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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43731668

Regards the Beeb, there will be a long and intense session of BBC bashing in most of the papers over this. And whilst not wishing to excuse BBC behaviour regards Mr Richard, most of those papers do far more despicable things on a more or less Daily basis.

There are many on here with deep appreciation of British history, one thing that stands out to me when I read on the subject is how often the BBC was something for the British to be very proud of indeed, but 40 odd years of Murdoch led attacks, combined with it regularly self-harming, have resulted in a rather sorry current version, which I think is a bit sad.

 Darkjim wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43731668

Regards the Beeb, there will be a long and intense session of BBC bashing in most of the papers over this. And whilst not wishing to excuse BBC behaviour regards Mr Richard, most of those papers do far more despicable things on a more or less Daily basis.

There are many on here with deep appreciation of British history, one thing that stands out to me when I read on the subject is how often the BBC was something for the British to be very proud of indeed, but 40 odd years of Murdoch led attacks, combined with it regularly self-harming, have resulted in a rather sorry current version, which I think is a bit sad.

But they don't help themselves, though, that's the problem. On Iraq, they allowed themselves to be bullied into submission, and the Cliff Richard debacle is shameful.

Working in hand with the Police (who seem to be more interested in making a name for themselves these days rather than do any actual policing)

they dragged an innocent man through the gutter.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree with all the above however this pedanticism about the nomenclature of different government customs and excise is a bit unexciting when MSN is reporting that the Daily Mail is reporting that UK submarines are moving into missile range of Syria.

They'll soon be backtracking at a rate of knots when they realize Trump's got cold feet over the whole thing.

It will be funny watching our government squirm and try to explain this U-turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And my thanks to those who replied to my comments on crime. Too many replies to reply too.

And we'd never agree anyway

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree that bombing Syria has nothing to do with defending the nation.

Of coruse we are not at risk of being bombed by Syria, but we certainly are at risk of the continual degradation of international law that arises from allowing people like the Syrians to flout it.

The chemical bombing is not a direct aggressive action against the UK which would require immediate or very quick actions because a debate would needlessly forestall the necessary response. In such circumstances it is appropriate for the Executive to make a decision. For Syria which is not taking direct action against the UK then a parliamentary decision is the correct manner as it ensures that the decision to attack a foreign state without direct provocation is debated and all arguments considered. It also allows us to consider what the end game is and how to achieve that rather than a "gun and run" approach.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


They'll soon be backtracking at a rate of knots when they realize Trump's got cold feet over the whole thing.

It will be funny watching our government squirm and try to explain this U-turn.

I don't think Trump will back down from some action as it will result in him being mocked without mercy after categorically stating there would be some action. I think what they are now trying to work out is whether Russia will respond or if it is bluffing (to point out Israel already has taken action and Russia did not respond to it).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

I really thought we'd go hot with Russia in the 2030s. I was a decade out. Oh well, at least I'm about to become old enough to serve, I could go the rest of my life without working a desk job.

If it escalates there won't be time to recruit anyone....

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree that bombing Syria has nothing to do with defending the nation.

Of coruse we are not at risk of being bombed by Syria, but we certainly are at risk of the continual degradation of international law that arises from allowing people like the Syrians to flout it.

The chemical bombing is not a direct aggressive action against the UK which would require immediate or very quick actions because a debate would needlessly forestall the necessary response. In such circumstances it is appropriate for the Executive to make a decision. For Syria which is not taking direct action against the UK then a parliamentary decision is the correct manner as it ensures that the decision to attack a foreign state without direct provocation is debated and all arguments considered. It also allows us to consider what the end game is and how to achieve that rather than a "gun and run" approach.

I think a debate on the matter will simply produce paralysis when decisive action is required.

Acts of military action are a crown prerogative. Authorisation by parliament is not required, and will at best lead to a "camel is a horse designed by committee" kind of campaign.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree that bombing Syria has nothing to do with defending the nation.

Of coruse we are not at risk of being bombed by Syria, but we certainly are at risk of the continual degradation of international law that arises from allowing people like the Syrians to flout it.

The chemical bombing is not a direct aggressive action against the UK which would require immediate or very quick actions because a debate would needlessly forestall the necessary response. In such circumstances it is appropriate for the Executive to make a decision. For Syria which is not taking direct action against the UK then a parliamentary decision is the correct manner as it ensures that the decision to attack a foreign state without direct provocation is debated and all arguments considered. It also allows us to consider what the end game is and how to achieve that rather than a "gun and run" approach.

I think a debate on the matter will simply produce paralysis when decisive action is required.

Acts of military action are a crown prerogative. Authorisation by parliament is not required, and will at best lead to a "camel is a horse designed by committee" kind of campaign.

I wasn't aware May was the Queen.
Understandable she thinks she is though, the silly old bint.

Crown prerogative extends beyond the queen herself.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I think a debate on the matter will simply produce paralysis when decisive action is required.

Acts of military action are a crown prerogative. Authorisation by parliament is not required, and will at best lead to a "camel is a horse designed by committee" kind of campaign.

Except that doesn't hold up to previous votes on military action. A vote would either approve or not approve military action as a direction. Neither of these is paralysis (unless you hold that no military action is paralysis but then that is just bias as to the type of action you think they should take). No one is asking parliament to plan the campaign just like it didn't for Iraq, Libya and so on. However it is there to stop a PM acting as their own tinpot dictator.

I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.

We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.

We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.

Pretty much nailed it.

This is May 'hmm, polls are slipping, smears aren't working...What Would Maggie Do? OH YEAH! Start a war!' moment.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I think a debate on the matter will simply produce paralysis when decisive action is required.

Acts of military action are a crown prerogative. Authorisation by parliament is not required, and will at best lead to a "camel is a horse designed by committee" kind of campaign.

Except that doesn't hold up to previous votes on military action. A vote would either approve or not approve military action as a direction. Neither of these is paralysis (unless you hold that no military action is paralysis but then that is just bias as to the type of action you think they should take). No one is asking parliament to plan the campaign just like it didn't for Iraq, Libya and so on. However it is there to stop a PM acting as their own tinpot dictator.

Previous votes on military action -- I think there have been two -- don't hold up to the numerous previous occasions when military action was launched without reference to parliament.

Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.

The last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2015, expanding air strikes against ISIS from Iraq to Syria, and Parliament approved the intervention by 397 votes to 223. I believe that in practice the UK's contribution was largely symbolic.

I stand corrected. However the main point I wanted to make is that Parliament do not have to be asked to authorise military action.

I suspect that it has been done several times in recent history for political reasons: In particular Blair used it to implicate all the MPs in supporting the second Gulf War, for which public support was very weak.

So is Syria going to get us all killed in an escalating war?

When the Royal Prerogative was used to try and push through Article 50, there was a gak storm.

Now some people are trying to justify its use in pushing through military action, which is far more serious than leaving a trading block...

Quite the contradiction there...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So is Syria going to get us all killed in an escalating war?

I hope not. I've just bought a whole load of Tamiya kits for the summer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.

We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.

Pretty much nailed it.

This is May 'hmm, polls are slipping, smears aren't working...What Would Maggie Do? OH YEAH! Start a war!' moment.

One of the rare occasions when we are in complete agreement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.

We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.

I feel sorry for young folk like yourself, because if the gak hits the fan, it's people like you that will have to march into battle against the Russians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree that bombing Syria has nothing to do with defending the nation.

Of coruse we are not at risk of being bombed by Syria, but we certainly are at risk of the continual degradation of international law that arises from allowing people like the Syrians to flout it.

The chemical bombing is not a direct aggressive action against the UK which would require immediate or very quick actions because a debate would needlessly forestall the necessary response. In such circumstances it is appropriate for the Executive to make a decision. For Syria which is not taking direct action against the UK then a parliamentary decision is the correct manner as it ensures that the decision to attack a foreign state without direct provocation is debated and all arguments considered. It also allows us to consider what the end game is and how to achieve that rather than a "gun and run" approach.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


They'll soon be backtracking at a rate of knots when they realize Trump's got cold feet over the whole thing.

It will be funny watching our government squirm and try to explain this U-turn.

I don't think Trump will back down from some action as it will result in him being mocked without mercy after categorically stating there would be some action. I think what they are now trying to work out is whether Russia will respond or if it is bluffing (to point out Israel already has taken action and Russia did not respond to it).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

I really thought we'd go hot with Russia in the 2030s. I was a decade out. Oh well, at least I'm about to become old enough to serve, I could go the rest of my life without working a desk job.

If it escalates there won't be time to recruit anyone....

I've seen Trump back down before, and the end result will be a gak storm on twitter where he spends most of the day labelling his opponents losers.

It's no way to run a superpower.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When the Royal Prerogative was used to try and push through Article 50, there was a gak storm.

Now some people are trying to justify its use in pushing through military action, which is far more serious than leaving a trading block...

Quite the contradiction there...


....

The Royal Prerogative doesn't extend to authorising Article 50.

It does extend to authorising military action.

No contradiction at all.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When the Royal Prerogative was used to try and push through Article 50, there was a gak storm.

Now some people are trying to justify its use in pushing through military action, which is far more serious than leaving a trading block...

Quite the contradiction there...


....

The Royal Prerogative doesn't extend to authorising Article 50.

It does extend to authorising military action.

No contradiction at all.

It still boils down to this fundamental question that has been bugging the nation since 2016: do we want Parliament to be truly sovereign and strong, or do we want the executive out of control?

Blair and Clegg have been screaming for months that Parliament should have the final say on the Brexit deal. Now they're saying that Parliament should be ignored and let's send in the tanks against Syria.

It's cake and eat it territory.

And people say I'm all over the shop on the key issues.








Automatically Appended Next Post:
And where is David Cameron's 70,000 moderate Syrian rebels to spring to our aid?

And at the last vote, when the government was defeated in 2013 on this issue, thanks to Ed Miliband, Michael Gove was foaming at the mouth, and by all accounts, had to be restrained by Parliament security, as he was going to lunge at Labour MPs.

Don't people want to see Gove going ballistic again?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/13/jeremy-hunt-sorry-for-luxury-flat-purchase-errors

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/12/exclusive-jeremy-hunt-admits-breaking-governments-rules-company/

The Health Secretary, who has a personal fortune of more than £14 million, initially failed to declare his 50 per cent interest in the property firm to Companies House - a criminal offence punishable by a fine or up to two years in prison.

Mr Hunt also failed to disclose his interest in the property firm on the Parliamentary Register of Members’ interests within the required 28 days.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “Jeremy has rightly apologised for an administrative oversight, and as the Cabinet Office have made clear there has been no breach of the ministerial code.

“We consider the matter closed.”

uh huh.

TBF that level of dealing is going to be difficult and confusing.

.. do you think many non cabinet ministers would get away with making an apology, not paying a fine and just being able to carry on ?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When the Royal Prerogative was used to try and push through Article 50, there was a gak storm.

Now some people are trying to justify its use in pushing through military action, which is far more serious than leaving a trading block...

Quite the contradiction there...


....

The Royal Prerogative doesn't extend to authorising Article 50.

It does extend to authorising military action.

No contradiction at all.

It still boils down to this fundamental question that has been bugging the nation since 2016: do we want Parliament to be truly sovereign and strong, or do we want the executive out of control?

Blair and Clegg have been screaming for months that Parliament should have the final say on the Brexit deal. Now they're saying that Parliament should be ignored and let's send in the tanks against Syria.

It's cake and eat it territory.

And people say I'm all over the shop on the key issues.

No, you are arguing in bad faith, or acting with wilful ignorance, in order to score points.

Royal prerogative extends to some things and not others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

Royal prerogative generally extends to things which have historically been in the purview of the crown and can require quick, decisive action. Military action fulfils both of those requirements. Leaving the EU fulfils neither.

You may not like it, but those are the laws of our country. There is no contradiction.

I do not want to go to war, but I accept that it remains in the right of the PM to exercise that authority. There have been votes in the past, but putting it to parliament is not a requirement, but does help a PM avoid the risk of a vote of no confidence they might face if they take unpopular action.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.

We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.

I feel sorry for young folk like yourself, because if the gak hits the fan, it's people like you that will have to march into battle against the Russians.

I'm on the Autistic Spectrum. The British Military wouldn't take me even if I wanted to (and I did go as far as to meet with an RAF recruiter last year to learn about it).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If its a criminal offence, its a criminal offence. Prosecute the b******. No exceptions.

If you're talking about Hunt, he didn't break the law. He didn't even break the ministers' code.

Hunt only made a small technical infraction due to getting mistaken advice from his solicitor. He has apologised, and his apology has been accepted.

You're being sarcastic, right?

No. I don't hold any kind of a torch for Hunt or the Tories. I just think his "offence" was trivial and there are many other things going on which are much more worthy of the country to spend time on.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I would much prefer that my country does not get dragged into a War with no foreseeable end point and an extreme risk of escalation to a global conflict on the basis of one woman's warmongering megalomania and need to one-up her predecessors.

We are not America. We should not go to War without Parliamentary approval.

I feel sorry for young folk like yourself, because if the gak hits the fan, it's people like you that will have to march into battle against the Russians.

I'm on the Autistic Spectrum. The British Military wouldn't take me even if I wanted to (and I did go as far as to meet with an RAF recruiter last year to learn about it)
.

That might well change.

The Israeli Army Unit That Recruits Teens With Autism
Many autistic soldiers who would otherwise be exempt from military service have found a place in Unit 9900, a selective intelligence squad where their heightened perceptual skills are an asset.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/israeli-army-autism/422850/
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-39106200/israeli-army-sets-sights-on-recruits-with-autism

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-donald-trump-syria_uk_5ad050d3e4b077c89ce71b27

Edit: sorry, I got a little pissed off, so I deleted the non PG13 stuff.

But whatever you think about strikes, should they happen or not, Corbyn will take any chance to go against the 'evil capitalist west'.

Of course we're going to take cues from the American's on military strikes, we're both in nato, and they're the dominant military power, but Corbyn hates nato, because war is bad kids and they're a tool of the eviil capitalist west and he's still sore about the iron curtain falling.

“Britain should press for an independent UN-led investigation of last weekend’s horrific chemical weapons attack so that those responsible can be held to account.
Yeah, because that'll go so well in the middle of a warzone and won't take far too long for any sort of retaliation to be meaningful, and once it's done of course Assad and Putin will turn themselves in to the UN.

“The need to restart genuine negotiations for peace and an inclusive political settlement of the Syrian conflict, including the withdrawal of all foreign forces, could not be more urgent. We must do everything we can, no matter how challenging, to bring that about.”A) perhaps everythign should include strikes. B) it is not in Assad or Putin's interests to come to a settlment now. They're winning.

Trump threatens nuclear war on a weekly basis. Do you really think we should taking cues from that fething lunatic?

All US allies can't just snub the USA for the duration of Trump's presidency. We have to find a way to work with the US government as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Isn't it ironic how less than two years after Leave.EU laughed at Carmon for (not actually) saying Brexit would lead to WW3, and less than a yer unti Brexit, the UN is seriously warning about the danger of WW3?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Previous votes on military action -- I think there have been two -- don't hold up to the numerous previous occasions when military action was launched without reference to parliament.

Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.

When was the last time that we engaged in an attack on another state that wasn't approved by Parliament? As I've pointed out I have no issue with defence of the UK being undertaken without a vote. I don't have an issue where an existing state asks for assistance in dealing with terrorists. I don't have an issue where there is a UN resolution that allows such offence to take place (as agreed internationally). I do however have an issue when an individual can make a decision where there is an attack on another state and there should be appropriate cross checks through a parliamentary process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When the Royal Prerogative was used to try and push through Article 50, there was a gak storm.

Now some people are trying to justify its use in pushing through military action, which is far more serious than leaving a trading block...

Quite the contradiction there...

It doesn't happen a lot, but I agree. There is no need for 'immediate and decisive' action in this case. It could be next week or the week after.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Previous votes on military action -- I think there have been two -- don't hold up to the numerous previous occasions when military action was launched without reference to parliament.

Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.

When was the last time that we engaged in an attack on another state that wasn't approved by Parliament? ...
...

Early this morning, by the latest news.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Previous votes on military action -- I think there have been two -- don't hold up to the numerous previous occasions when military action was launched without reference to parliament.

Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.

When was the last time that we engaged in an attack on another state that wasn't approved by Parliament? ...
...

Early this morning, by the latest news.

And as always with the UK, there's money to bomb Arabs, but there's never money for doctors, nurses, police etc etc

Funny that...

I read that during the Libya debacle, we barely had the missiles to conduct strikes for a lengthy period. Do we have enough this time?

I heard that we're contributing 4 jets or something. It's a wonder we can even afford to do that, given how the Tories have ran our military into the ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Previous votes on military action -- I think there have been two -- don't hold up to the numerous previous occasions when military action was launched without reference to parliament.

Indeed, the last time Parliament was asked to authorise military action was in 2013, air strikes against Assad's forces, and the fact they refused then has helped lead us to the situation we find ourselves in now.

When was the last time that we engaged in an attack on another state that wasn't approved by Parliament? As I've pointed out I have no issue with defence of the UK being undertaken without a vote. I don't have an issue where an existing state asks for assistance in dealing with terrorists. I don't have an issue where there is a UN resolution that allows such offence to take place (as agreed internationally). I do however have an issue when an individual can make a decision where there is an attack on another state and there should be appropriate cross checks through a parliamentary process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When the Royal Prerogative was used to try and push through Article 50, there was a gak storm.

Now some people are trying to justify its use in pushing through military action, which is far more serious than leaving a trading block...

Quite the contradiction there...

It doesn't happen a lot, but I agree. There is no need for 'immediate and decisive' action in this case. It could be next week or the week after.

We agree. Mark it in your diary.

On a serious note, I disagree with Corbyn on a lot of things, but the man is usually spot on when it comes to foreign policy and military action. I think he'll be proved right again, over Syria.

These pin prick military strike will achieve the square root of feth all, and like the 30 years war, this kind of foreign intervention only prolongs the conflict.

Lol I think Maygube has taken a massive miss step with her long looked for "Maggie" moment. It worked for the original sociopath because 1. We were not the aggressors 2. The demographics for the UK are very different, back then it was generation's brought up on ww2 boys own stories and the glories of war. My generation and younger has Vietnam, Iraq mk2, Afghanistan Ussr and US versions plus various vicious bushfire wars that taught us the futility of war.

Yes I support any military action to defend us or our allies I do not however support wars so the US can build a pipeline or the Tories can try propping up there gakky government.

Ifvtheres more than a dozen Tory councillors in the whole of the UK after the local elections I will be shocked.
3 months of smears and crap thrown at Labour have just been rendered pointless in 1 night.
Next election the Tories are going to need more than the Irish Taliban and the brexit loons to prop them up.