Best Of

Chagos latest..

Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford

Exclusive from
@georgegrylls


Sir Keir Starmer intends to 'push ahead' with deal to cede sovereignty to Chagos Islands and has offered significant concessions

Navin Ramgoolam, Mauritius's new prime minister, said his country has been offered 'complete sovereignty' of Diego Garcia, home to a critical US military base

He claimed that Starmer has effectively doubled the £9bn originally offered to Mauritius and weakened the British lease for Diego Garcia

He said the new deal will frontload instalments and link them to inflation. He also said that Mauritius will now have a right to veto extending the lease

He also revealed that Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, was involved in the latest round of face-to-face negotiations

https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1886773307443388559

If he has £9bn to spare, please send it to whomever is making the drones the Ukranians are using to go 1,000km into Russia in the last few days.

Jesus wept.

Where exactly are we supposed to be getting this £9billion from?

To pay for a transfer of sovereignty that the Chagossians themselves don’t even want & pisses off our most important military allay at a time when we can least afford to do so.

Starmer has lawyer brain: the pronouncements of a court with no power staffed by judges with no interest are more important than actual on the ground realpolitik.

It just has me scratching my head. There is no pressing need to do this; a very generous offer has been made and rejected; why can the government not just shrug and walk away?

There has to be *something* behind it, other than sheer ineptitude.

You’d think so, but I honestly think it’s lawyer brain in action. You can’t possibly refuse to implement a legal ruling: what would the world come to if every country did that?! (Spoiler: we are in a world where every country does precisely that & they’re all laughing at us as we tie ourselves in knots over these islands.)

'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.

Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.

Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14357221/Angela-Rayner-lines-pro-Remain-ex-Tory-MP-head-new-body-advising-Islamophobia-critics-raise-free-speech-blasphemy-law-fears.html

We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?

An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.

I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!

We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too?
The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.

No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?

No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.

Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?

I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.

I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.

I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.

Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.

Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.

What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.

So no.

'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.

Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.

Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14357221/Angela-Rayner-lines-pro-Remain-ex-Tory-MP-head-new-body-advising-Islamophobia-critics-raise-free-speech-blasphemy-law-fears.html

We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?

An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.

I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!

I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.

So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?

AIUI the money is intended as compensation for evicting the Chagos Islanders from their homes. So presumably a failure to make a deal would leave us open to future legal action from the Chaos Islanders.

So why is the money meant to be going to Mauritius then and not Gatwick?

I don't know, but I'm just trying to think a little further than "duh, stupid traitor Starmer". This is supposed to be a vaguely intellectual board.

You must be new here.

Err.. so I’ve just read the Chagos “deal”

Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?

its what he believes. He believes in reparations.

So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.

I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?

Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.

No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.

So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.

I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.

The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.

Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.

Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.

So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.

The traitor stuff is what annoys me. Especially coming from Jenrick. Who was a serving minister when Boris gave a peerage to Evgeny Lebedev.

Chagos latest..

Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford

Exclusive from
@georgegrylls


Sir Keir Starmer intends to 'push ahead' with deal to cede sovereignty to Chagos Islands and has offered significant concessions

Navin Ramgoolam, Mauritius's new prime minister, said his country has been offered 'complete sovereignty' of Diego Garcia, home to a critical US military base

He claimed that Starmer has effectively doubled the £9bn originally offered to Mauritius and weakened the British lease for Diego Garcia

He said the new deal will frontload instalments and link them to inflation. He also said that Mauritius will now have a right to veto extending the lease

He also revealed that Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, was involved in the latest round of face-to-face negotiations

https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1886773307443388559

If he has £9bn to spare, please send it to whomever is making the drones the Ukranians are using to go 1,000km into Russia in the last few days.

Jesus wept.

Where exactly are we supposed to be getting this £9billion from?

To pay for a transfer of sovereignty that the Chagossians themselves don’t even want & pisses off our most important military allay at a time when we can least afford to do so.

Starmer has lawyer brain: the pronouncements of a court with no power staffed by judges with no interest are more important than actual on the ground realpolitik.