Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 reds8n wrote:


https://tompride.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/tory-mp-who-blocked-private-bill-to-outlaw-upskirting-has-sponsored-47-private-bills-himself/

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.

You mean like the inanimate object Theresa May?

 Whirlwind wrote:

 reds8n wrote:


https://tompride.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/tory-mp-who-blocked-private-bill-to-outlaw-upskirting-has-sponsored-47-private-bills-himself/

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.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 reds8n wrote:


https://tompride.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/tory-mp-who-blocked-private-bill-to-outlaw-upskirting-has-sponsored-47-private-bills-himself/

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.

Have we started tearing into Christopher Chope yet? I’ll say my bit; he’s an aul witch and if he had any decency he’d resign.

Which, of course, he doesn't, so he won't.

Yep, after further reading its really hard to talk about this guy without running foul of the swear filter.

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.

gakker.

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...

Screen grab here.

https://twitter.com/alastairgrdn/status/1007702267489857536?s=21

 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.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-funding-theresa-may-20-billion-2023-tax-brexit-a8402566.html

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.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/london-frankfurt-cologne-train-deutsche-bahn-db-eurostar-cancelled-shelved-a8394806.html

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.

I noted these gems about Christopher Chope

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.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1008216901376512001.html

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.

2018-2023. = 3.4%
1948-2018. = 3.7%

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.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0615/970823-tony-connelly-brexit/

Interesting...

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/16/leave-eu-russia-arron-banks-andy-wigmore

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3011958-George-Cottrell-Indictment.html

George Cottrell, was advertising money laundering services on the dark web. He was caught red-handed in a FBI sting.


.. he worked alongside/for Farage.




..so where did the money come from then ?

and in a somewhat odd move...



The Home Office has left India out of a relaxation of student visa rules.

we've already seen a pretty dramatic reduction in the number of Indian students in the UK anyway



if you recall, last year India said that if the UK wants a post-Brexit free trade deal, UK needs to be more open to migration from India.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/23/britain-must-accept-immigrants-wants-free-trade-deal-warns-senior/


so we seem to be scuppering any future deal with India then.. ?

 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?

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 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.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 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...




I am unsure whether to laugh or cry!

"Little England" has never wanted to be so small.

Tory voters do know the party's full official name is the "Conservative and Unionist" party, right? Of course they don't.

Big Day for the people of Tyrone!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44536978

That anyone would want to stop something that is helping a child who is suffering is crazy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44532887

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.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44532887

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.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44532500

 Whirlwind wrote:

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44532887

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.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44532887

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.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44532500

Good! I loathe the EAW, its illiberal as feth.

That sounds like very good news to me.

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?

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?

The UK might well leave Interpol while they're at it.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:


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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Good! I loathe the EAW, its illiberal as feth.

That sounds like very good news to me.

Why is it, just stating that doesn't make it true?

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?

It's part of EU. All he needs to hate it. As long as UK gets rid of EU UK can burn as far as him goes.