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.

 jhe90 wrote:

Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.

Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.

Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!

Not Bojo. She home secretary, that's Rudd. Bojo is Foreign office and Trump... Was well... Trump...i cannot say anything else.

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.

Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!

Not Bojo. She home secretary, that's Rudd. Bojo is Foreign office and Trump... Was well... Trump...i cannot say anything else.

Oh, of course. I'm confusing her with Thornberry.

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.

Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!

Not Bojo. She home secretary, that's Rudd. Bojo is Foreign office and Trump... Was well... Trump...i cannot say anything else.

Oh, of course. I'm confusing her with Thornberry.

Lol there the few I know. I could not tell you who on NhS, Business or even chancaler off top of head.
Proves how memorable our current crop are vs a old timers.

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.

Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!

Not Bojo. She home secretary, that's Rudd. Bojo is Foreign office and Trump... Was well... Trump...i cannot say anything else.

Oh, of course. I'm confusing her with Thornberry.

Lol there the few I know. I could not tell you who on NhS, Business or even chancaler off top of head.
Proves how memorable our current crop are vs a old timers.

Ashworth and McDonnel are health and chancellor, don't know business off the top of my head.

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.

Trump exists and she'd be taking over from BoJo. It's easy money!

Not Bojo. She home secretary, that's Rudd. Bojo is Foreign office and Trump... Was well... Trump...i cannot say anything else.

Oh, of course. I'm confusing her with Thornberry.

Lol there the few I know. I could not tell you who on NhS, Business or even chancaler off top of head.
Proves how memorable our current crop are vs a old timers.

Ashworth and McDonnel are health and chancellor, don't know business off the top of my head.

Proves a point minus google take most of a thread to name gov and shadow counterparts..

Home Secretary traditionally is something of a poisoned chalice. You are in charge of lots of complicated things that easily can go wrong, can't go spectacularly right, and depend on spending controlled by a completely separate and much more powerful department, the Treasury.

Seems postal votes aren't making it to voters....

Which sucks massive balls. And if I recall, the same thing happened during the EU Referendum?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Seems postal votes aren't making it to voters....

Which sucks massive balls. And if I recall, the same thing happened during the EU Referendum?

Aye.. They had 6 weeks to get this sorted out. I can understand minor hitches as not every system is truely perfect but that should be a very small percentage of the millions. Well below half a percent at least.

So, what is happening to you guys? I thought you were supposed to be the sane ones.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So, what is happening to you guys? I thought you were supposed to be the sane ones.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation

The conservatives keep bringing this up time and again. It's worrying, and the most worrying thing, many people agree with them. They don't understand the importance of a fundamental set of basic rights to civil society.

Best bit is that it would make us vastly less safe. Even ignoring any debate about its effectiveness, refusing to abide by human rights law would make it illegal for any of the 27 other EU nations to share any intelligence with us.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/video/2016/apr/25/patrick-stewart-sketch-what-has-the-echr-ever-done-for-us-video

Captain Picard has gotten a bit right wing as he's aged.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Seems postal votes aren't making it to voters....

Which sucks massive balls. And if I recall, the same thing happened during the EU Referendum?

Aye.. They had 6 weeks to get this sorted out. I can understand minor hitches as not every system is truely perfect but that should be a very small percentage of the millions. Well below half a percent at least.

I'm making an assumption that it is a work load and resource issue. It's for the Councils to sort out these things out but with austerity pretty much everything is working with zero additional capacity. Hence there just aren't the resources to manage these things effectively. When you know the dates of the elections then you can plan effectively. No one was expecting TM to announce a snap election. Despite councils getting funding for some of the events you still have to manage the staff. For example with the local elections it's quite possible that staff held off taking holidays etc until afterward the election. As such in the period when you need the staff they are all going on a well earned break. As more cuts come along the ability for councils to manage unplanned situations is going to get worse and worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So, what is happening to you guys? I thought you were supposed to be the sane ones.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation

Yeah it's very worrying - though I think May has had it in for rights of the public as whole for a while and she is just using this as an excuse now.

One of the advantages of America is that you do have rights written down in a constitution that is very difficult to change. In the UK we don't have anything like this and it's all just legislation, hence the government of the day can relatively easily change things especially if they have a significant majority. However I'm not sure May even listens to what she says now from one day to the next:-

Day 1 TM:- "We should show the world how superior our British values are"
Day 2 TM:- "We should reduce the rights of our populace to reduce how superior they are!"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/video/2016/apr/25/patrick-stewart-sketch-what-has-the-echr-ever-done-for-us-video

Captain Picard has gotten a bit right wing as he's aged.

That's brilliant. Shows just how stupid it is to leave the ECHR.

Abbot is gone.

nfe wrote:
Abbot is gone.

Claims of ill health. Which is a cover story if I ever saw one.
More likely she realised her position was entirely impossible to maintain and hurting her party.

She was a embarrassment to the campaign on several interviews.
I doubt she had many allies left in Party HQ/the cabinet by the end.

Bye bye Abbot, you race baiting piece of gak.

And with the ECHR, I guess you have to take the rough with the smooth. It does disgust me seeing the scum of the earth using it to claim compo.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Bye bye Abbot, you race baiting piece of gak.

And with the ECHR, I guess you have to take the rough with the smooth. It does disgust me seeing the scum of the earth using it to claim compo.

Or cost usmillions in endless cases to deport criminals, or at other end some of the truely silly cases brought... Human rights on being denied luxuries in jail etc.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Bye bye Abbot, you race baiting piece of gak.

And with the ECHR, I guess you have to take the rough with the smooth. It does disgust me seeing the scum of the earth using it to claim compo.

Or cost usmillions in endless cases to deport criminals, or at other end some of the truely silly cases brought... Human rights on being denied luxuries in jail etc.

Oh yes, that too. He was a serial killer who wanted porn or something like that wasn't it? Or the axe murderer trying to win the vote for prisoners. It's stomach churning.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Bye bye Abbot, you race baiting piece of gak.

And with the ECHR, I guess you have to take the rough with the smooth. It does disgust me seeing the scum of the earth using it to claim compo.

Or cost usmillions in endless cases to deport criminals, or at other end some of the truely silly cases brought... Human rights on being denied luxuries in jail etc.

Oh yes, that too. He was a serial killer who wanted porn or something like that wasn't it? Or the axe murderer trying to win the vote for prisoners. It's stomach churning.

Those are it. Or wanted colour tv, others claiming this and that.
It was just stupid. And legal aid had to pay for it too.... :(

I'm sure it's not that much money in the grand scheme of things but even one penny is too much for me to stomach in those cases. Of course it's the lawyers who really do well out of it. I'm sure Tony Blair wasn't thinking about Cherie's career at all when he created the human rights act.

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:
Abbot is gone.

Claims of ill health. Which is a cover story if I ever saw one.
More likely she realised her position was entirely impossible to maintain and hurting her party.

She was a embarrassment to the campaign on several interviews.
I doubt she had many allies left in Party HQ/the cabinet by the end.

She certainly should have gone earlier, but I understand Corbyn wanting to stand by her in the face of relentless bullying. However inept she is, and however many gaffes she makes, she is subjected to vastly more extreme scrutiny than almost anyone in British politics. It's another one of these things where Corbyn's lack of ruthlessness is endearing but clearly damaging eectorally.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
...Or the axe murderer trying to win the vote for prisoners. It's stomach churning.

Regardless of who brought the case, I think enfranchising some inmates is a perfectly sensible idea.

@ nfe

If Diane faces extreme scrutiny it's only because she's so hopelessly inept. And she only digs herself deeper by crying rascism every time somebody calls her stupidity out.

And which inmates should be enfranchised? And doesn't it run the risk of politicians pandering to prisioners?

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:
Abbot is gone.

Claims of ill health. Which is a cover story if I ever saw one.
More likely she realised her position was entirely impossible to maintain and hurting her party.

She was a embarrassment to the campaign on several interviews.
I doubt she had many allies left in Party HQ/the cabinet by the end.

Don't be so quick to judge the circumstances. The alternative view is that an illness is reducing her ability on the campaign trail (but wanted to see Labour do well so tried to stick it out).

What happens if next week she resigns because she is diagnosed with a brain tumour and only has weeks left (lets hope not but it does happen). How would you feel if that your employer/friends family stated the same thing when you were ill?

We should avoid making judgements on information we do not have. Unless you have information that she really is lying then you should accept such statements as fact rather than fiction.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ nfe

If Diane faces extreme scrutiny it's only because she's so hopelessly inept.

Like for like, on the same types of errors and gaffes, she recieves vastly more publicity.

For instance: missing a zero off a police financing figure and clearly being aware of her mistake. Front page news for days, the lead story on every single news broadcast for about 48 hours, and repeated to the point that it is now shorthand for 'politician doesn't know their numbers'. Meanwhile, Phillip Hammond gets the cost of HS2 out by 20 billion, and doesn't even acknowledge he's wrong, and barely anyone knows about it.

She's woefully out of her depth, but that doesn't mean that she isn't also bullied by the press in a very rare way.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
And she only digs herself deeper by crying rascism every time somebody calls her stupidity out.

Blaming scrutiny on being a black woman when it isn't appropriate doesn't help her case at all, though there are certainly occassions when it has a lot to do with the treatment she (and other BME poliuticians) recieve and it's quite right to note it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
And which inmates should be enfranchised? And doesn't it run the risk of politicians pandering to prisioners?

I'm not going to make a list, but you could probably make a fair case for almost anyone convicted of non-violent/abusive cases. My main issue is that people go to jail for things that later aren't even considered crimes and their ability to vote against the people who punish them for later non-crimes is removed. Men imprisoned for having homosexual sex, for instance.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm sure it's not that much money in the grand scheme of things but even one penny is too much for me to stomach in those cases. Of course it's the lawyers who really do well out of it. I'm sure Tony Blair wasn't thinking about Cherie's career at all when he created the human rights act.

The ECHR goes back much further than when days of Tony Blair. The Tories can already amend our own internal rights already if they exceed the ECHR judgements.

The UK prison population is around 90,000. The UK population is around 68 million, with somewhere around 46.5 million eligible to vote. That makes the prison population less than 0.2% of the electorate.

I don't think we realistically have to worry about politicians pandering to prisoners. The benefits of re-educating and re-enfranchising prisoners far outweigh the negatives for letting a few serious sickos get the vote.


Oh, and bugger off Abbot. One person I'm not sad to see depart.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:
Abbot is gone.

Claims of ill health. Which is a cover story if I ever saw one.
More likely she realised her position was entirely impossible to maintain and hurting her party.

She was a embarrassment to the campaign on several interviews.
I doubt she had many allies left in Party HQ/the cabinet by the end.

Don't be so quick to judge the circumstances. The alternative view is that an illness is reducing her ability on the campaign trail (but wanted to see Labour do well so tried to stick it out).

What happens if next week she resigns because she is diagnosed with a brain tumour and only has weeks left (lets hope not but it does happen). How would you feel if that your employer/friends family stated the same thing when you were ill?

We should avoid making judgements on information we do not have. Unless you have information that she really is lying then you should accept such statements as fact rather than fiction.

True. But it seems very every good way to resign without having to admit you failed, a thing no political figure in universe want s to do.
Cause I don,t want her to die. It just seems a way that Corbyn might use, its tackling a problem but more gently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:
The UK prison population is around 90,000. The UK population is around 68 million, with somewhere around 46.5 million eligible to vote. That makes the prison population less than 0.2% of the electorate.

I don't think we realistically have to worry about politicians pandering to prisoners. The benefits of re-educating and re-enfranchising prisoners far outweigh the negatives for letting a few serious sickos get the vote.


Oh, and bugger off Abbot. One person I'm not sad to see depart.

And should be crime dependent.
Some offences ok you can vote, others are a clear veto.

 jhe90 wrote:


Or cost usmillions in endless cases to deport criminals, or at other end some of the truely silly cases brought... Human rights on being denied luxuries in jail etc.

You are focusing solely on the high profile cases that do cost. But those costs are miniscule when compared to what rights it gives us all everyday. You may not see those rights, they are not see them plastered on every wall but they are there. It provides us all protection. It stops governments exploiting the populace, means they can go on strike or join a rally in London without fear of a curfew being issued. It means that the police can't just invade you house just to have a look what you are doing and can't use physical or mental attacks to et information from you. It means that you can have the rights of privacy in the world and that they don't monitor you everyday all the time whether that is mowing the lawn, reading a book, sleeping with your partner and so on; it means your employer has to treat you with certain respect, treat all it's staff equally and not discriminate against. Don't be so quick to denigrate the human rights the ECHR gives you, because you may look forlornly back when they are gone and the government is being ever more intrusive in all our lives.

If you want to live in a world where human rights are at the expense of the safety of the country I'd suggest you move to Egypt and experience what happens when 'populace safety' is put before human rights.

@ nfe

Fair points but I do think the press just enjoy attacking self righteous lefties. I mean, it is fun knocking them off their pedestals. Oh, and she's got the same checkered history as Jezza so...feth her.

@ Whirlwind

I know I know, aftermath of WW2 and all that. But the HRA makes it too easy for the scum of the earth to launch petty and frivolous lawsuits. The way it was before, with the costs and delays, to me ensured that only the real cases went forward. This is my opinion but I think some only bring cases before it out of boredom and vindictiveness. If your a sociopathic killer sitting bored out of your head in prision then why not claim your rights have been violated somehow just for something to do? With the added bonus that any money you win is more salt in the wound for the victims and the prison staff.