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.

Herzlos wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He absolutely is entitled to a fair and just trial.

Shame the only thing suggesting he won't get that is, well....Mr Julian Assange.....

If only he'd not systematically pee'd off lots of governments....

If anyone can provide a trial where Assange is safe from US black-bagging ("extraordinary rendition"?), then he'd be happy to attend it.
That the Swedish police haven't even tried to interview him yet means that they aren't that bothered about getting it sorted. He's offered to host them, or to testify via video link.

They did interview him in 2016.

It's the queens sapphire jubilee today. What are the odds that she'll make the next one? And come to think of it, what is the next one anyway?

They're going to keep Liz running if they have to hook her up to the Golden Throne. Otherwise Chuck gets in. And nobody wants that.

Oh god I am not looking forward to having that big eared hippie on the throne.

I'm OK with it, as long as somebody stitches his mouth shut.

King Charles is a constitutional crisis just waiting to happen.

I think Australia and New Zealand will pull the plug on monarchy when Lizzie passes on, or so I'm led to believe.

As a Republican, I'd be delighted to see King Charles III.

Nothing will speed up the demise of that wretched institution more quicker than Charles.

Edit: are we not reliant on Duchy originals to keep us afloat post-Brexit?

We might need Charles.

Old, white, low-qualified people in deprived areas were more likely to vote Leave.

My goodness. This is what I noticed in a TV report shortly after the Brexit. ''Gaining back control'' and getting out of 800,000 Polish workers were too tempting. But who will then do the lowly paid jobs in the UK in the future?

TBF he has very little choice here

Another great piece of news to cheer people up: student loan debt to be privatised.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/feb/06/universities-minister-announces-sale-of-student-loan-book

Osborne flogged Royal Mail, and his mate profited to the tune of 35 million quid. Now this. I bet there are people who are friends with the Tories who will benefit from this.

The Tories really are corrupt and yet, people wonder why I despise them.

If it's not nailed down, they will sell it

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Another great piece of news to cheer people up: student loan debt to be privatised.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/feb/06/universities-minister-announces-sale-of-student-loan-book

Osborne flogged Royal Mail, and his mate profited to the tune of 35 million quid. Now this. I bet there are people who are friends with the Tories who will benefit from this.

The Tories really are corrupt and yet, people wonder why I despise them.

If it's not nailed down, they will sell it

I have yet to meet anyone that thinks highly of Mr Osbourne, credit due to him for trying to control debt after the recession but that's it. No personality, no moral fibre and no sympathy for anybody other than himself. Glad he got the chop with best buddy Cameron. The selling of Royal Mail was a 'rush job' which didn't give the tax payer or the companies staff a good deal at all. Selling student debt, that's a new one! Now current students might still be guaranteed under the terms and conditions, but whoever the buyer is must see a good deal for themselves.

I do not have a higher education, but I believe the whole scheme of only pay back when you begin earning X amount was a great deal for students, but a disastrous policy for the UK. Many students have found it hard to get that good job the degree was for in recent times and a fair few may never get a job that pays enough to begin the repayment process. As more people go to university each year government spending on the sector gets stretched further whilst having less income returning and having to wait much longer to balance the books. What this may well lead to is much higher fees and less time for future students to begin repayment. I would have thought it would have been better to make students pay as soon as they get a job, no matter what it was. Instead have the rate of repayment dependant on what their yearly income is.

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

HAHAHA! Indeed!

 kronk wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

HAHAHA! Indeed!

I don't know how to respond, those wigs always looked silly, but again it is a long standing tradition. Or as he puts it 'Colleagues will be pleased to learn this change will save money'. Just how much taxpayers money was spent on wigs then? A wig can't cost much right?

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Another great piece of news to cheer people up: student loan debt to be privatised.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/feb/06/universities-minister-announces-sale-of-student-loan-book

Osborne flogged Royal Mail, and his mate profited to the tune of 35 million quid. Now this. I bet there are people who are friends with the Tories who will benefit from this.

The Tories really are corrupt and yet, people wonder why I despise them.

If it's not nailed down, they will sell it

I have yet to meet anyone that thinks highly of Mr Osbourne, credit due to him for trying to control debt after the recession but that's it. No personality, no moral fibre and no sympathy for anybody other than himself. Glad he got the chop with best buddy Cameron. The selling of Royal Mail was a 'rush job' which didn't give the tax payer or the companies staff a good deal at all. Selling student debt, that's a new one! Now current students might still be guaranteed under the terms and conditions, but whoever the buyer is must see a good deal for themselves.

I do not have a higher education, but I believe the whole scheme of only pay back when you begin earning X amount was a great deal for students, but a disastrous policy for the UK. Many students have found it hard to get that good job the degree was for in recent times and a fair few may never get a job that pays enough to begin the repayment process. As more people go to university each year government spending on the sector gets stretched further whilst having less income returning and having to wait much longer to balance the books. What this may well lead to is much higher fees and less time for future students to begin repayment. I would have thought it would have been better to make students pay as soon as they get a job, no matter what it was. Instead have the rate of repayment dependant on what their yearly income is.

Speaking from experience, I was a bad student. I should never have gone, I would have been more suited to something vocational. University education has been over-inflated ever since New Labour. Its like a house of cards really, a long con. And I didn't even pick a bad degree, I just chose something that has a very narrow field and limited opportunities (Forensics), and also performed poorly academically. I imagine its even worse for students who did what are commonly called "Mickey Mouse" degrees.

 reds8n wrote:








TBF he has very little choice here

Spoiler:

But its not a wig!1!

Its not often that the Speaker gets a round of applause. I'm sure that May is having a wonderful evening

I don't disagree with it, Trump has not earned the honour, but isn't this a partisan move?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I don't disagree with it, Trump has not earned the honour, but isn't this a partisan move?

Probably, but according to my research, Bercow and the House can move to block Trump from entering the commons or the meeting hall or whatever.

Parliament strikes back! Take that PM May

Parliament gained this power after the English Civil war for obvious reasons. They didn't like Kings turning up to arrest MPs, so they have control of who gets in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Another great piece of news to cheer people up: student loan debt to be privatised.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/feb/06/universities-minister-announces-sale-of-student-loan-book

Osborne flogged Royal Mail, and his mate profited to the tune of 35 million quid. Now this. I bet there are people who are friends with the Tories who will benefit from this.

The Tories really are corrupt and yet, people wonder why I despise them.

If it's not nailed down, they will sell it

I have yet to meet anyone that thinks highly of Mr Osbourne, credit due to him for trying to control debt after the recession but that's it. No personality, no moral fibre and no sympathy for anybody other than himself. Glad he got the chop with best buddy Cameron. The selling of Royal Mail was a 'rush job' which didn't give the tax payer or the companies staff a good deal at all. Selling student debt, that's a new one! Now current students might still be guaranteed under the terms and conditions, but whoever the buyer is must see a good deal for themselves.

I do not have a higher education, but I believe the whole scheme of only pay back when you begin earning X amount was a great deal for students, but a disastrous policy for the UK. Many students have found it hard to get that good job the degree was for in recent times and a fair few may never get a job that pays enough to begin the repayment process. As more people go to university each year government spending on the sector gets stretched further whilst having less income returning and having to wait much longer to balance the books. What this may well lead to is much higher fees and less time for future students to begin repayment. I would have thought it would have been better to make students pay as soon as they get a job, no matter what it was. Instead have the rate of repayment dependant on what their yearly income is.

I'm struggling to see how anybody makes any money from trying to get the debt back, unless of course the plan is too flog the persoanl data, which will probably be more valuable in this day and age.

It's all very short term

I've not even heard that it was even supposed to be something that was on the cards. It seems kinda premature, at the moment anyhow. Kinda feels like stirring gak for the sake of stirring gak...

I'm jumping between this and events in the House of Commons, but it looks like Labour's Article 50 amendments are getting shot down in flames, rebuilt, and then shot down in flames again!

Some of them are daft. They were asking the UK government to gain documents that only the EU parliament can get

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I don't disagree with it, Trump has not earned the honour, but isn't this a partisan move?

Probably, but according to my research, Bercow and the House can move to block Trump from entering the commons or the meeting hall or whatever.

Parliament strikes back! Take that PM May

Parliament gained this power after the English Civil war for obvious reasons. They didn't like Kings turning up to arrest MPs, so they have control of who gets in.

Yes, they have the right. But that doesn't mean they should exercise it. I would have preferred it if the Government itself blocked it and kicked it into the long grass, even with a blatant excuse like "President Trump and Prime Minister May are much too busy with Brexit etc to schedule a visit to Parliament". The Speaker ought to be above all this.

Who's idea was it anyway? Has a Trump appearance in Parliament actually been officially mooted? Did our Government suggest it, did Trump request it? (wouldn't surprise me). Or is this just virtue signalling and grandstanding on the Speaker's part blocking a non-existent visit?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I don't disagree with it, Trump has not earned the honour, but isn't this a partisan move?

Probably, but according to my research, Bercow and the House can move to block Trump from entering the commons or the meeting hall or whatever.

Parliament strikes back! Take that PM May

Parliament gained this power after the English Civil war for obvious reasons. They didn't like Kings turning up to arrest MPs, so they have control of who gets in.

Yes, they have the right. But that doesn't mean they should exercise it. I would have preferred it if the Government itself blocked it and kicked it into the long grass, even with a blatant excuse like "President Trump and Prime Minister May are much too busy with Brexit etc to schedule a visit to Parliament". The Speaker ought to be above all this.

Who's idea was it anyway? Has a Trump appearance in Parliament actually been officially mooted? Did our Government suggest it, did Trump request it? (wouldn't surprise me). Or is this just virtue signalling and grandstanding on the Speaker's part blocking a non-existent visit?

I would chalk this up as virtue signalling. At any rate, if we stick Trump in a golden carriage with the Queen, I doubt if he'll be too bothered about the Commons.

Wait a fetching minute, is this the same speaker who welcomed to Parliament the Chinese President, from a country notorious for his human rights record?

https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/speeches/speeches/speakers-speech-president-xi-jinpings-address-to-parliament/

What a monumental fething hypocrite. That settles it. This recent stunt by Bercow is nothing but vacuous virtue signalling.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Wait a fetching minute, is this the same speaker who welcomed to Parliament the Chinese President, from a country notorious for his human rights record?

https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/speeches/speeches/speakers-speech-president-xi-jinpings-address-to-parliament/

What a monumental fething hypocrite. That settles it. This recent stunt by Bercow is nothing but vacuous virtue signalling.

It really is. Somebody needs to flush that turd. He's an embarrassment.

Who bets half of Labour protest about Trump turning up in the UK and boycott parliament, whereas the others don't and then they in fight ludicrously to demonstrate the mess the opposition is in to Mr Trump in the UK. As for the S.N.P Trump's visit no doubt signals England's supremacy and bigoted-ness over Scotland and they go on a hissy fit in front of Trump. No doubt whist all this is happening the Tories are out-shouting everyone and Mr Speaker is forgotten about. I could very well see why Trump wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the commons.

Edit It will be interesting to see what reception Trump gets if he does ever come to the UK. Are we to see every protester in the world fly into London to protest over the No-longer-there immigration ban? Will London face a new set of riots and anarchy? I certainly hope not, if Trump does visit we should put on a good show, in such an event its time to see past the personality and focus on international trade and political relations. I would be furious to see the public cock it all up over his alleged past, that outside the internet and media has no effect on any of our lives. 'Trump Fever' is an international craze for those seeking political correct justice and self empowerment when in fact its just a case of 'the emperors new clothes'

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It's the queens sapphire jubilee today. What are the odds that she'll make the next one? And come to think of it, what is the next one anyway?

70 years -- Platinum Jubilee. I really hope Brenda makes it and I think the odds are pretty good. Her mother lasted over 100 years, preserved by gin and Dubonnet, after all.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It's the queens sapphire jubilee today. What are the odds that she'll make the next one? And come to think of it, what is the next one anyway?

70 years -- Platinum Jubilee. I really hope Brenda makes it and I think the odds are pretty good. Her mother lasted over 100 years, preserved by gin and Dubonnet, after all.

I didn't know that - cheers

I think as long as the Duke Of Edinburgh keeps going, the Queen will keep going and visa versa. Because then...

 Sentinel1 wrote:
As for the S.N.P Trump's visit no doubt signals England's supremacy and bigoted-ness over Scotland and they go on a hissy fit in front of Trump.

Google Balmedie golf course, possibly in conjunction with 'wind farm', 'wall' or 'mariachi band'. The Scots have been ripping the absolute pish out of trump since long before it was fashionable (even if the mariachi band was a publicity stunt by Paddy Power).

I've just had a thought (I know, I know, I'll go lie down soon).

But, how's this for an idea and insane theory? The Bercow statement is actually planned by parliament as a whole, including the current Government.

Currently, Trump's fixated on other stuff right now, picking fights with judges, American Handegg, the New York Times... Anyone who has ever run a poll with results he doesn't like... His eye right now, is currently off of Britain.

As far as I can see, there's nothing that's actually been confirmed that there's an offer for him to address parliament, so the Government hasn't really had anything to lose, unlike the State Visit.

So, knowing that the UK is currently outside of the Eye of Trump, for the moment, the House of Commons releases this statement. The other country's in the world, particularly Europe, hear them saying this and pay attention. Yet, it's outside of Trump's attention, if we're lucky.

Like Ketara said a few pages ago, good ol' Perfidious Albion. If this is somehow pulled off, we might be able to teach the Romulan Star Empire a thing or two...

It's also good to remember that Trump is only president, for now. Being seen by the international community to cosy up to this man may actually harm our trade talks with other countries, particularly the EU. He's not keen on them, and they, for the most part think he's a twunt.
America accounts for about 14% of our trade, the EU accounts for over 3 times as much as that.

Being friendly directly to the man plays to his ego, but taking a firm stance against what he says about torture keeps us onside with the rest of the world. He's not exactly making friends, and let's be real about this, how long is he going to be in power for? I think it's a miracle if he lasts 1 term without impeachment.

Besides I'm all for protest, if people want to make the effort to go and demonstrate that they think something is wrong, and it's peaceful, more power to them. If occasionally an egg gets thrown in Stoke, well I'm not to worried about that either.

It's always worth doing your first fight against fascism using eggs, if you can!

Throw enough eggs, and you might not have to throw punches.

Through enough punches, and you might not have to throw 50 million people into a horrific meat grinder of a World War!

Go eggers!

To suck up to Trump is to suck up to the minority of Americans who support him. They are by and large older, whiter, lower uneducated and living in economically depressed areas, afraid of immigrants because they haven't had the life experiences that would open their minds to the good things about immigration.

These people ought to be supported, helped and brought out of their slough of despond, but it cannot be done by pandering to their leader's mad ideas.