnerable to it than the UK due to our small size and economic dependence on Britain. That is before you get to the trashing of relations in Northern Ireland due to Brexit potentially leading us back into civil war. My parents business has suffered a 75% decline in revenues from Brexit.
So yeah. Russia helped to cause Brexit to harm the UK? That harms Ireland, and my family directly, as well. So forgive me, but I am not in the mood to be sympathetic.
If Russians want to hang on to Putin, fine. We keep the sanctions on, keep cranking them up, go after Oligarchs in our cities and generally make life difficult for them.
If Russia wants to be our friend, then disinformation campaigns, interference in political culture and direct meddling in elections, along with shooting down passenger jets and illegal annexations are a pretty fething weird way to go about it.
Well. I hope you then don't count US as your friend either.
"We are rolling back the over-stringent regulations on package holiday providers. Cutting out all the EU red tape will allow huge savings to be passed on to holiday makers setting off for the newly-popular post-Brexit destinations of Bognor Regis, Camber Sands and Rhyl."
and...
JRM giving his sly warnings to May again today on the radio apparently. "Do a hard Brexit or we'll bring you down etc." Brave Tory MPs rush to twitter to condemn him, "no appetite for hard Brexit" etc. Not brave enough to vote to give themselves any sort of legal oversight on the matter though.
In a crossover with the US politics thread, Mad Dog Mattis warns UK to spend big or say goodbye to the special relationship (which seemingly wants to be inherited by France, or so says the US)
jouso wrote: In a crossover with the US politics thread, Mad Dog Mattis warns UK to spend big or say goodbye to the special relationship (which seemingly wants to be inherited by France, or so says the US)
"So you're a retired general with decades of service? I've seen a little combat myself... I stabbed my predecessor in the back and then used my office to recommend myself for his post whilst still holding the bloody knife."
So May has a new customs plan that sounds scarily like all the others in that we can have frictionless trade but free to arrange trade deals with everyone else. One suspects I can see where this plan is going to go.
However barring Tory infighting about what that means, there s some suggestion that it doesn't even exist.
The immediate problem with the "new plan" is whether or not it really exists.
Because while Number 10 says it does, ask other people in government and they are not quite so sure. Ministers who you might have thought would be aware of the detail like - oh, you might imagine - the Brexit secretary had not agreed the lines, before Number 10 made their intervention.
There’ll be a second referendum before all this is over.
At this stage it probably is the best way forward. But I can't see how May will be able to square it with her party. She is desperately trying to keep the party from splitting apart whilst the UK suffers for it. Corbyn still isn't shifting his position on this and the other left of centre parties haven't got enough of a voice. It really requires Corbyn to change his position because I can't see May will. Even then Tory rebels may not support this because of the risk that it might put their party out of power for a long time as UKIP suddenly pick a huge number of votes again.
Perhaps we'll have a quick referendum on rejoining the EU.
Whirlwind wrote: So May has a new customs plan that sounds scarily like all the others in that we can have frictionless trade but free to arrange trade deals with everyone else. One suspects I can see where this plan is going to go.
And back in the real world, AIG starts telling their European customers their insurance policies now go through a new Luxembourg subsidiary.
Well it looks like reality is really starting to bite. Apparently our top negotiator has told cabinet that there simply is no other choices on the table other than a Canada style trade deal or the Norway model.
Whirlwind wrote: In other news. School academies are now using German POW style punishment for children. Isolating them for the whole day without being allowed to talk or do anything else.
If parents did this, social services would be called. However it's fine for schools to do it. Too many school managers rooting for the Germans in the Great Escape?
That's been going on for at least a decade - I left working in education 7 years ago and academies had been doing it for a few years then.
All across the United Kingdom, businesses are seeking answers to the practical questions they face over the UK’s pending departure from the European Union.
For Chamber member companies, the ultimate test of any Brexit deal is whether it delivers clarity. Answers to practical questions – rather than endless debates over institutional and constitutional arrangements – are what firms of every size and
sector need in order to take decisions, invest and prepare for the future.
As HM Government negotiates a future partnership between the UK and the EU, the British Chambers of Commerce will be assessing progress on these business-critical issues. Now – as deep negotiations on the future relationship have yet to
commence – we find that progress is RED on most issues and AMBER on the remaining issues
All across the United Kingdom, businesses are seeking answers to the practical questions they face over the UK’s pending departure from the European Union.
For Chamber member companies, the ultimate test of any Brexit deal is whether it delivers clarity. Answers to practical questions – rather than endless debates over institutional and constitutional arrangements – are what firms of every size and
sector need in order to take decisions, invest and prepare for the future.
As HM Government negotiates a future partnership between the UK and the EU, the British Chambers of Commerce will be assessing progress on these business-critical issues. Now – as deep negotiations on the future relationship have yet to
commence – we find that progress is RED on most issues and AMBER on the remaining issues
Spoiler:
marvelous.
That looks worse progress wise then a swiss parlamentary trench warfare where a unholly alliance has formed and language groups get involved in a free-for-all-manner.
In fact that looks worse then our dossier in regards to the EU "Rahmenabkommen".
Whirlwind wrote: In other news. School academies are now using German POW style punishment for children. Isolating them for the whole day without being allowed to talk or do anything else.
If parents did this, social services would be called. However it's fine for schools to do it. Too many school managers rooting for the Germans in the Great Escape?
That's been going on for at least a decade - I left working in education 7 years ago and academies had been doing it for a few years then.
I'm not sure that makes it any more acceptable does it?
That looks worse progress wise then a swiss parlamentary trench warfare where a unholly alliance has formed and language groups get involved in a free-for-all-manner.
In fact that looks worse then our dossier in regards to the EU "Rahmenabkommen".
Here is one official response from a cabinet member...
Whirlwind wrote: In other news. School academies are now using German POW style punishment for children. Isolating them for the whole day without being allowed to talk or do anything else.
If parents did this, social services would be called. However it's fine for schools to do it. Too many school managers rooting for the Germans in the Great Escape?
That's been going on for at least a decade - I left working in education 7 years ago and academies had been doing it for a few years then.
I'm not sure that makes it any more acceptable does it?
I thought the purpose of schools was to educate children? How can you educate a child if you place it in isolation? What a weird country the UK is.
I’m seeing lots of headlines about the dying high street. It occurs to me that the current tax laws are hopelessly out of date and are crippling most traditional bricks and mortar businesses whilst the online giants get off paying it altogether. Time to do a reversal; get the online businesses paying more tax and give tax breaks to the physical stores to reverse the trend and balance out the unfair advantage the online stores have.
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m seeing lots of headlines about the dying high street. It occurs to me that the current tax laws are hopelessly out of date and are crippling most traditional bricks and mortar businesses whilst the online giants get off paying it altogether. Time to do a reversal; get the online businesses paying more tax and give tax breaks to the physical stores to reverse the trend and balance out the unfair advantage the online stores have.
Everybody's been saying this for 15 years. Our High Streets are crying out for help, but government doesn't seem to give a damn
My nearest hobby shop which has been on the go for 50+ years, is a few pounds more expensive than the online equivalent, but I'm happy to pay 2-3 pounds more on the principal of use it or lose it.
Whirlwind wrote: In other news. School academies are now using German POW style punishment for children. Isolating them for the whole day without being allowed to talk or do anything else.
If parents did this, social services would be called. However it's fine for schools to do it. Too many school managers rooting for the Germans in the Great Escape?
That's been going on for at least a decade - I left working in education 7 years ago and academies had been doing it for a few years then.
I'm not sure that makes it any more acceptable does it?
That looks worse progress wise then a swiss parlamentary trench warfare where a unholly alliance has formed and language groups get involved in a free-for-all-manner.
In fact that looks worse then our dossier in regards to the EU "Rahmenabkommen".
Here is one official response from a cabinet member...
Ouch that gonna hurt.
Also the whole isolation thingy for school, honestly if that happened here you could bet your ass that you would get kicked out of school.
A Tory government that isn't seen to be looking out for business and is openly talking about tax increases to fund the NHS is just a mental proposition, these must be two of the most central pillars of modern conservatism and to ignore them should see the support from most of their tradition demographic disappear. The fact they haven't collapsed in the polls is either/both:
A sign of how Brexit has skewed the political spectrum - the ideology of Brexit is more important to most people than their professed political leanings, and see the Tories as the party most likely to deliver (see also - the Christian Right's support of Trump in the US)
A sign of how weak an opposition Labour really has become, whether that's Corbyn specifically or that the party just isn't seen as a government in waiting. A skilled opposition could be doing wonders with such a paralysed and ineffectual government, but Labour have allowed themselves to be just as caught up in the 'mad riddle' ((C) Danny Dyer, Political Consultant) as the Tories have.
At this point I just want someone in the government, (or the top echelons of Labour), to come out and admit that all the red lines, Irish guarantees, promises of economic stability etc are all totally incompatible and admit to the population that large groups of people are going to be severely disappointed in how the process plays out, the government just has to decide who is biting the bullet for the rest of us. Instead it's fudge fudge fudge, promises to both sides that they are driving the agenda, pointless rhetoric of "Brexit means Brexit", so on , so on ad infinitum.
This lazy dishonesty of "Brexit is going to bring everything everybody wants and cost nothing and if we all just chip in a little more we'll have the bestest country ever" is what's grinding us all down I think, and Labour are too scared to stick their head above the parapet to take advantage because when the spotlight is put on Corbyn etc they just repeat a similar mantra "Jobs-first Brexit" "A customs union that lets us do trade deals" etc etc. They too are too scared to be honest with the electorate.
I'm almost at a point where I just don't care what happens, no deal or not. The harder the Brexit the quicker we're back in, as in a single generation we'll have a political class having to deal with the fallout of the current mess and it'll be an easy sell to convince younger demographics (that are already pro-EU) that whatever disasters we're going through would be easily solved by being part of the bloc. The only thing that stops me throwing my hands up and demanding such a scenario is just how screwed the country will be for the 10 or 15 years it takes to happen.
The High street as a goto place for all your shopping needs has pretty much bitten the dust. Councils should look at remodelling what these communal spaces are for, meeting places, social events, food, drink, bonhomie, etc etc
That's pretty much the future. There's a place for shops still, but they need to fill a niche not served online, such as gaming and other lifestyle choices.
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m seeing lots of headlines about the dying high street. It occurs to me that the current tax laws are hopelessly out of date and are crippling most traditional bricks and mortar businesses whilst the online giants get off paying it altogether. Time to do a reversal; get the online businesses paying more tax and give tax breaks to the physical stores to reverse the trend and balance out the unfair advantage the online stores have.
Everybody's been saying this for 15 years. Our High Streets are crying out for help, but government doesn't seem to give a damn
My nearest hobby shop which has been on the go for 50+ years, is a few pounds more expensive than the online equivalent, but I'm happy to pay 2-3 pounds more on the principal of use it or lose it.
They just about break even from year to year.
Support your local hobby store
It's not just online stores. We have moved from an era of 'smaller' individual shops to shopping centres, including massive 'out of town' set ups. These are generally near high speed transport access, massive amounts of parking and pretty much dedicated to retail all in one location. As a populace we have become more lazy in our shopping habits because there are much more things to do than spend the day in town. In additional road infrastructure in the cities is generally appalling because they are based on a system that might have been designed for the 1800's of horse and cart but is ridiculous in today's era. If you have to spend 1.5 hours simply to get into town during Christmas then it will put people off as you can use that time in a better way. Although online has an impact there are other factors likely at play here. Those that do survive in the towns are generally those in he shopping complexes. However the area has changed. Now the high street is dominated by casino's/slot jockey centres, fast food stores and pawn shops.
I'm not sure that makes it any more acceptable does it?
I thought the purpose of schools was to educate children? How can you educate a child if you place it in isolation? What a weird country the UK is.
It's meant to be a type of punishment for bad behaviour but there are reports that the length of the sentences and reasons for being sent there (e.g. forgetting a pencil, laughing in class) are massively disproportionate. One might suggest cruel and inhumane when you have to sit in an isolation booth for a day and are emotionally torturing a child.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Riquende wrote: A Tory government that isn't seen to be looking out for business and is openly talking about tax increases to fund the NHS is just a mental proposition, these must be two of the most central pillars of modern conservatism and to ignore them should see the support from most of their tradition demographic disappear. The fact they haven't collapsed in the polls is either/both:
A sign of how Brexit has skewed the political spectrum - the ideology of Brexit is more important to most people than their professed political leanings, and see the Tories as the party most likely to deliver (see also - the Christian Right's support of Trump in the US)
It's probably the perceived threat of this by both parties. A change by the Tories would mean a much bigger hit for them though as the IIRC 75% of Labour supporters actually favour staying in the EU. However it's a risk. If those people defect to the Tories (and Tory centrists don't move across to Labour) then Labour has no chance to win the next GE. I think they are playing a strategic game but at the cost of the country. May is slowly waking up to the fact that the EU are not going to budge on their decisions. She will either have to go the Canada route (and bollox the economy and the Country) or she will have to go the Norway model (and bollox the country in a lesser way), which is effectively EU lite with no say, and lesser access (e.g. Galileo) which will annoy the frothing lunatic fringe of the Tory party. Either way the Tories stand to lose and it will be something Labour will never ever let them forget in the next 50 years (something the Tories try and do now).
Well it looks like reality is really starting to bite. Apparently our top negotiator has told cabinet that there simply is no other choices on the table other than a Canada style trade deal or the Norway model.
That the meeting on Friday is to basically decide which to choose...
Obviously the point of Wrexit is significantly reduced if the option is "stay the same but with less influence"
The EU drew us a chart 2 years ago telling us essentially this. No-one listened to that, so I have no hope anyone will listen to our top negotiator.
Neither of those options is viable with Mays red lines - Norway model means payments to the EU, Freedom of Movement, ECJ. Canada means a massive hit to our services and therefor economy.
But eventually the penny will drop that we're not getting a special deal, and someone will need to disappoint a lot of the public.
The EU drew us a chart 2 years ago telling us essentially this. No-one listened to that, so I have no hope anyone will listen to our top negotiator.
Neither of those options is viable with Mays red lines - Norway model means payments to the EU, Freedom of Movement, ECJ. Canada means a massive hit to our services and therefor economy.
But eventually the penny will drop that we're not getting a special deal, and someone will need to disappoint a lot of the public.
Don't you mean all the public? One side because they want to stay in, the other side because they want to get out of everything?
Future War Cultist wrote: Has the EU decided weither or not it’s going to interfere with the Internet? Hopefully it’s something we can avoid as much as possible.
The vote is going to the European parliament soon. If your MEP is a Tory write to him ASAP because they're in favour of passing the law as proposed.
I usually don't follow English politics. None of my family living abroad live in England, its not on my list of countries I want to visit nor do I plan to retire there. I have no strong feelings or opinions about Tommy Robinson. However Englands growing Orwellian nature troubles me. England is like the blood bank of of ideas, constitutional monarchy, socialism and free market capitalism got their start in England and from there were later spread to the whole world. We should all be concerned that this form of Authoritarian HIV will be spread to Europe and North America.
Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.
I am Irish, I see what Russia has done as an attack on Ireland as well
The Russians are our brothers. They supported our Independence before almost all others.
Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote: I usually don't follow English politics. None of my family living abroad live in England, its not on my list of countries I want to visit nor do I plan to retire there. I have no strong feelings or opinions about Tommy Robinson. However Englands growing Orwellian nature troubles me. England is like the blood bank of of ideas, constitutional monarchy, socialism and free market capitalism got their start in England and from there were later spread to the whole world. We should all be concerned that this form of Authoritarian HIV will be spread to Europe and North America.
Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.
I am Irish, I see what Russia has done as an attack on Ireland as well
The Russians are our brothers. They supported our Independence before almost all others.
You mean the french and the germans.
The only Independence Russia ever supported on a geopolitical scale is the independence of Switzerland during the first congress of Vienna.
AND that got just barely accepted because Austria wanted to deny Prussia acess to northern Italy and we were a usefull buffer state that allready existed between them and france.
That and switzerland has a tendency to become Balkan 2.0 when you occupy it.
Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote: I usually don't follow English politics. None of my family living abroad live in England, its not on my list of countries I want to visit nor do I plan to retire there. I have no strong feelings or opinions about Tommy Robinson. However Englands growing Orwellian nature troubles me. England is like the blood bank of of ideas, constitutional monarchy, socialism and free market capitalism got their start in England and from there were later spread to the whole world. We should all be concerned that this form of Authoritarian HIV will be spread to Europe and North America.
Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.
I am Irish, I see what Russia has done as an attack on Ireland as well
The Russians are our brothers. They supported our Independence before almost all others.
You mean the french and the germans. The only Independence Russia ever supported on a geopolitical scale is the independence of Switzerland during the first congress of Vienna. AND that got just barely accepted because Austria wanted to deny Prussia acess to northern Italy and we were a usefull buffer state that allready existed between them and france. That and switzerland has a tendency to become Balkan 2.0 when you occupy it.
The RSFSR already recognised the Irish Republic in 1920, before the Anglo-Irish treaty. The Bolsheviks definitely supported Irish independence. It was in accordance with their belief in self-determination and opposition to monarchical empires, and it weakened Great Britain, which was an enemy of the Bolsheviks.
Future War Cultist wrote: Has the EU decided weither or not it’s going to interfere with the Internet? Hopefully it’s something we can avoid as much as possible.
It's not the internet that is being messed with directly. It is updating of copyright rules and the implications for their use. It applies to all other media as well. The concern is how this might impact internet usage.
If you are up for a read then it can be foudn here:-
The first thing to note is that is a Directive not a regulation. The GDPR was a regulation when inacted. In effect that means that it comes into force as is across all member states. A Directive means that individual states have the decision how to implement that Directive, so each state will have to decide how it implements this. It's not 'fixed' to a certain methodology.
In terms of the actual rules it appears Article 11 and 13 are giving the most consternation.
Article 11 is more specific. It basically provides copyright to the owners of the original press articles (but does allow their use for research and insubstantial elements of it). basically it prevents farming of news unless agreed by the owner (you can see this yahoo news, google news etc. This could apply to online newspapers that have a pay wall for example. I guess the principle is that if another company earns advertising revenue (like google, yahoo, microsoft etc) using someone else's works is then that fair? (I'd note non for profit website, online encyclopedias are exempt from this I believe). Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.
The risk is that there are unintended consequences. In this thread for example we have to stop copying and pasting whole articles because, I assume, some advertising revenue. However the implementation by individual governments will be key. It may be that ancilliary to main purpose may be considered fair use on the basis that it is 'research' on a topic. We already cannot, for example, paste electronic rules on the site!
Article 13 is I think what causes more concern for a lot of people. It effectively requires companies that allow uploading of content by businesses or the public to put in place measures to minimise copyright breaches. I think youtube is meant to have one of the most developed technologies for this. Such as preventing uploads of the unauthorised music videos etc. I think some of the concerns have been overblown a bit, some are valid. It has been commented that it might stop new businesses coming forward however 13(5)(a) specifically states that small companies have less of a burden to ensure there isn't a copyright breach. I'm also unsure of the 'meme' issue as it is dependent on the users themselves and what and how much they upload. Hence if someone is operating a business creating memes based of other copyrighted work then I think they would fall under the rules. The individual posting the occassional meme is unlikely to be covered because it isn't a proportional response nor does it provide and effective safeguard of copyright to try and prevent this.
The risk is however that because there is little case law internet provides, file hosting sites and so forth take a blunt approach and just ban everything with a potential copyright which then results in a lot less freedom of factual information. That could favour more extreme news outlets that don't request any copyright for their material. Lets suppose "Flat Earth Times" basically allows any usage of their material because it gives them more exposure. If LBC copyrighted the James O'Brien show then there may be a requirement to prevent this being shown on internet media or if the status was unclear then this information may be pulled from being easily accessed on the internet. The outcome subsequently is that we suddenly become more dominated by wacko theories with less rational counterpoint information simply because the former is made up and hence they don't care about copyright. The latter is undertaken by employed people and hence the copyright is cared about but by considering the money first the message becomes diluted
Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.
Sorry but no. The trial was ongoing and Robinsons actions could potentially influence the jury and so subvert the course of justice.
Whirlwind wrote: Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.
All those scanned documents on Scribd are already falling foul of existing copyright law, aren't they?
Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.
Sorry but no. The trial was ongoing and Robinsons actions could potentially influence the jury and so subvert the course of justice.
It was Tommy Robinson's actions specifically that were prevented, was it not? The public gallery was still open, other news sources could report on the trial?
Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.
I find it strange that trials, witnesses and juries can be live recorded and shown on air. You are allowed to report on cases but is undertaken in a controlled way. We don't allow videos inside court because of the risk that it can influence the decision made (for example if EDF worked out who was one of the jurors and then camped outside their house protesting as you are allowed to go home at the end of a day. There was a temporary blackout during his trial as there was considerable concern that by reporting on it, that it could risk the fairness of the trial. It was lifted when a load of gak was being spread about the case and the judge decided that this was likely to result in a potential worse effect on the court case than not allowing reporting.
Exactly. The court process is open - there's usually a public viewing area (some courts are closed if sensitive enough), press is allowed to report, full transcripts are available. There's no live video footage or any tolerance for anything that can be regarded as intimidating or biasing the jury (a group of the public).
Robinson wasn't jailed for reporting the court case; he was jailed for intimidating the jury. Something he was in trouble for previous.
Ironically; he (his family?) have asked people not to attend his hearing for concerns that they'll bias it.
But eventually the penny will drop that we're not getting a special deal, and someone will need to disappoint a lot of the public.
Don't you mean all the public? One side because they want to stay in, the other side because they want to get out of everything?
Some people, somewhere, will be happy with whatever result. I think May's main goal here is to find an option that upsets the least people.
I'm starting to suspect things that the Tory party has come out with recently and back-peddled on (fox hunting, tax changes for self-employed) etc have been exercises to test the water for upsetting people, to see how far they can push the public with impunity.
But then, the option I can see that upsets the least people is to run a 2nd referendum and hope it's a clear (60%+) win for Remain.
Whirlwind wrote: Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.
All those scanned documents on Scribd are already falling foul of existing copyright law, aren't they?
That would be up to courts to decide. I couldn't for obvious reasons state whether they were illegal or not. It would appear that for news articles (e.g. White Dwarf) then after 20 years it would be OK. The difference is that at the moment Scribd is exempt from the copyright infringement because users upload the articles not Scribd itself. The new laws would require, dependent on their resources, to try and scan for potential copyright infringement material and remove it (and they would be potentially acting illegally by not doing this).
I have some mixed views on these sort of things. I do see the point that in some cases companies can be losing income if they are still selling a product and you can get it free then this should be looked at. However for products no longer made I think that it can be excessive - for example if the Man O War rules were available on Scribd then I see no harm here. GW as a company does not lose money from these items being freely available.
Whirlwind wrote: Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.
All those scanned documents on Scribd are already falling foul of existing copyright law, aren't they?
They are, the point is scribd will be forced to check for copyright before anything is uploaded there.
Right now scribd will only put something down after someone complains about something. Per proposed law they will be supposed to know it was copyrighted material before (or at least make a conscious effort to try to find out).
As if there was a reliable way of knowing something uploaded by a random user contains copyrighted material or not. Without this, the law is worthless or worse, ripe for abuse.
Again, conservatives make up the most of UK MEPs and appear to be going to vote yes, let them know you're against it.
They are, the point is scribd will be forced to check for copyright before anything is uploaded there.
Right now scribd will only put something down after someone complains about something. Per proposed law they will be supposed to know it was copyrighted material before (or at least make a conscious effort to try to find out).
As if there was a reliable way of knowing something uploaded by a random user contains copyrighted material or not. Without this, the law is worthless or worse, ripe for abuse.
Again, conservatives make up the most of UK MEPs and appear to be going to vote yes, let them know you're against it.
Or the sites will move to a country where the legislation doesn't hold. They tried similar actions before when illegal streaming became prevalent. In the end they gave up and legal streaming became prevalent.
Whirlwind wrote: Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.
All those scanned documents on Scribd are already falling foul of existing copyright law, aren't they?
That would be up to courts to decide. I couldn't for obvious reasons state whether they were illegal or not. It would appear that for news articles (e.g. White Dwarf) then after 20 years it would be OK
Again, something to be tested in law, but I would have thought that White Dwarf articles aren't "news" (other than the new releases sections"). They'd be works of fiction, or technical documentation, but they're original content, not simply reporting on something that's happened elsewhere.
Again, something to be tested in law, but I would have thought that White Dwarf articles aren't "news" (other than the new releases sections"). They'd be works of fiction, or technical documentation, but they're original content, not simply reporting on something that's happened elsewhere.
The wording in the Directive is 'press publications' rather than 'news' which is defined as
‘press publication’ means a collection composed mainly of literary works of a journalistic nature which:
(a) may also include other works or subject-matter;
(b) constitutes an individual item within a periodical or regularly-updated publication under a single title, such as a newspaper or a general or special interest magazine;
(c) has the purpose of providing the general public with information related to news or other topics; and
(d) is published in any media under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider;
and in item 33 of the background
The press publications to be covered are those whose purpose is to inform the general public and which are periodically or regularly updated. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites.
I think hence WD would be covered as it a magazine of special interest, it is regularly updated, provides the general public on the topic of GW wargaming and is produced under editorial responsibility.
Robinson wasn't jailed for reporting the court case; he was jailed for intimidating the jury. Something he was in trouble for previous.
Ironically; he (his family?) have asked people not to attend his hearing for concerns that they'll bias it.
Technically he was jailed for contempt of court. He was told last time he did the same thing, that this is what would happen if he did it again. He did it again.
Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote: I usually don't follow English politics. None of my family living abroad live in England, its not on my list of countries I want to visit nor do I plan to retire there. I have no strong feelings or opinions about Tommy Robinson. However Englands growing Orwellian nature troubles me. England is like the blood bank of of ideas, constitutional monarchy, socialism and free market capitalism got their start in England and from there were later spread to the whole world. We should all be concerned that this form of Authoritarian HIV will be spread to Europe and North America.
Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.
...
Got to ask, for someone who stated that you don't follow our politics, have no links and seemingly little interest in our politics or judicial system, where did you source your information for the formation of your opinions regarding Mr Yaxely-Lennon's arrest and detention?
Got to ask, for someone who stated that you don't follow our politics, have no links and seemingly little interest in our politics or judicial system, where did you source your information for the formation of your opinions regarding Mr Yaxely-Lennon's arrest and detention?
Trump's twitter following of EDL perhaps....
Also on a slightly amusing item from PMQs today after MP Maclane's (SP?) (second or third) question that was pre-prepared on BAE ships TM stated that we are leaving the UK.... Not sure that was the "Will of the People".
Now I know that Wrexit was likely to result in the break up of the UK, but so soon....?
In other blathering answers she was asked about bus services and carried on blindly about the NHS. I can see why she never gets anything agreed at Cabinet, she doesn't answer anything put to her!
Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote: I usually don't follow English politics. None of my family living abroad live in England, its not on my list of countries I want to visit nor do I plan to retire there. I have no strong feelings or opinions about Tommy Robinson. However Englands growing Orwellian nature troubles me. England is like the blood bank of of ideas, constitutional monarchy, socialism and free market capitalism got their start in England and from there were later spread to the whole world. We should all be concerned that this form of Authoritarian HIV will be spread to Europe and North America.
Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.
...
Got to ask, for someone who stated that you don't follow our politics, have no links and seemingly little interest in our politics or judicial system, where did you source your information for the formation of your opinions regarding Mr Yaxely-Lennon's arrest and detention?
I'd be interested in this also, as what you have been told is utter garbage.
Sorry but no. The trial was ongoing and Robinsons actions could potentially influence the jury and so subvert the course of justice.
How? If I was a juror I don't see how seeing Tommy with a phone would prevent me from being fair. What I find bizarre is how so many brits are more concerned about the rights of this rape gang as opposed to the rights of their victims.
Sorry but no. The trial was ongoing and Robinsons actions could potentially influence the jury and so subvert the course of justice.
How? If I was a juror I don't see how seeing Tommy with a phone would prevent me from being fair. What I find bizarre is how so many brits are more concerned about the rights of this rape gang as opposed to the rights of their victims.
If you start downing rights of one group you lose them for all. Rights either apply to all or none. The moment you start removing rights from some group you end up in slippery slope that means NOBODY actually has those rights.
If you start downing rights of one group you lose them for all. Rights either apply to all or none. The moment you start removing rights from some group you end up in slippery slope that means NOBODY actually has those rights.
You just made my point. Tommy Robinson was merely filming in public yet has been deprived of liberty. Even if you can make the case that it was right to arrest him he certainly shouldn't go to prison for what it looks like to be investigative reporting.
But beside that you didn't answer my question. I am will ask it again why is so much attention be given to the rights of these rape gangs when the rights of their victims were ignored for so long? Personally i'm not much of believer in police. Cops exist for active shooters. The community should be the ones to deliver justice as has been the norm for most of human history.
Oh also can someone explain to me why their called Asian as opposed too Pakistani, I know Pakistan is part of Asia but no one calls Russians or Israelis Asian.
Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote: How? If I was a juror I don't see how seeing Tommy with a phone would prevent me from being fair.
Your lack of empathy or understanding isn't the issue though. Mr Yaxley is unfortunately an influential individual in some areas, and some people (not you apparently, but whatever you don't see is immaterial) might have a problem with their face splashed all over the alt-right parts of social media with "look who let the rapists off!". Jurors cannot do their duty in some sensitive cases if they have to worry about outside influences to the trial.
What I find bizarre is how so many brits are more concerned about the rights of this rape gang as opposed to the rights of their victims.
People everywhere should be concerned about the rights of the accused to a fair trial. A fair trial isn't what Yaxley, the EDL, Britain First et al are interested in though. They want the whole case politicised so that the 'establishment' can be shown to be covering up 'sharia crimes' and that 'right thinking people' (sic) are justified in taking matters into their own hands etc.
You just made my point. Tommy Robinson was merely filming in public yet has been deprived of liberty.
He wasn't 'merely' doing that. Ultimately what he was doing was exactly what he achieved, trying to stoke a culture war by highlighting the accused in the trial receiving protection they shouldn't be entitled to for some reason.
Even if you can make the case that it was right to arrest him he certainly shouldn't go to prison for what it looks like to be investigative reporting.
Well, he had a suspended sentence, so that's the very definition of what should have happened to him. If the courts warn someone not do to something or they'll receive punishement x, and they do it anyway and don't receive punishment x, then the courts have just undermined themselves and why should anyone bother listening to them again?
But beside that you didn't answer my question. I am will ask it again why is so much attention be given to the rights of these rape gangs when the rights of their victims were ignored for so long?
Both sides have rights. The law doesn't pick a side and deny the other side rights, it seeks to pursue justice and the accused should be protected too (until such time as they are no longer accused but guilty).
Personally i'm not much of believer in police. Cops exist for active shooters. The community should be the ones to deliver justice as has been the norm for most of human history.
The police don't deliver justice, courts of law do (or try to. it is staffed by humans and humans make mistakes). The community and mob justice is a historic horror show, let's not go back there.
Oh also can someone explain to me why their called Asian as opposed too Pakistani, I know Pakistan is part of Asia but no one calls Russians or Israelis Asian.
In the UK 'Asian' is shorthand for people from the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc) as that's where most Asian migration has come from (due to Empire). In the US 'Asian' usually refers to East Asian descent for the same reason.
If you can't see how people can be intimidated then you potentially lack empathy. Or understanding. Or something, anyway.
In America everything outside the courthouse is fair game. If this happened in the US the worst he would get would be a ticket.
That's great, but he's not in America and appealing to the US justice system doesn't particularly interest me anyway.
You have people on this thread who want him to have a violent prison experience.
Sure, and they're wrong too. You aren't actually answering any points though, just playing 'whataboutism' and trying to equivocate people debating your frankly abhorrent views as being equally abhorrent.
You do realise you're debating against the concept of a fair trial, right? And the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' ?
or understanding
I have real world school and work experience with this very subject. I know more than you.
Despite posting you know nothing about UK politics and have no interest in the UK you have school experience with the UK legal system? For someone who know more than me, you sure act like you're just copy/pasting alt-right twitter feeds.
Now for the third time can someone please answer my as why their is a lack of outrage over these rape gangs that the UK government covered for.
Aaaaaand we're going deeper into the rabbit hole. I thought at the start you were a sadly misinformed US poster, but you're just trying to Yaxley the thread. Cheerio, fella.
If you start downing rights of one group you lose them for all. Rights either apply to all or none. The moment you start removing rights from some group you end up in slippery slope that means NOBODY actually has those rights.
You just made my point. Tommy Robinson was merely filming in public yet has been deprived of liberty. Even if you can make the case that it was right to arrest him he certainly shouldn't go to prison for what it looks like to be investigative reporting.
Investigative reporting... . Turning up at a court case where the accused are already in custody, where you can report on the case (but not record, depending on the judge's determination) isn't investigative journalism.
We have certain rules that protect everyone's individual rites. The point of jury is to determine someone's guilt. Until that time they are innocent. There have been cases where people accused, incorrectly and found innocent, of child rape or molestation and then subsequently assaulted or driven from their homes and/or into police protection because some people didn't believe the outcome and thought that a kangaroo court and vigilante justice is the way to go. A child that might be involved (on either side) has a right to anonymity. The jury do not need to feel fear that if they find someone accused of child rape might be subsequently branded as "paedophile lovers" by EDF nutcases because of that decision. If the jury feel threatened and it is deemed they were biased by either fear, or otherwise influenced by reporting on TV (again I note that people can go home at the end of each day) then that can result in the collapse of the trial regardless of the rest of the case and whether that person really did do the criminal act.
But beside that you didn't answer my question. I am will ask it again why is so much attention be given to the rights of these rape gangs when the rights of their victims were ignored for so long? Personally i'm not much of believer in police. Cops exist for active shooters.
The US and UK/EU police have different drivers. There is a tiny amount of gun crime in the UK (relatively). We'd need about 20 police people if it was just to stop gun crime. I once had a conversation with an American and their view was that in the US the police were there to enforce the laws by any suitable means but in the UK the police's role was to protect the populace.
The community should be the ones to deliver justice as has been the norm for most of human history.
That's why we have a jury system under strict rules. If it is done by mob rule, then you only get vigilante attacks without any consideration of the evidence.
Oh also can someone explain to me why their called Asian as opposed too Pakistani, I know Pakistan is part of Asia but no one calls Russians or Israelis Asian.
Now for the third time can someone please answer my as why their is a lack of outrage over these rape gangs that the UK government covered for.
Now I know I don't like the Tory government, but no one in UK government was 'covering for the rape gangs'.
It was a catalogue of failures over many years that are too numerous to really go into detail, but briefly came down to:-
Lack of communication between the police and the local council and other bodies.
Lack of accountability in these organisations and oversite
Lack of acknowledgement that these things could happen
Lack of acceptance that known troubled children were being exploited and an approach that they were "crying wolf".
That's great, but he's not in America and appealing to the US justice system doesn't particularly interest me anyway.
In most countries everything outside the courthouse is fair game. England seems to be one of the few nations where the government quite literally has a secret police that are able to charge and detain people in secret. I think its obvious why the best fiction about omnipresent despotic governments such as 1984 and 40k come out of the UK.
Sure, and they're wrong too. You aren't actually answering any points though, just playing 'whataboutism' and trying to equivocate people debating your frankly abhorrent views as being equally abhorrent.
You do realise you're debating against the concept of a fair trial, right? And the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' ?
I concede the point.
Despite posting you know nothing about UK politics and have no interest in the UK you have school experience with the UK legal system? For someone who know more than me, you sure act like you're just copy/pasting alt-right twitter feeds.
Real world experience reporting and covering demonstrations some of them violent and requiring police intervention. This is not one of them. Take my word i've seen demonstrations go bad and people get hurt as opposed to some crazy guy talking too himself outside a courthouse
alt-right
I get the sense calling someone alt right in the UK is like what calling someone socialist is in the US.
That's great, but he's not in America and appealing to the US justice system doesn't particularly interest me anyway.
In most countries everything outside the courthouse is fair game. England seems to be one of the few nations where the government quite literally has a secret police that are able to charge and detain people in secret. I think its obvious why the best fiction about omnipresent despotic governments such as 1984 and 40k come out of the UK.
Are you sure you aren't confusing these books with reality instead. So to humour me and everyone else here. Could you provide evidence of a UK secret police that is detaining people in secret? I am intrigued.
Man with suspended sentence does the thing he was told not to do so that he wouldn't go to jail, does the thing and is arrested now equals secret police.
Man with suspended sentence does the thing he was told not to do so that he wouldn't go to jail, does the thing and is arrested now equals secret police.
A media blackout, a trial and sentence carried out without the jury of ones peers, this is the very definition of secret police.
Lack of communication between the police and the local council and other bodies.
Lack of accountability in these organisations and oversite
Lack of acknowledgement that these things could happen
Lack of acceptance that known troubled children were being exploited and an approach that they were "crying wolf".
Its comments like this that give credence to alt right conspiracy theories. These crimes were tolerated because labor wanted votes. This has been documented time and time again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Despite posting you know nothing about UK politics and have no interest in the UK you have school experience with the UK legal system?
I do have an interest which is that this form of tyranny may be spread to where I live. I stated that I don't usually follow UK politics because ultimately this is not my fight regardless of how I feel about it morally. I state this because we live in a time where people adopt pet causes that in the end they don't care about to seem trendy.
As someone who would describe himself as, overall, politically on the quite comfortably on the right side rather than the left... And has had his share of disagreements with Whirlwind in the past on British political issues.
What the frak, I mean, seriously... What the frak.
I genuinely do not have the means to fathom the leaps of logic the air mage is making here.
I live in the town that Mr Yaxley hails from (I'm not from here). I even work in the area of the town that he's from. As a result, a fair few people at work have met him or know him personally. In fact, the office junior we used to have was hired to teach his kids Tae-Kwon-Do a few years ago. Needless to say recent events were, and have been, a hot topic of workplace discussion. Interestingly the majority actually do think he should be freed, although whether that's local bias or a more analytical determination of the merits of the judicial system is hard to say.
Nevertheless, I won't be lectured by people in the US who 'know more than me' about the topic.
On the wider subject of criminal/victim rights, about 10 years ago I had a vigorous debate with a young man from the Asian community (silly me forgot to ask where from). Someone had broken into a family home and held part of the family hostage. The homeowner rounded up a posse and invaded his own home with makeshift weapons. The initial criminal fled, but was chased down the street and attacked with said weapons (cricket bats etc) to the point they suffered permanent brain damage. I said that the perpetrators of the assault should be prosecuted as at that point they could not be reasonably said to be acting in self defence. His take was that once someone has threatened your family you are justified by any means to remove that threat, including killing them. Eventually he insisted to me that I'd favour the death penalty if my own mother was the one threatened and wouldn't accept any counterarguments along the lines of me knowing myself more than he did.
I learned recently he's been standing for local elections for the Tory party. Funny old world.
Fair Trial requires the Jury to decide solely on the facts as presented in the case. Not the opinions of a racist feth knuckle only out to fleece Gammons.
Tommy broke the law.
Tommy went to prison.
If he doesn’t want to live by our laws, maybe he shouldn’t live here?
And that includes mortgage fraud, spousal abuse, oh, and sneaking into the USA with a fake passport.
He’s a common criminal, just one with a mix and some brain dead supporters.
Fair Trial requires the Jury to decide solely on the facts as presented in the case. Not the opinions of a racist feth knuckle only out to fleece Gammons.
Tommy broke the law.
Tommy went to prison.
If he doesn’t want to live by our laws, maybe he shouldn’t live here?
And that includes mortgage fraud, spousal abuse, oh, and sneaking into the USA with a fake passport.
He’s a common criminal, just one with a mix and some brain dead supporters.
Honestly in this case the court had all rights to deny him the possibility to stream as to defend and protect an independent jury.
In fact i would argue that any state with a Jury System should do so else the jury system itself will become a problem as soon as someone charismatic or demagogic enough shows up.
A media blackout, a trial and sentence carried out without the jury of ones peers, this is the very definition of secret police.
Please explain to me again what you mean by a media blackout. I doubt it can be the case above as well, how would you know all about it given that you live on the other side of the pond? So please point me to a case where there has been a media blackout?
There has only been one occasion in the last 350 years or so where there has been a case without a jury (barring military cases but that's nothing to do with the police). The case involved a robbery at heathrow and case collapsed several times over concerns over jury tampering
So which trials are you referring to, the ones that have been undertaken under a media blackout?
I think you might find it hard to find anyone that could suggest people are being whisked away in the middle of the night with no one's knowledge. So again where is you evidence for these statements.
Lack of communication between the police and the local council and other bodies.
Lack of accountability in these organisations and oversite
Lack of acknowledgement that these things could happen
Lack of acceptance that known troubled children were being exploited and an approach that they were "crying wolf".
Its comments like this that give credence to alt right conspiracy theories. These crimes were tolerated because labor wanted votes. This has been documented time and time again.
Systematic failures does not represent a cover up, or a toleration of crimes. You do realise that the above statement is libellous don't you. Unless you have actual evidence that you would like to share with us to prove that the government was acting in this way?
I do have an interest which is that this form of tyranny may be spread to where I live. I stated that I don't usually follow UK politics because ultimately this is not my fight regardless of how I feel about it morally. I state this because we live in a time where people adopt pet causes that in the end they don't care about to seem trendy.
So just to confirm you have no interest in UK politics, but you've just joined dakka today, posted nine times in total, seven of which are in this topic, claiming without any evidence that we have secret police gathering people up with no trial all in mind to keep tyranny away? So which trendy cause is this that you are talking about? Are you sure you didn't just watch "V is for Vendetta" and mistake it for a BBC documentary?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: As someone who would describe himself as, overall, politically on the quite comfortably on the right side rather than the left... And has had his share of disagreements with Whirlwind in the past on British political issues.
What the frak, I mean, seriously... What the frak.
I genuinely do not have the means to fathom the leaps of logic the air mage is making here.
You see now look at what he has done...I'm agreeing with Compel...
I love how people assume i'm some sort of far right, murica, drone striking redhat when i'm speaking in favor of free speech and transparency. They come for Tommy today, who will they come for later.
Riquende wrote: His take was that once someone has threatened your family you are justified by any means to remove that threat, including killing them. Eventually he insisted to me that I'd favour the death penalty if my own mother was the one threatened and wouldn't accept any counterarguments along the lines of me knowing myself more than he did.
Blimey, on that basis twitter and facebook could cause a bloodbath.
Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote: I love how people assume i'm some sort of far right, murica, drone striking redhat when i'm speaking in favor of free speech and transparency. They come for Tommy today, who will they come for later.
Anyone else arrested, charged and found guilty of breaking the law, especially if they already have a suspended sentence for the same crime?
Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote: I love how people assume i'm some sort of far right, murica, drone striking redhat when i'm speaking in favor of free speech and transparency. They come for Tommy today, who will they come for later.
You say you argue for "free speech" yet classify a tad more restrictive information flow as the very definition of a "secret police" ?
No, just no, if you want to see a secret police in action search for "fichen Skandal".
Then you would have a proper exemple of secret police.
Also free speech can be a right that infringes on other rights and needs constant balance.
Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote: I love how people assume i'm some sort of far right, murica, drone striking redhat when i'm speaking in favor of free speech and transparency. They come for Tommy today, who will they come for later.
We have asked you for your evidence. Yet you are providing none. You are just making wild statements, which with your own admission you know nothing about. There is free speech (barring hate speech, but I have no issues with that) and the case you are referencing has transparency. You can even go and look up the case details if you were inclined. You just aren't listening to what people are telling you. You've already made up your mind that there is some conspiracy going on and rather than trying to look at the evidence being presented you are batting it back, closing your eyes and ears so you don't need to consider the information provided to you.
Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote: I love how people assume i'm some sort of far right, murica, drone striking redhat when i'm speaking in favor of free speech and transparency. They come for Tommy today, who will they come for later.
No, you're arguing for the freedom for a far right figurehead to intimidate a jury. He wasn't reporting on the court proceedings. There will be full transparency in the form of transcripts of the court. So what does this guy add?
Jury System should do so else the jury system itself will become a problem as soon as someone charismatic or demagogic enough shows up.
So in addition to taking away community control you replace them with faceless amoral technocrats.
Eventually he insisted to me that I'd favour the death penalty if my own mother was the one threatened and wouldn't accept any counterarguments along the lines of me knowing myself more than he did.
I agree with him
You do realise that the above statement is libellous don't you.
You can't commit libel against a government.
Systematic failures does not represent a cover up, or a toleration of crimes.
Jury System should do so else the jury system itself will become a problem as soon as someone charismatic or demagogic enough shows up.
So in addition to taking away community control you replace them with faceless amoral technocrats.
Eventually he insisted to me that I'd favour the death penalty if my own mother was the one threatened and wouldn't accept any counterarguments along the lines of me knowing myself more than he did.
I agree with him
You do realise that the above statement is libellous don't you.
You can't commit libel against a government.
Systematic failures does not represent a cover up, or a toleration of crimes.
Documented with eye witness testimony.
Thank you for completly missintepreting my statement and completly ignore my other one about secret police.
Again just for you: IF A GROUP OR DEMAGOGIC PERSON IS FORCING HIMSELF AND THE PUBLIC ON THE JURY, WHICH IN ORDER TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL, SHOULD BE AS INDEPENDENT AS POSSIBLE, THEN YES I VALUE THE ULTIMATE FREE SPEECH LESS THEN THE PROPERLY AND JUST WORKING COURT AND JURY SYSTEM, WHICH WOULD GET DESTROYED VIA PRESSURING THE JURY THROUGH DEMAGOGIC MEANS.
No, you're arguing for the freedom for a far right figurehead to intimidate a jury. He wasn't reporting on the court proceedings. There will be full transparency in the form of transcripts of the court. So what does this guy add?
Jury System should do so else the jury system itself will become a problem as soon as someone charismatic or demagogic enough shows up.
So in addition to taking away community control you replace them with faceless amoral technocrats.
Did you actually read the context of the statement and who on earth are these amoral technocrats?
You do realise that the above statement is libellous don't you.
You can't commit libel against a government.
Except you didn't say government, you said Labo(u)r....
Documented with eye witness testimony.
Evidence of what, of misogynistic behaviour in some Labour constituencies, that the claims weren't dealt with appropriately or in depth. What has that got to do with Labour allowing rape gangs in your paraphrased words or that our jury system is a system of special op police, stealing you away in the middle of the night?
I get how I might have appeared unclear. I'm not calling for a return of frontier justice. I'm calling for middle ground between mob rule and faceless governments officials deciding whats right and wrong. A good example would be modern day Poland, Ireland, or small town USA where their still is rule of law but where the cops are friends, neighbors, family and inlaws. Sort of like the town I live in. Let me put it this way if the groomers came here and tried that crap they would have a bad day, a very bad day.
I get how I might have appeared unclear. I'm not calling for a return of frontier justice. I'm calling for middle ground between mob rule and faceless governments officials deciding whats right and wrong. A good example would be modern day Poland, Ireland, or small town USA where their still is rule of law but where the cops are friends, neighbors, family and inlaws. Sort of like the town I live in. Let me put it this way if the groomers came here and tried that crap they would have a bad day, a very bad day.
I don't think your ideal exists, except in your imagination.
I get how I might have appeared unclear. I'm not calling for a return of frontier justice. I'm calling for middle ground between mob rule and faceless governments officials deciding whats right and wrong. A good example would be modern day Poland, Ireland, or small town USA where their still is rule of law but where the cops are friends, neighbors, family and inlaws. Sort of like the town I live in. Let me put it this way if the groomers came here and tried that crap they would have a bad day, a very bad day.
Because poland is such a paragon of a state of law. Nvm that i have relatives there, you don't want to hear half of what i heard but he sure, poland is a shining Star of justice and order....
You literally call here, in this comment for lynchjustice.
Literally the very definition.
Just stop pls.
Everyone, just ignore Air Mage, they're gakposting trying to stir up trouble.
Way ahead of you. Clearly just here to derail the thread and generate heat. Let's just drop the whole thing and talk about buses, which is apparently the new bee in Corbyn's bonnet.
I mean, I'm torn. Failing and disappearing bus services are increasing common (in Luton it's rare to see a service run after 7pm - the main private company, Arriva gave up years ago and a few local companies started to fill in but they abandoned the routes after a while). For people living in rural areas buses can be the only link they have to shops, social events etc.
It's a subject that is important and affects a growing number of people.... and yet consensus seems to be because he isn't tackling the 'big issues' (ministerial dishonesty, Brexit, etc) then his PMQs were wasted. It's indicative of just how large a pall Brexit is casting over our politics that trying to shine a light on real day to day issues is dismissed as irrelevant.
Whirlwind wrote:Article 11 is more specific. It basically provides copyright to the owners of the original press articles (but does allow their use for research and insubstantial elements of it). basically it prevents farming of news unless agreed by the owner (you can see this yahoo news, google news etc. This could apply to online newspapers that have a pay wall for example. I guess the principle is that if another company earns advertising revenue (like google, yahoo, microsoft etc) using someone else's works is then that fair? (I'd note non for profit website, online encyclopedias are exempt from this I believe). Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.
The risk is that there are unintended consequences. In this thread for example we have to stop copying and pasting whole articles because, I assume, some advertising revenue. However the implementation by individual governments will be key. It may be that ancilliary to main purpose may be considered fair use on the basis that it is 'research' on a topic. We already cannot, for example, paste electronic rules on the site!
They wanted something like that here in Germany and it backfired completely. If you have a google search that link needs some text to click on (like a title and a sentence or two). You can't just click on some empty void and hope to get the right article without any context. Media companies wanted licensing fees for that because google "makes money of their work" and Google (even as filthy rich as they are) could never pay that much so they just stopped linking to those publishers to comply with their wishes. Those companies then whined because their online readership collapsed (and thus their online advertising market). Now they want to try something similar in the whole of the EU. That should end up fun.
Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:
That's great, but he's not in America and appealing to the US justice system doesn't particularly interest me anyway.
In most countries everything outside the courthouse is fair game. England seems to be one of the few nations where the government quite literally has a secret police that are able to charge and detain people in secret. I think its obvious why the best fiction about omnipresent despotic governments such as 1984 and 40k come out of the UK.
You are missing the point, the UK (like Germany and multiple other European countries) have certain restrictions to keep trials fair. And it's not most countries, the media spectacle for trials are kinda a special feature of the USA, and so are the consequences of that media spectacle. We are doing okay over here without all that bs.
And I wouldn't accuse other countries of having a secret police that can detain people without a trial if I were from the USA. It's a bit too hypocritical. And that's on top of the US having the largest prison population in the world, three-strikes laws, for profit prisons, and the rest of the US law enforcement clusterfeth. If you think the UK is so much worse than the USA in that regard then I've got very bad news for you. Maybe you should inform yourself a bit more on the failings of the US system before coming into this thread and handwringing about the state of the UK judicial system. You might find something to really worry about (especially as the flag next to your name seems to indicate that you live over there).
Everyone, just ignore Air Mage, they're gakposting trying to stir up trouble.
Way ahead of you. Clearly just here to derail the thread and generate heat. Let's just drop the whole thing and talk about buses, which is apparently the new bee in Corbyn's bonnet.
I mean, I'm torn. Failing and disappearing bus services are increasing common (in Luton it's rare to see a service run after 7pm - the main private company, Arriva gave up years ago and a few local companies started to fill in but they abandoned the routes after a while). For people living in rural areas buses can be the only link they have to shops, social events etc.
It's a subject that is important and affects a growing number of people.... and yet consensus seems to be because he isn't tackling the 'big issues' (ministerial dishonesty, Brexit, etc) then his PMQs were wasted. It's indicative of just how large a pall Brexit is casting over our politics that trying to shine a light on real day to day issues is dismissed as irrelevant.
Buses have been declining for years on the rural routes. Councils have been stripped of cash. The rural routes aren't profitable for businesses as they are either empty or full of non paying pensioners. Hence councils previously subsidised these routes so a service is still provided. With the financial pressures anything that was not legally required for the councils to provide has effectively been scrapped as they simply don't have the money to provide them. Hence the subsidies stop and the privately funded bus businesses stop running them. That leads to more pain for the poorest.
Everyone, just ignore Air Mage, they're gakposting trying to stir up trouble.
Way ahead of you. Clearly just here to derail the thread and generate heat. Let's just drop the whole thing and talk about buses, which is apparently the new bee in Corbyn's bonnet.
I mean, I'm torn. Failing and disappearing bus services are increasing common (in Luton it's rare to see a service run after 7pm - the main private company, Arriva gave up years ago and a few local companies started to fill in but they abandoned the routes after a while). For people living in rural areas buses can be the only link they have to shops, social events etc.
It's a subject that is important and affects a growing number of people.... and yet consensus seems to be because he isn't tackling the 'big issues' (ministerial dishonesty, Brexit, etc) then his PMQs were wasted. It's indicative of just how large a pall Brexit is casting over our politics that trying to shine a light on real day to day issues is dismissed as irrelevant.
We need a full overhaul and nationalisation of public transport.
Before I worked in London, my disposable income each month was around £300, tops. My first month’s train ticket to London? £452. If it wasn’t for my parents helping out, I’d be stuck in dead end, low paying jobs where I live.
See, privatisation was sold as better. More efficient. Competition between operators would be inducement for fair pricing. Except, it didn’t work out like that - at all.
The line through my town is the only one between London and Hastings. And it’s run by a single operator, South Eastern. As a company, they have an absolute monopoly, and charge like it. They’ve got all commuters by the short and curlies. That’s not how it was billed.
And that company makes a profit in excess of its Government Subsidy. So all privatisation did was hand public cash and a ‘charge whatever we want’ business model to a private company.
Buses! Well, it’s pretty much Arriva. And again, they charge whatever they damn well please.
The clue is in the name. Public. Transport. It’s not there to make some business an easy profit. It’s there to help Joe Public get about. As it is, many are priced out of looking for employment elsewhere, limiting options and ensuring well paid jobs only benefit a small geographic region.
Because poland is such a paragon of a state of law.
If I had to pick a place to move to and language was no issue it would most likely be somewhere in Eastern Europe. Factoring in how difficult Slavic languages are to learn i'd probably go to the Philippines.
don't think your ideal exists
No ideal truly exist, not mine not yours.
Except you didn't say government, you said Labo(u)r....
A political party is not protected from libel or slander. I can say they like to choke themselves while dressing like clowns.
lynchjustice
No i'm calling for decentralized government and local control. Most of the world functions on this concept.
Evidence of what, of misogynistic behaviour in some Labour constituencies, that the claims weren't dealt with appropriately or in depth. What has that got to do with Labour allowing rape gangs in your paraphrased words or that our jury system is a system of special op police, stealing you away in the middle of the night?
Their are two different conversations going on. One about Tommy Robinson and one about what he was live streaming. What I was trying to say was that the UK government allowed this situation to be created in the first place. Its only getting more traction now that members of the majority ethnicity are suffering but these rape gangs were targeting Sikh and Roma girls before they targeted White British girls.. You accuse me of lynch justice? Lynch justice is not supporting non violent demonstrations or someone live streaming. Lynch justice is where people fear to run for a government position because someone might murder their kids.
I'd honestly would like to see you there, but not in krakow or warsaw or gdansk, no somewhere in the nowhere torwards russia.
I'd wager you 'd crawl back over to pond real quickly.
Not Online!!! wrote: I'd honestly would like to see you there, but not in krakow or warsaw or gdansk, no somewhere in the nowhere torwards russia.
I'd wager you 'd crawl back over to pond real quickly.
Now I might be being a mite suspicious but I wonder whether the person might not have that far to travel from where they actually are already. The sudden creation of an account today by someone that says they have no interest in uk politics but apart from two at the last count were all in this topic. It's a bit fishy to me especially given Salisbury (again),
Everyone, just ignore Air Mage, they're gakposting trying to stir up trouble.
Way ahead of you. Clearly just here to derail the thread and generate heat. Let's just drop the whole thing and talk about buses, which is apparently the new bee in Corbyn's bonnet.
I mean, I'm torn. Failing and disappearing bus services are increasing common (in Luton it's rare to see a service run after 7pm - the main private company, Arriva gave up years ago and a few local companies started to fill in but they abandoned the routes after a while). For people living in rural areas buses can be the only link they have to shops, social events etc.
It's a subject that is important and affects a growing number of people.... and yet consensus seems to be because he isn't tackling the 'big issues' (ministerial dishonesty, Brexit, etc) then his PMQs were wasted. It's indicative of just how large a pall Brexit is casting over our politics that trying to shine a light on real day to day issues is dismissed as irrelevant.
We need a full overhaul and nationalisation of public transport.
Before I worked in London, my disposable income each month was around £300, tops. My first month’s train ticket to London? £452. If it wasn’t for my parents helping out, I’d be stuck in dead end, low paying jobs where I live.
See, privatisation was sold as better. More efficient. Competition between operators would be inducement for fair pricing. Except, it didn’t work out like that - at all.
The line through my town is the only one between London and Hastings. And it’s run by a single operator, South Eastern. As a company, they have an absolute monopoly, and charge like it. They’ve got all commuters by the short and curlies. That’s not how it was billed.
And that company makes a profit in excess of its Government Subsidy. So all privatisation did was hand public cash and a ‘charge whatever we want’ business model to a private company.
Buses! Well, it’s pretty much Arriva. And again, they charge whatever they damn well please.
The clue is in the name. Public. Transport. It’s not there to make some business an easy profit. It’s there to help Joe Public get about. As it is, many are priced out of looking for employment elsewhere, limiting options and ensuring well paid jobs only benefit a small geographic region.
Strangely enough - over here in the north-eastern USA - the local bus company is vibrant and expanding, after decades of scraping by - the poor economy had forced people to use the bus, and put much needed money into the system.
New routes, new buses, and adding Wi-Fi.
Ten years of a poorish economy made an enormous difference.
Not sure if the local Metro is publicly owned, a non-profit, or what.
But I do know that I greatly prefer grabbing the bus to driving to work,
Universal credit, the brainchild of Ian Duncan Smith is causing poverty and misery to thousands and is unfit for use. McVey lied to parliament about key issues and received a reprimand from the National Audit Office, but nothing from the Govt so far.
The article makes an interesting point, everything IDS, a ferocious Brexit advocate, does seems to go down the toilet as it is usually based on ideology, not good ideas. At what point do these individuals get held to account?
Portillo is responsible for the Annington homes scandal, an issue so profoundly expensive and damaging it will cost the taxpayer millions and could cripple the MoD, yet he continues to swan about making TV shows about trains. Where's the accountability for your decision making? Where's the personal responsibility?
I stood as a Labour Council Candidate there sometime in the 90's - the paper they used to keep tallies of candidates votes ran out of space for the Tory candidates. You could put up a monkey there and still win if it had a blue rosette.
Whirlwind wrote:Article 11 is more specific. It basically provides copyright to the owners of the original press articles (but does allow their use for research and insubstantial elements of it). basically it prevents farming of news unless agreed by the owner (you can see this yahoo news, google news etc. This could apply to online newspapers that have a pay wall for example. I guess the principle is that if another company earns advertising revenue (like google, yahoo, microsoft etc) using someone else's works is then that fair? (I'd note non for profit website, online encyclopedias are exempt from this I believe). Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.
The risk is that there are unintended consequences. In this thread for example we have to stop copying and pasting whole articles because, I assume, some advertising revenue. However the implementation by individual governments will be key. It may be that ancilliary to main purpose may be considered fair use on the basis that it is 'research' on a topic. We already cannot, for example, paste electronic rules on the site!
They wanted something like that here in Germany and it backfired completely. If you have a google search that link needs some text to click on (like a title and a sentence or two). You can't just click on some empty void and hope to get the right article without any context. Media companies wanted licensing fees for that because google "makes money of their work" and Google (even as filthy rich as they are) could never pay that much so they just stopped linking to those publishers to comply with their wishes. Those companies then whined because their online readership collapsed (and thus their online advertising market). Now they want to try something similar in the whole of the EU. That should end up fun.
And the vote failed. Despite having people like Paul Mcartney for it.
For arguments' sake, here is the take of a Conservative MP on why did he vote for:
Universal credit in and of itself, is not a bad idea. One consolidated payment cuts down on all the associated costs with running different payments through half a dozen systems.
The problem is when you use the opportunity of re-instituting it to sneak in another dozen hidden cuts to people who really need the money...
And completely unnecessary delays with arbitrary cancellation of it if they every hit a threshold. So you can have someone on zero hours get enough shifts one week to drop them off it, and then they are stuck waiting 6 weeks (?) to start getting paid again.
It's done in the most callous way possible.
But in theory a simplified benefits system should save a lot of money. It's wasted though, as is typical for the Tories. More money spent denying people disability benefits than saved in disability benefits, with a huge appeal success ratio. If you're spending more than you save and usually being overturned, surely it's better to just give the people the dang money?
Herzlos wrote: And completely unnecessary delays with arbitrary cancellation of it if they every hit a threshold. So you can have someone on zero hours get enough shifts one week to drop them off it, and then they are stuck waiting 6 weeks (?) to start getting paid again.
It's done in the most callous way possible.
But in theory a simplified benefits system should save a lot of money. It's wasted though, as is typical for the Tories. More money spent denying people disability benefits than saved in disability benefits, with a huge appeal success ratio. If you're spending more than you save and usually being overturned, surely it's better to just give the people the dang money?
Because that dent's their view that they really are just lazy people that can't be bothered to get a job compared to reality where they are people that really are down on their luck or have other issues to contend with.
Herzlos wrote: And completely unnecessary delays with arbitrary cancellation of it if they every hit a threshold. So you can have someone on zero hours get enough shifts one week to drop them off it, and then they are stuck waiting 6 weeks (?) to start getting paid again.
It's done in the most callous way possible.
But in theory a simplified benefits system should save a lot of money. It's wasted though, as is typical for the Tories. More money spent denying people disability benefits than saved in disability benefits, with a huge appeal success ratio. If you're spending more than you save and usually being overturned, surely it's better to just give the people the dang money?
Because that dent's their view that they really are just lazy people that can't be bothered to get a job compared to reality where they are people that really are down on their luck or have other issues to contend with.
Living on a council estate for a good chunk of my life, I've seen plenty of both stripes. To the point where I think there's probably as many of one as t'other. Or there were (claiming it now is probably too much hassle).
That being said, pressuring desperate poor people to try and penalise the ones who do take the mick a little is inhumane. 'We need to save a few bob and some people rip off the benefits system; so let's make life intolerable for all people on the system' really isn't the solution. Not when the quantities of money saved are so utterly piffling. When you squeeze the pennies out the poor until they squeak only to throw it away in firing off a few dozen missiles at the Middle-East for virtually no gain? It says a lot about your priorities.
New Customs plan from Mrs May looks like a hybrid of the two already existing plans which have been rejected by the EU. Typically, Hard Brexiteers are already slagging it off.
Kilkrazy wrote: New Customs plan from Mrs May looks like a hybrid of the two already existing plans which have been rejected by the EU. Typically, Hard Brexiteers are already slagging it off.
I thought those hard Brexiteers were launching their coup d'état against May tomorrow?
Obviously I'm on the Brexit side, but even I weary of constant threats of letters to the 1922 committee.
If they're going to bring down May, then walk the walk.
I've always had a grudging respect for people who do what they said they'd do, even if I disagree with them e.g Remain supporting dakka members. At least you lot have stuck to your guns and stood up for what you believed in, unlike those so called EU supporters in The Commons.
Once again I feel the need to point out they're representing a constituancy in the house of commons. And as most constituants voted brexit they'd be pretty silly to get in the way of the will of the people, it'd certainly be immoral of them to stand up for things probably even treasonous.
Why would they do that, they would lose their political capability for blackmail.
That would weaken them. Now the only question is who throws first and gives in.
I dunno, I think there is an argument to be made for acting in what you think is the best interest of the country. That is what representative democracy is about. I agree with DINLT, British parliamentary democracy seems badly atrophied. It is quite shocking to me - we used to be able to get the British channels at home when I was a kid and I always looked upon British politicians and the whole process in the House of Commons as more dignified and the participants better educated than in Ireland. Now I think I was just taken in by confidence and posh accents, and in reality there are few of them of any substance. I am questioning the value of an Oxbridge education as well, seeing as a country run almost exclusively by people of that background is in such a shambles.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Once again I feel the need to point out they're representing a constituancy in the house of commons. And as most constituants voted brexit they'd be pretty silly to get in the way of the will of the people, it'd certainly be immoral of them to stand up for things probably even treasonous.
Yeah, but what about the great tradition of Edmund Burke and MPs keeping their own judgment?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Once again I feel the need to point out they're representing a constituancy in the house of commons. And as most constituants voted brexit they'd be pretty silly to get in the way of the will of the people, it'd certainly be immoral of them to stand up for things probably even treasonous.
Yeah, but what about the great tradition of Edmund Burke and MPs keeping their own judgment?
Da Boss wrote: I dunno, I think there is an argument to be made for acting in what you think is the best interest of the country. That is what representative democracy is about. I agree with DINLT, British parliamentary democracy seems badly atrophied. It is quite shocking to me - we used to be able to get the British channels at home when I was a kid and I always looked upon British politicians and the whole process in the House of Commons as more dignified and the participants better educated than in Ireland. Now I think I was just taken in by confidence and posh accents, and in reality there are few of them of any substance. I am questioning the value of an Oxbridge education as well, seeing as a country run almost exclusively by people of that background is in such a shambles.
It wasn't always like that. The Tories used to believe in meritocracy at one time, Thatcher and Major being prime examples of people from humble backgrounds getting to the top, and of course, Labour had a few PMs of that mould as well.
As for MPs, I can't even say the old days were better, because they weren't. Up here in Scotland, Labour dominated for decades, and the vote was weighed, with the end result that it was a jobs for the boys mentality = gak poor MPs who got the nod because they played golf with the right people, rather than any great talent for the job.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Once again I feel the need to point out they're representing a constituancy in the house of commons. And as most constituants voted brexit they'd be pretty silly to get in the way of the will of the people, it'd certainly be immoral of them to stand up for things probably even treasonous.
Yeah, but what about the great tradition of Edmund Burke and MPs keeping their own judgment?
So you're in favour MP's tanking Brexit then?
Hand on heart, I'm just waiting for something to be done. 2 years I've been waiting for Brexit!!!!
Kilkrazy wrote: New Customs plan from Mrs May looks like a hybrid of the two already existing plans which have been rejected by the EU. Typically, Hard Brexiteers are already slagging it off.
We're back to the mythical technology that doesn't exist yet but hopefully will do at some point when we need it. How long until the EU says "no we've told you this before"
Tory councillor and MP candidate (and ex Blind Date and Crystal Maze contestant, apparently) Andrew Livsey gets two comments and a question, which Dimbleby asks him to expand on, on QT. Totally by accident, I’m sure.
Herzlos wrote: And completely unnecessary delays with arbitrary cancellation of it if they every hit a threshold. So you can have someone on zero hours get enough shifts one week to drop them off it, and then they are stuck waiting 6 weeks (?) to start getting paid again.
It's done in the most callous way possible.
But in theory a simplified benefits system should save a lot of money. It's wasted though, as is typical for the Tories. More money spent denying people disability benefits than saved in disability benefits, with a huge appeal success ratio. If you're spending more than you save and usually being overturned, surely it's better to just give the people the dang money?
Because that dent's their view that they really are just lazy people that can't be bothered to get a job compared to reality where they are people that really are down on their luck or have other issues to contend with.
Living on a council estate for a good chunk of my life, I've seen plenty of both stripes. To the point where I think there's probably as many of one as t'other. Or there were (claiming it now is probably too much hassle).
That being said, pressuring desperate poor people to try and penalise the ones who do take the mick a little is inhumane. 'We need to save a few bob and some people rip off the benefits system; so let's make life intolerable for all people on the system' really isn't the solution. Not when the quantities of money saved are so utterly piffling. When you squeeze the pennies out the poor until they squeak only to throw it away in firing off a few dozen missiles at the Middle-East for virtually no gain? It says a lot about your priorities.
It's rare that we agree, but in this you're absolutely spot on. I've also been raised on council estates and know for a fact that for every example of the "virtuous poor" theres a chancing scrounger out to get something for nothing.
However at this end of the financial spectrum the budget impact of these reforms is tiny, especially as it is dwarfed by the amount spent on pensions. If they took the money and effort spent on introducing this new benefits system and turned it towards reforming taxation, they'd probably increase receipts.
However, I'm no accountant, I have no proposals to suggest about how we'd do that.
However at this end of the financial spectrum the budget impact of these reforms is tiny,
Aye, and the impact disproportionate. If you went to raise the equivalent sum from the defence budget, the NHS, income tax, or most other things; it would barely be noticeable. But for those who have nothing, the impact on their lives of cutting even the tiniest sum is huge. It can tip you over the line into poverty and the street. It's no coincidence that more people than ever are using food banks, and those aren't the people ripping off the dole. There's more people on the streets than ever before. These are the people that these pressures have hit; not those who do cash in hand building work and sign on on the side.
In the light of all that, we fired 8 Stormshadow missiles at IS in March this year alone, at a cost of £2.5 million pounds each. Now I don't resent spending the money on the defence budget, but I do find it highly telling that the government can fire and replace 20 million pounds worth of 'fire and forget' military hardware without a murmur; when the magic money tree doesn't appear for those who need the cash most desperately. A billion pounds can be found to address deprivation and health services in Ireland when there's votes on the line; but those sitting in say, Sunderland, don't get jack.
I accept that Brexit is a highly complicated affair, but I don't buy that it absolves the government of all their other responsibilities. Having given her the year honeymoon to see what she is about, I judge May a failure as a Prime Minister. She pissed her majority away on an election she fumbled through egotism and overconfidence, and has consequently prioritised holding onto the reins of power above all else. Above the need for effective governance, above the need to address the many other issues than Brexit Britain faces, and above the interests of the people. Even if she pulls Brexit off, she screwed up plenty elsewhere to counterbalance it.
The most depressing thing is that I don't see much in the way of replacements. Probably the only Tory I'd look at would be Sajid Javid. Tom Watson is a bit of an eel, but I might go for him depending on policies. Both are distinctly second rate; but when surrounded by third and fourth rate politicians, you take what you can get. Vince would have worked for me, but he's past his prime now; we don't need another Gladstone situation.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Once again I feel the need to point out they're representing a constituancy in the house of commons. And as most constituants voted brexit they'd be pretty silly to get in the way of the will of the people, it'd certainly be immoral of them to stand up for things probably even treasonous.
Yeah but that's not how it works they are supposed to act on behalf of there constituents but taking into consideration what is best for them and the country not specifically what they want.
Besides most of the Tory brexit loons are from remain constituencies that inbred Moggy being a prime example.
To your final question yes MP's should be kicking Brexit out due to the permanent damage it is going to do to the country thats there actual job, sadly as normal Tory scum put party before country.
The "will of the People" bollocks is a little hollow to say the least and is mostly spouted by the right wing swivel eyed loons and those that stand to profit and/or doge incoming tax laws.
MP's should be acting in the best interest of all their constituents,
And not tired to a non-binding referendum.
The referendum has resulted in thousands of hours of analysis and research (just not from any prominent brexiteers) and is looking totally unworkable/unviable. So I don't think there's any problem in saying "you voted to leave so we've spent 2 years looking into it and don't think it's in the best intrrest of the country, so we're going to remain in and try to address your concerns with powers we already have whilst taking full advantage of the benefits of the union".
It'll upset the brothers but they are going to be upset anyway. But at least that way we don't need to raise taxes to keep the lights on.
Obviously I'm on the Brexit side
I think this is a big problem and why no progress is getting made. There seem to be a lot of people who only care about Brexit happening so will always side with brexit regardless of the implications. There's no meaningful debate with that level of zealotry, because there can be no compromise or criticism.
It's gone so far that some Brexiteers can't even admin Farage or Johnson have done anything wrong. I suspect because if they start to accept some shortcoming of Brexit the whole house of cards comes down.
Herzlos wrote: MP's should be acting in the best interest of all their constituents,
And not tired to a non-binding referendum.
The referendum has resulted in thousands of hours of analysis and research (just not from any prominent brexiteers) and is looking totally unworkable/unviable. So I don't think there's any problem in saying "you voted to leave so we've spent 2 years looking into it and don't think it's in the best intrrest of the country, so we're going to remain in and try to address your concerns with powers we already have whilst taking full advantage of the benefits of the union".
Which is what they should have done before invoking article 50.
2. We crash out with No Deal. Economy turns to gak, possibly sorting out house prices as a single cherry on the Dogpoo. We come to our senses, and rejoin on worse terms (no rebate, lesser influence)
3. We get a one-sided deal. Economy turns to gak, possibly sorting out house prices as a single cherry on the Dogpoo. We comes to our senses, and rejoin on worse terms (no rebate, lesser influence)
