If you can afford 125 grand for something with bendy pushrods and an utterly miserably 150cfm flow from the antique head design you can probably afford the ULEZ charge on something not shit.
I've just bought a barn find 28,000 mile 1977 E21 323i. It's amazing how slow 40+ year old fast cars are.
Isn't that the one with 5 reverse gears when cornering?
Curiously, I have driven a vehicle where 6th gear, in reverse, is completely reasonable.
A diesel on the Snowdon railway?
Alvis Saracen - had a go in one. 6 gears, plus a reverse option, which gives you all the gears in reverse. So 40mph backwards is perfectly possible.....
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
Indeed, though I can't find the Welsh equivalent (rather hoping for something almost as long as Llanfair PG). Or rather I get something but the reverse translation is completely different, so no good ...
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
The implication of what you are saying here is that anyone who leaves the country can be denied entry upon return, if 'we' don't think it is a good idea. Not a particularly brilliant scenario, for a number of reasons; but most significantly because it turns citizenship in to a privilege that exists at the whims of the government.
Yes and no. You're barking up the right tree, but it's not purely on the whim of government. Government is still subject to the law.
That is kind of true, but the Blair era laws we have are deeply problematic. As I understand them, they give the government a discretionary power to strip people of citizenship if they deem it to be conducive to the public good. This is subject to the caveat that people cannot be made stateless, meaning that in practice they can only be enforced where someone has citizenship rights elsewhere.
Kritias ..... struck Theramenes' name from the roster of the 3,000, denying him his right to a trial.
If you can afford 125 grand for something with bendy pushrods and an utterly miserably 150cfm flow from the antique head design you can probably afford the ULEZ charge on something not shit.
I've just bought a barn find 28,000 mile 1977 E21 323i. It's amazing how slow 40+ year old fast cars are.
Isn't that the one with 5 reverse gears when cornering?
Curiously, I have driven a vehicle where 6th gear, in reverse, is completely reasonable.
A diesel on the Snowdon railway?
Alvis Saracen - had a go in one. 6 gears, plus a reverse option, which gives you all the gears in reverse. So 40mph backwards is perfectly possible.....
Of course: yes, for getting out of trouble. IIRC it has the same basic chassis as the Saladin armoured car and Stalwart, though I don't know if the latter's "wind-up" problem affected the Saracen BTW:
"The Stalwart's over-terrain capabilities come from the fact that the six-wheel-drive system lacks differentials, using simple bevel gears to transmit drive. A centre mounted no-spin differential allows a certain amount of slip between the two sets of wheels on each side of the vehicle on hard surfaces, but there is no allowance for rotational speed differences between front and rear. The centre no-spin unit allows the wheels on either side of the vehicle with most grip to drive when off-road. This has the effect of making the vehicle appear to crab (move from side to side) when negotiating muddy conditions, thus making the Stalwart a true six-wheel-drive vehicle, with three wheels locked together and turning at the same speed. Wiki:
However, this system causes "wind up" in the transmission (inter-component stress) as all the wheels are forced to rotate at the same speed, which during cornering is impossible.[5] This led to rapid wear and breakage of the tracta joints within the drive train if the vehicle was used on firm surfaces, such as tarmac or concrete – in off-road conditions, the natural 'slip' of a loose surface, such as mud or gravel, reduced wind up. This problem is of special concern for modern-day Stalwart owners – to get a vehicle to a show requires moving it by low-loader or driving it on the road, risking damage to the transmission. Alternatively, the front and rear driveshafts can be removed, eliminating wind up at the expense of off-road capability.
During military use, the problem of transmission wind up was solved by laying out railway sleepers (railroad ties) in a grid on flat ground and driving over them on long road moves; this allowed the transmission to unwind.[6] On more than one occasion, servicemen drove Stalwarts into car parks and used the kerbstones separating parking bays for the same purpose. Another problem with the transmission was that the vehicle was designed to be driven loaded. Driving the vehicle unloaded caused increased wear on the drivelines to the wheels as a result of the increased angle of mesh of the joints."
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that she is not a dual national, and that Bangladesh has said that she is not a citizen?
A lot of people have Tweeted this and used it as an argument, but the courts have determined she is a dual national haven't they?
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
Yup. That also applies to me. I have a lovely big Audi that is great for weekends away and ferrying bulky equipment and materials.
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that she is not a dual national, and that Bangladesh has said that she is not a citizen?
A lot of people have Tweeted this and used it as an argument, but the courts have determined she is a dual national haven't they?
Courts make wrong decisions. She was not a dual national.
If you can afford 125 grand for something with bendy pushrods and an utterly miserably 150cfm flow from the antique head design you can probably afford the ULEZ charge on something not shit.
I've just bought a barn find 28,000 mile 1977 E21 323i. It's amazing how slow 40+ year old fast cars are.
Isn't that the one with 5 reverse gears when cornering?
Curiously, I have driven a vehicle where 6th gear, in reverse, is completely reasonable.
A diesel on the Snowdon railway?
Alvis Saracen - had a go in one. 6 gears, plus a reverse option, which gives you all the gears in reverse. So 40mph backwards is perfectly possible.....
Of course: yes, for getting out of trouble. IIRC it has the same basic chassis as the Saladin armoured car and Stalwart, though I don't know if the latter's "wind-up" problem affected the Saracen BTW:
"The Stalwart's over-terrain capabilities come from the fact that the six-wheel-drive system lacks differentials, using simple bevel gears to transmit drive. A centre mounted no-spin differential allows a certain amount of slip between the two sets of wheels on each side of the vehicle on hard surfaces, but there is no allowance for rotational speed differences between front and rear. The centre no-spin unit allows the wheels on either side of the vehicle with most grip to drive when off-road. This has the effect of making the vehicle appear to crab (move from side to side) when negotiating muddy conditions, thus making the Stalwart a true six-wheel-drive vehicle, with three wheels locked together and turning at the same speed. Wiki:
However, this system causes "wind up" in the transmission (inter-component stress) as all the wheels are forced to rotate at the same speed, which during cornering is impossible.[5] This led to rapid wear and breakage of the tracta joints within the drive train if the vehicle was used on firm surfaces, such as tarmac or concrete – in off-road conditions, the natural 'slip' of a loose surface, such as mud or gravel, reduced wind up. This problem is of special concern for modern-day Stalwart owners – to get a vehicle to a show requires moving it by low-loader or driving it on the road, risking damage to the transmission. Alternatively, the front and rear driveshafts can be removed, eliminating wind up at the expense of off-road capability.
During military use, the problem of transmission wind up was solved by laying out railway sleepers (railroad ties) in a grid on flat ground and driving over them on long road moves; this allowed the transmission to unwind.[6] On more than one occasion, servicemen drove Stalwarts into car parks and used the kerbstones separating parking bays for the same purpose. Another problem with the transmission was that the vehicle was designed to be driven loaded. Driving the vehicle unloaded caused increased wear on the drivelines to the wheels as a result of the increased angle of mesh of the joints."
They all suffer from the same problem, I understand.
It was quite sad, in way. With a bit of effort, the design could have eliminated those issues. Semi-automatic gearbox, power steering,, 4 wheel steering (out of 6)... all in the 1950s. It was nicer to drive than a similar sized white van....
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that she is not a dual national, and that Bangladesh has said that she is not a citizen?
A lot of people have Tweeted this and used it as an argument, but the courts have determined she is a dual national haven't they?
Courts make wrong decisions. She was not a dual national.
The argument was that she met the Bangladesh criteria for citizenship. Bangladesh argued that she wasn't a citizen, even so.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that she is not a dual national, and that Bangladesh has said that she is not a citizen?
A lot of people have Tweeted this and used it as an argument, but the courts have determined she is a dual national haven't they?
Courts make wrong decisions. She was not a dual national.
Also courts make decisions based on the information provided - and from memory the Home Office stated that she HAD dual nationality - when she didn't...
I notice that the NHS website has been updated to say that you can only book your booster after 6 months and 1 week.
According to the same website, the nearest walk-in vaccination centre to me in London is in Camden. But in the Lake District it is Blackpool. Which is ridiculous.
Maybe there will be places closer by for vaccinations done by appointment. I do hope so. Because if people have to travel such distances for booster shots no wonder the uptake of them is not happening fast enough.
Would have thought Kendal was open and on both times I took the twins there they were doing walk-ins albeit on the QT.
Yes I was surprised too. Let's see what happens when I try and book my booster next Monday when my 6 months and 1 week are up. It will be a colossal bore if I have to drive to Blackpool to get it.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
Yup. That also applies to me. I have a lovely big Audi that is great for weekends away and ferrying bulky equipment and materials.
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
Yup. That also applies to me. I have a lovely big Audi that is great for weekends away and ferrying bulky equipment and materials.
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
I predict Addison Lee will do good business on their courier service - doing car sized moving of stuff.
Japan fully contained after its worst surge related to Delta, Syringe quickly rose to now 78% of total population w/ ≥ 1 dose, test positivity went from 25% to 1%, cases >23,000 to <400. Everything is open, no restrictions except use of masks. The mood is celebratory It can be done.</i> https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1452308678430924812
I wouldn't go so far as to say *fully* contained, my prefecture had a case today and one yesterday, and the day before that there were two.
And this comes after weeks of the most extreme state of emergency to date, where restaurants were asked (although not required obviously, we're not fascists) to stop serving alcohol.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that she is not a dual national, and that Bangladesh has said that she is not a citizen?
A lot of people have Tweeted this and used it as an argument, but the courts have determined she is a dual national haven't they?
Courts make wrong decisions. She was not a dual national.
Who to believe? The Courts following the Rule of Law or random people on the internet pushing their own political agenda? 🤔
Incidentally, for the panic this Tuesday, what kind of biscuits should we serve?
Ginger Going Nuts?
Hmmm....
And to remind everyone - after the panic is over, could some people please help folding the tables and chairs and putting them away at the back of the hall?
If you can afford 125 grand for something with bendy pushrods and an utterly miserably 150cfm flow from the antique head design you can probably afford the ULEZ charge on something not shit.
I've just bought a barn find 28,000 mile 1977 E21 323i. It's amazing how slow 40+ year old fast cars are.
Isn't that the one with 5 reverse gears when cornering?
Mine's got the close ratio 5 speed Getrag in it. Open diff though. The much more desirable dog leg 5 speed didn't appear until the E30 3 Series.
Re Begum, I thought the position was that she wanted to be let into the country in order to appeal against the decision to strip her of her British nationality on the basis that she could not properly appeal from Syria where she is currently based.
The HS declined to let her in and the SC ruled in the HS's favour stating that her appeal will have to be stayed until she is in a position to continue with her appeal. That could mean when conditions have improved in Syria. It does not mean when she is allowed to returned to the UK.
Until that appeal is heard, there has been no definitive ruling on her nationality. At present she no longer has British nationality. Whether she is entitled to the nationality of another nation is a matter for such other nations.
A country cannot remove a person's nationality if that would leave someone stateless. Britain has taken the view that Begum is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality not that she currently has it. So the issue in an appeal would be whether you can remove nationality from someone when they are theoretically entitled to a different nationality but that country has the choice of whether to grant it. In short, if she is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality does the Bangladeshi government have to grant it? And even if it does what if she chooses not to apply for it? Etc etc.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that it is against international law to make an individual stateless, and therefore under a certain legal philosophy (that anything not forbidden is legal), it would be lawful to strip a dual national (but not someone who holds a single nationality) of their citizenship. Begum, so far as I can tell, does hold Bangladeshi citizenship by descent (several relatives hold Irish citizenship by the same means, despite never taking any action to affirm such citizenship). So that interpretation of the law does hold some water.
However, it's my belief that it is not right for the Government to be able to unilaterally remove the rights of citizenship from an individual. Such a power should give us pause for concern about its misuse against British citizens who hold dual nationality. Are they lesser than single nationals? Less British?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that it is against international law to make an individual stateless, and therefore under a certain legal philosophy (that anything not forbidden is legal), it would be lawful to strip a dual national (but not someone who holds a single nationality) of their citizenship. Begum, so far as I can tell, does hold Bangladeshi citizenship by descent (several relatives hold Irish citizenship by the same means, despite never taking any action to affirm such citizenship). So that interpretation of the law does hold some water.
However, it's my belief that it is not right for the Government to be able to unilaterally remove the rights of citizenship from an individual. Such a power should give us pause for concern about its misuse against British citizens who hold dual nationality. Are they lesser than single nationals? Less British?
Not those who hold dual nationality, but anyone the UK government says is eligible to be a citizen elsewhere, even if both the person and foreign government say they are not eligible. That is many millions of Brits who have become second class citizens by this process.
However more than 550 revellers without passports refused entry to venues, some staff abused and footfall down 40% in the hospitality venues affected after early teething problems https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59034619
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that she is not a dual national, and that Bangladesh has said that she is not a citizen?
A lot of people have Tweeted this and used it as an argument, but the courts have determined she is a dual national haven't they?
Courts make wrong decisions. She was not a dual national.
Who to believe? The Courts following the Rule of Law or random people on the internet pushing their own political agenda? 🤔
Really? Courts are infallible? Are you going there? Generally that is the reserve of the establishment when they know they are in the wrong......
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that it is against international law to make an individual stateless, and therefore under a certain legal philosophy (that anything not forbidden is legal), it would be lawful to strip a dual national (but not someone who holds a single nationality) of their citizenship. Begum, so far as I can tell, does hold Bangladeshi citizenship by descent (several relatives hold Irish citizenship by the same means, despite never taking any action to affirm such citizenship). So that interpretation of the law does hold some water.
However, it's my belief that it is not right for the Government to be able to unilaterally remove the rights of citizenship from an individual. Such a power should give us pause for concern about its misuse against British citizens who hold dual nationality. Are they lesser than single nationals? Less British?
THere is another case that comes to mind, of dual nationals being compulsorily treated as single nationals, but (illogically?) as 100% British:
Re Begum, I thought the position was that she wanted to be let into the country in order to appeal against the decision to strip her of her British nationality on the basis that she could not properly appeal from Syria where she is currently based.
The HS declined to let her in and the SC ruled in the HS's favour stating that her appeal will have to be stayed until she is in a position to continue with her appeal. That could mean when conditions have improved in Syria. It does not mean when she is allowed to returned to the UK.
Until that appeal is heard, there has been no definitive ruling on her nationality. At present she no longer has British nationality. Whether she is entitled to the nationality of another nation is a matter for such other nations.
A country cannot remove a person's nationality if that would leave someone stateless. Britain has taken the view that Begum is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality not that she currently has it. So the issue in an appeal would be whether you can remove nationality from someone when they are theoretically entitled to a different nationality but that country has the choice of whether to grant it. In short, if she is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality does the Bangladeshi government have to grant it? And even if it does what if she chooses not to apply for it? Etc etc.
So basically the argument is we can make someone stateless because they seemingly qualify for citizenship elsewhere.
I think that still ends up with the person being stateless..
And it really doesn't answer nor justify the reality that is she was raised in the UK and should be the UK's problem to deal with. We should not be trying to throw our problems elsewhere.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
I was just typing out something to that effect. She's our problem and responsibility. As an aside, surely we don't want to start a kind of game of musical chairs in regards to criminal acts committed by dual nationals?
Having to stay in some dusty hell hole for the rest of her days might be regarded as a kind of natural justice by some, but I would prefer a more lawful kind.
She decided she preferred that lifestyle and culture. We have what she wanted. Be careful what you wish for…
Don't suppose I'll get a reply to this but if you've got a better way to keep the parasites out of my goats then I'd like to hear it.
I don’t know about caprine use, but I’ve a lot of familiarity with bovine, equine, feline and canine use. I wasn’t really a fan of using it on kids (Slice) although I could see the logic.
But only for parasites… and a virus is not a parasite…
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
My 9 year old made exactly the same point over the weekend…
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
My 9 year old made exactly the same point over the weekend…
Interesting. My youngest adored the word and spent ages learning to spell it and pronounce it. Also what it meant.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
The implication of what you are saying here is that anyone who leaves the country can be denied entry upon return, if 'we' don't think it is a good idea. Not a particularly brilliant scenario, for a number of reasons; but most significantly because it turns citizenship in to a privilege that exists at the whims of the government.
Its not the implication, its the reality.
But only if they're a danger to this country and only if closing the gate doesn't leave them stateless.
If such people choose to leave the country why should they be allowed back? They made their choice. Actions have consequences.
There is actually a serious philosophical question - what rights does a government have to exclude someone from society. It should be a higher barrier than just the Home Secretary’s say so.
That’s why we have the court system for prison (internal exclusion). There should be an appropriate structure for exile (external exclusion).
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
The implication of what you are saying here is that anyone who leaves the country can be denied entry upon return, if 'we' don't think it is a good idea. Not a particularly brilliant scenario, for a number of reasons; but most significantly because it turns citizenship in to a privilege that exists at the whims of the government.
Its not the implication, its the reality.
But only if they're a danger to this country and only if closing the gate doesn't leave them stateless.
If such people choose to leave the country why should they be allowed back? They made their choice. Actions have consequences.
There is actually a serious philosophical question - what rights does a government have to exclude someone from society. It should be a higher barrier than just the Home Secretary’s say so.
That’s why we have the court system for prison (internal exclusion). There should be an appropriate structure for exile (external exclusion).
Throw it open to the public: let us do the modern equivalent of scratching a name on a potsherd each year and exile whoever gets the most votes.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
Yup. That also applies to me. I have a lovely big Audi that is great for weekends away and ferrying bulky equipment and materials.
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
Bragging rights?
Would be fool's gold when everyone else is having a few pints and/or cocktails and I'm stuck there waving the car keys with a lime soda.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
Given how difficult it can be to find Physics teachers any school that only offers combined science and doesn't have a sixth form that teaches Physics is quickly going to opt for an available science teacher rather than a Physics teacher.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that she is not a dual national, and that Bangladesh has said that she is not a citizen?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
The implication of what you are saying here is that anyone who leaves the country can be denied entry upon return, if 'we' don't think it is a good idea. Not a particularly brilliant scenario, for a number of reasons; but most significantly because it turns citizenship in to a privilege that exists at the whims of the government.
Its not the implication, its the reality.
But only if they're a danger to this country and only if closing the gate doesn't leave them stateless.
If such people choose to leave the country why should they be allowed back? They made their choice. Actions have consequences.
There is actually a serious philosophical question - what rights does a government have to exclude someone from society. It should be a higher barrier than just the Home Secretary’s say so.
That’s why we have the court system for prison (internal exclusion). There should be an appropriate structure for exile (external exclusion).
Throw it open to the public: let us do the modern equivalent of scratching a name on a potsherd each year and exile whoever gets the most votes.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
Given how difficult it can be to find Physics teachers any school that only offers combined science and doesn't have a sixth form that teaches Physics is quickly going to opt for an available science teacher rather than a Physics teacher.
There is a simple answer to that: pay Physics teachers more…
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
I was just typing out something to that effect. She's our problem and responsibility. As an aside, surely we don't want to start a kind of game of musical chairs in regards to criminal acts committed by dual nationals?
Having to stay in some dusty hell hole for the rest of her days might be regarded as a kind of natural justice by some, but I would prefer a more lawful kind.
She decided she preferred that lifestyle and culture. We have what she wanted. Be careful what you wish for…
At what, 15. Surely she's allowed to repent of a juvenile decision. If she had committed a crime at 15, wouldn't she have it removed from her record after a few years. (Depends on the crime, I suppose, though!)
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
Yup. That also applies to me. I have a lovely big Audi that is great for weekends away and ferrying bulky equipment and materials.
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
I predict Addison Lee will do good business on their courier service - doing car sized moving of stuff.
My Audi is clean diesel Ad Blue and Ulez compliant anyway, so it's fine for me to use inside the North Circular. I don't really understand the moaning – London's air quality needs to improve. Getting filthy old diesels off the road is a good place to start.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
Nope, she was brought up in the UK so we shouldn't be trying to pass her on to another country to deal with a problem created in this country.
We're not "passing" her onto anyone else. She voluntarily left, we're just not taking her back and we're not obligated to do so.
The implication of what you are saying here is that anyone who leaves the country can be denied entry upon return, if 'we' don't think it is a good idea. Not a particularly brilliant scenario, for a number of reasons; but most significantly because it turns citizenship in to a privilege that exists at the whims of the government.
Its not the implication, its the reality.
But only if they're a danger to this country and only if closing the gate doesn't leave them stateless.
If such people choose to leave the country why should they be allowed back? They made their choice. Actions have consequences.
There is actually a serious philosophical question - what rights does a government have to exclude someone from society. It should be a higher barrier than just the Home Secretary’s say so.
That’s why we have the court system for prison (internal exclusion). There should be an appropriate structure for exile (external exclusion).
Throw it open to the public: let us do the modern equivalent of scratching a name on a potsherd each year and exile whoever gets the most votes.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that she is not a dual national, and that Bangladesh has said that she is not a citizen?
A lot of people have Tweeted this and used it as an argument, but the courts have determined she is a dual national haven't they?
Courts make wrong decisions. She was not a dual national.
Also courts make decisions based on the information provided - and from memory the Home Office stated that she HAD dual nationality - when she didn't...
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
I seem to recall a GCE subject 'Physics with Chemistry'
Not highly regarded by those of us doing all three sciences as separate subjects.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
Yup. That also applies to me. I have a lovely big Audi that is great for weekends away and ferrying bulky equipment and materials.
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
I predict Addison Lee will do good business on their courier service - doing car sized moving of stuff.
My Audi is clean diesel Ad Blue and Ulez compliant anyway, so it's fine for me to use inside the North Circular. I don't really understand the moaning – London's air quality needs to improve. Getting filthy old diesels off the road is a good place to start.
Don't disagree apart from the fact that "the government" was advising people to buy those "filthy old diesels" as recently as a few years ago.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
Given how difficult it can be to find Physics teachers any school that only offers combined science and doesn't have a sixth form that teaches Physics is quickly going to opt for an available science teacher rather than a Physics teacher.
There is a simple answer to that: pay Physics teachers more…
Budgets though - a Headmaster could save a few £k by using Biology / Chemist teachers...
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
I seem to recall a GCE subject 'Physics with Chemistry'
Not highly regarded by those of us doing all three sciences as separate subjects.
That is the big problem with the Welsh proposal: combined science is not a good preparation for doing an A-level in a science. I understand that some people don’t want to do A-level Physics, but it seems wrong to make the choice to do so much harder for those who would might.
Incidentally, for the panic this Tuesday, what kind of biscuits should we serve?
Ginger Going Nuts?
Hmmm....
And to remind everyone - after the panic is over, could some people please help folding the tables and chairs and putting them away at the back of the hall?
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that she is not a dual national, and that Bangladesh has said that she is not a citizen?
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
Given how difficult it can be to find Physics teachers any school that only offers combined science and doesn't have a sixth form that teaches Physics is quickly going to opt for an available science teacher rather than a Physics teacher.
There is a simple answer to that: pay Physics teachers more…
Budgets though - a Headmaster could save a few £k by using Biology / Chemist teachers...
Pay anyone who teaches Physics more: that way the incentive is to get someone who knows what they are talking about.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
Yup. That also applies to me. I have a lovely big Audi that is great for weekends away and ferrying bulky equipment and materials.
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
I predict Addison Lee will do good business on their courier service - doing car sized moving of stuff.
My Audi is clean diesel Ad Blue and Ulez compliant anyway, so it's fine for me to use inside the North Circular. I don't really understand the moaning – London's air quality needs to improve. Getting filthy old diesels off the road is a good place to start.
I agree about London's air quality needing improving - although, to be fair, it has been improving for decades. The Clean Air Acts have been wonderful.
I think much of the anger about the new anti-diesel move is that, from about 2001 to 2015, the government were incentivising people to buy diesels rather than petrol. Then, all of a sudden, diesel cars were *evil*.
In my own personal view, I'd add onto this the massive subsidies and incentives given to electric car drivers - and the fact that this was all going to rich people, as they we the only people who could afford such cars.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
My 9 year old made exactly the same point over the weekend…
Interesting. My youngest adored the word and spent ages learning to spell it and pronounce it. Also what it meant.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
If you can find examples of it being used then it would count. I don’t think antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest word in English though: floccinaucinihilipilification has that honour.
I understand the longest "normal" word is straightforwardness.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
Yup. That also applies to me. I have a lovely big Audi that is great for weekends away and ferrying bulky equipment and materials.
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
Bragging rights?
Would be fool's gold when everyone else is having a few pints and/or cocktails and I'm stuck there waving the car keys with a lime soda.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
Yup. That also applies to me. I have a lovely big Audi that is great for weekends away and ferrying bulky equipment and materials.
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
I predict Addison Lee will do good business on their courier service - doing car sized moving of stuff.
My Audi is clean diesel Ad Blue and Ulez compliant anyway, so it's fine for me to use inside the North Circular. I don't really understand the moaning – London's air quality needs to improve. Getting filthy old diesels off the road is a good place to start.
Don't disagree apart from the fact that "the government" was advising people to buy those "filthy old diesels" as recently as a few years ago.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
If she was our problem we'd be dealing with her.
We're not, so not our problem.
Only because the Home Secretary, rather dubiously in my opinion, deprived her of her citizenship which allowed the Government to claim she isn't our problem.
Not dubiously. In accordance with national and international law.
The country that chose to let her in can now deal with her. Or the other country she has citizenship from.
I'm not sure you're right about international law there. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
What issue is there in international law?
International law gives countries the right to strip citizenship of dual nationals. As a nation we did that in accordance with the law.
My understanding is that she is not a dual national, and that Bangladesh has said that she is not a citizen?
A lot of people have Tweeted this and used it as an argument, but the courts have determined she is a dual national haven't they?
Courts make wrong decisions. She was not a dual national.
Also courts make decisions based on the information provided - and from memory the Home Office stated that she HAD dual nationality - when she didn't...
Given that the argument seems to come down to - what does the law says versus what anyone who knows Bangladesh knows will actually happen - I can see the issue here.
The reality is that given she is now 22 - she no longer qualifies for Bangladesh citizenship so we did make her Stateless.
Re Begum, I thought the position was that she wanted to be let into the country in order to appeal against the decision to strip her of her British nationality on the basis that she could not properly appeal from Syria where she is currently based.
The HS declined to let her in and the SC ruled in the HS's favour stating that her appeal will have to be stayed until she is in a position to continue with her appeal. That could mean when conditions have improved in Syria. It does not mean when she is allowed to returned to the UK.
Until that appeal is heard, there has been no definitive ruling on her nationality. At present she no longer has British nationality. Whether she is entitled to the nationality of another nation is a matter for such other nations.
A country cannot remove a person's nationality if that would leave someone stateless. Britain has taken the view that Begum is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality not that she currently has it. So the issue in an appeal would be whether you can remove nationality from someone when they are theoretically entitled to a different nationality but that country has the choice of whether to grant it. In short, if she is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality does the Bangladeshi government have to grant it? And even if it does what if she chooses not to apply for it? Etc etc.
So basically the argument is we can make someone stateless because they seemingly qualify for citizenship elsewhere.
I think that still ends up with the person being stateless..
And it really doesn't answer nor justify the reality that is she was raised in the UK and should be the UK's problem to deal with. We should not be trying to throw our problems elsewhere.
The last point is irrelevant to the question in my opinion. The issue is whether the decision was legal, not whether it is morally 'right'. Many things are shitty but legal. We might well criticise those, but it is a different type of criticism (eg I thought the Boris prorogration was wrong, irrespective of its lawfulness, but wrong and unlawful is a different level of criticism).
As the Australian citizenship issue a few years back showed, when some MPs became ineligible due to dual citizenships that in some cases they did not even know they had (showing in some places you don't need to positively apply for it), law on citizenship is different in many places and can have unintentional effects due to the law in another place.
It might be absurd, yet still legally the case, that someone can qualify and have citizenship of another country because of the way the laws of that country are written, regardless of what the person or that country might want.
A lot of people on this issue criticise things like the government or Home Secretary having the power to strip nationality at all, which is fair enough I think that's problematic too, but is separate to whether it was done properly in this case. Similarly, her putative Bangladeshi citizenship might well be a sound interpretation under the law, even if we dislike the law allowing such an interpretation.
The question seems unresolved on that, but that it is a crappy approach to shift a problem onto somebody else is distinct from it I think.
re. Begum, it appears that the UK thinks that by virtue of her mother being a Bangladeshi national she is a Bangladeshi citizen (which is indeed the case; one inherits citizenship in Bangladesh from one's parents).
Except that Bangladesh, exercising its pesky sovereign power, no doubt, has said that whatever she might normally be entitled to hereditarily, she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.
Incidentally, for the panic this Tuesday, what kind of biscuits should we serve?
Ginger Going Nuts?
Hmmm....
And to remind everyone - after the panic is over, could some people please help folding the tables and chairs and putting them away at the back of the hall?
I believe Sagan said we are children of the stars, which is fine, so long as no one seeks to say our parental stars have the right to family life here in the UK.
Re Begum, I thought the position was that she wanted to be let into the country in order to appeal against the decision to strip her of her British nationality on the basis that she could not properly appeal from Syria where she is currently based.
The HS declined to let her in and the SC ruled in the HS's favour stating that her appeal will have to be stayed until she is in a position to continue with her appeal. That could mean when conditions have improved in Syria. It does not mean when she is allowed to returned to the UK.
Until that appeal is heard, there has been no definitive ruling on her nationality. At present she no longer has British nationality. Whether she is entitled to the nationality of another nation is a matter for such other nations.
A country cannot remove a person's nationality if that would leave someone stateless. Britain has taken the view that Begum is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality not that she currently has it. So the issue in an appeal would be whether you can remove nationality from someone when they are theoretically entitled to a different nationality but that country has the choice of whether to grant it. In short, if she is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality does the Bangladeshi government have to grant it? And even if it does what if she chooses not to apply for it? Etc etc.
So basically the argument is we can make someone stateless because they seemingly qualify for citizenship elsewhere.
I think that still ends up with the person being stateless..
And it really doesn't answer nor justify the reality that is she was raised in the UK and should be the UK's problem to deal with. We should not be trying to throw our problems elsewhere.
The last point is irrelevant to the question in my opinion. The issue is whether the decision was legal, not whether it is morally 'right'. Many things are shitty but legal. We might well criticise those, but it is a different type of criticism (eg I thought the Boris prorogration was wrong, irrespective of its lawfulness, but wrong and unlawful is a different level of criticism).
As the Australian citizenship issue a few years back showed, when some MPs became ineligible due to dual citizenships that in some cases they did not even know they had (showing in some places you don't need to positively apply for it), law on citizenship is different in many places and can have unintentional effects due to the law in another place.
It might be absurd, yet still legally the case, that someone can qualify and have citizenship of another country because of the way the laws of that country are written, regardless of what the person or that country might want.
A lot of people on this issue criticise things like the government or Home Secretary having the power to strip nationality at all, which is fair enough I think that's problematic too, but is separate to whether it was done properly in this case. Similarly, her putative Bangladeshi citizenship might well be a sound interpretation under the law, even if we dislike the law allowing such an interpretation.
The question seems unresolved on that, but that it is a crappy approach to shift a problem onto somebody else is distinct from it I think.
Bangladesh has said she is not a citizen. Surely that is enough for her not to be a Bangladeshi citizen.
re. Begum, it appears that the UK thinks that by virtue of her mother being a Bangladeshi national she is a Bangladeshi citizen (which is indeed the case; one inherits citizenship in Bangladesh from one's parents).
Except that Bangladesh, exercising its pesky sovereign power, no doubt, has said that whatever she might normally be entitled to hereditarily, she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.
I believe Sagan said we are children of the stars, which is fine, so long as no one seeks to say our parental stars have the right to family life here in the UK.
As those stars blew up over four and a half billion years ago, I think the point is moot.
UK is paying for its governments not introducing proper Covid passports, I think. Potential benefits are (1) driving higher vaccination rates (2) keeping a proportion of infected people out of venues where the disease can easily be passed on (3) enforcing proper tracing if there is an outbreak (4) allowing venues to stay open if further restrictions are required.
Although not directly comparable, I note according to Our World in Data that hospital admissions are running about five times higher in the UK than France, Germany and Italy.
The UK is benefiting from the importance that its government puts on liberty
I'm struggling to think how this takes away your liberty. You don't need to show your passport, but if you don't you can't come in. It is your liberty to choose. I also don't have the liberty to drive on the right side of the road. Do you think I should have the liberty to do so without consequences. You are not allowed to because of the harm you may do to others.
You are not being prevented from driving to A to B.
You are being prevented from participating in normal life.
Nobody is being prevented from participating in normal life.
They're just being asked to show their vaccine ID, which is bad enough and I oppose it on that ground, but lets not get carried away.
Under the proposal, If you are no vaccinated then you can’t go to restaurants, venues, museums etc. You are excluded from society because the government has insisted that you take a medical treatment
Then get vaccinated and you cease to be excluded.
We've all been excluded from society in the recent past. If there needs to be restrictions as a minority who've refused vaccines are overwhelming the NHS then those causing the problem are the only ones who should be excluded, nobody else.
Better to not require vaccine passports. But if they are required, then locking down the unvaccinated is infinitely better than locking down everybody.
The government insisting you take a personal medical treatment is not something I am comfortable with. It up ends the power relationship between the state and the citizen
Its not insisting that you take the treatment, but it is making it harder for you to have fun etc if you don't...
And the state shouldn’t have that right (as opposed to having the power, which it clearly does, subject to parliamentary approval).
That’s the issue. Government is (indirectly) elected by the people and its authority is derived from the people.
The ability to exclude from society (prison or exile) is the ultimate sanction the state can apply and only for a breach of the criminal law.
Extending that to include “not doing something I think you should do” is a massive extension of state power
Shamima Begum (exiled by the Home Secretary after no court of law has adjudicated on any breach of the criminal law) says hi. Governments do this kind of thing all the time (I am not saying they should).
She exiled herself when she left the country to fight for ISIS. The Home Secretary just closed the gate after she left.
And she's had the chance to have her case go before courts.
She should be tried for the war crimes that she committed.
Indeed. In the country she committed those crimes, not in the UK.
Why? War crimes are considered to be prosecutable by any involved party. For quite a broad definition of "involved party"
I know that there is an interesting reluctance for state prosecutions of non-state actors for war crimes.... Which is another story.
Let the country that she committed the crimes in bring her to justice.
If we bring her back to try her for her crimes then we won't be able to deport her after her sentence. Allowing her back is rewarding her, why should she benefit from her crimes?
Is there a realistic prospect of prosecution where she is? Surely it's more important that justice is done rather than worrying so much about who does it?
Stripping her of her citizenship so she can't go out, commit war crimes, then return back to the UK is a greater justice being done.
So you aren't really interested in seeing her prosecuted for her alleged crimes?
Not if the price of seeing her prosecuted is allowing her back into this country, no.
She is our fault so she is our problem to deal with.
The home secretary may not like it but she should be here and should be charged with whatever crimes she committed that we can charge her with.
What she isn't is a problem for Bangladesh.
I was just typing out something to that effect. She's our problem and responsibility. As an aside, surely we don't want to start a kind of game of musical chairs in regards to criminal acts committed by dual nationals?
Having to stay in some dusty hell hole for the rest of her days might be regarded as a kind of natural justice by some, but I would prefer a more lawful kind.
She decided she preferred that lifestyle and culture. We have what she wanted. Be careful what you wish for…
At what, 15. Surely she's allowed to repent of a juvenile decision. If she had committed a crime at 15, wouldn't she have it removed from her record after a few years. (Depends on the crime, I suppose, though!)
It does seem anomalous that 15-year-old girls can plan and conduct war crimes but not consent to sex. Damned if I know how to proceed from here. Shades of Burgess and Maclean that MI5 was evidently not watching obvious exit routes.
re. Begum, it appears that the UK thinks that by virtue of her mother being a Bangladeshi national she is a Bangladeshi citizen (which is indeed the case; one inherits citizenship in Bangladesh from one's parents).
Except that Bangladesh, exercising its pesky sovereign power, no doubt, has said that whatever she might normally be entitled to hereditarily, she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.
Which latter the UK has decided to ignore.
Does their own law allow them to declare she is not entitled to that which she would 'normally' be entitled?
I think our own government's approach on this is questionable at best, but I think it is not as straightforward sometimes presented - our own government gets what is the law and what is lawful wrong from time to time, hence losing judicial reviews, and the Bangladeshi government presumably is not immune from being wrong either, so it could be it says she is not entitled but she is.
Government pronouncement of what is the law, any government, is not always right.
Re Begum, I thought the position was that she wanted to be let into the country in order to appeal against the decision to strip her of her British nationality on the basis that she could not properly appeal from Syria where she is currently based.
The HS declined to let her in and the SC ruled in the HS's favour stating that her appeal will have to be stayed until she is in a position to continue with her appeal. That could mean when conditions have improved in Syria. It does not mean when she is allowed to returned to the UK.
Until that appeal is heard, there has been no definitive ruling on her nationality. At present she no longer has British nationality. Whether she is entitled to the nationality of another nation is a matter for such other nations.
A country cannot remove a person's nationality if that would leave someone stateless. Britain has taken the view that Begum is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality not that she currently has it. So the issue in an appeal would be whether you can remove nationality from someone when they are theoretically entitled to a different nationality but that country has the choice of whether to grant it. In short, if she is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality does the Bangladeshi government have to grant it? And even if it does what if she chooses not to apply for it? Etc etc.
So basically the argument is we can make someone stateless because they seemingly qualify for citizenship elsewhere.
I think that still ends up with the person being stateless..
And it really doesn't answer nor justify the reality that is she was raised in the UK and should be the UK's problem to deal with. We should not be trying to throw our problems elsewhere.
The last point is irrelevant to the question in my opinion. The issue is whether the decision was legal, not whether it is morally 'right'. Many things are shitty but legal. We might well criticise those, but it is a different type of criticism (eg I thought the Boris prorogration was wrong, irrespective of its lawfulness, but wrong and unlawful is a different level of criticism).
As the Australian citizenship issue a few years back showed, when some MPs became ineligible due to dual citizenships that in some cases they did not even know they had (showing in some places you don't need to positively apply for it), law on citizenship is different in many places and can have unintentional effects due to the law in another place.
It might be absurd, yet still legally the case, that someone can qualify and have citizenship of another country because of the way the laws of that country are written, regardless of what the person or that country might want.
A lot of people on this issue criticise things like the government or Home Secretary having the power to strip nationality at all, which is fair enough I think that's problematic too, but is separate to whether it was done properly in this case. Similarly, her putative Bangladeshi citizenship might well be a sound interpretation under the law, even if we dislike the law allowing such an interpretation.
The question seems unresolved on that, but that it is a crappy approach to shift a problem onto somebody else is distinct from it I think.
Bangladesh has said she is not a citizen. Surely that is enough for her not to be a Bangladeshi citizen.
Probably. But not necessarily. Our government has said she is no longer a British citizen - but if they are wrong about her citizenship status, our government will be wrong about that as they would not be able to make that decision. Governments can be wrong about their power.
"We have got a disease we now understand, a safe vaccine that works, but the wards are full of people who don’t believe that to be true.” - Hugh Montgomery, professor of intensive care at University College London
It's a combination of AZ not being as effective as Pfizer/Moderna - particularly at reducing transmission - and the fact that the UK started earlier.
If you look at the median point - i.e. when 40% of people were jabbed - then the UK got there between three and four months before European countries.
The combination of these two facts means the UK is suffering worst from fading protection.
FORTUNATELY.
This is also happening at the same time that the major transmission vector (schools) is running out of hosts. And the UK is also getting on with getting people booster doses. (Albeit, slightly slower than one might like.) Plus, all the evidence is that AZ + Pfizer/Moderna actually offers the best protection of all.
So long as the UK gets on with booster doses, there is a great deal of reason to be optimistic about the track of cases and hospitalisation.
And what of Europe? Well, right now Eastern Europe (particularly Bulgaria) is being hammered. You also have big outbreaks in Eastern Germany (low levels of vaccination) and in Brussels (ditto).
Most of Europe is not (yet) facing a diminishing vaccine efficacy issue, except for the very old. That will change. But they also have plentiful supplies now, and they have a proven ability to get jabs in arms. They too need to start executing on third doses. They are lucky, however, that they probably have a couple of months on the UK.
Do the experts think Dose 3 will “complete” the programme, or is vaccinator now a job for life?
Plus, of course, our first vaccines were developed quickly, and will be further improved as time goes on. And some things - like tetanus - we get boosters every few years.
My guess is that we'll have annual boosters for a year or two, and then it'll get integrated with the flu shot.
Does anyone actually get their tetanus booster?
Every time one of our dogs accidentally bites us in play*, I check out my vaccination status and get one as needed.
* not a frequent occurrence - has happened twice in 50 years ...
I believe Sagan said we are children of the stars, which is fine, so long as no one seeks to say our parental stars have the right to family life here in the UK.
As those stars blew up over four and a half billion years ago, I think the point is moot.
In my own personal view, I'd add onto this the massive subsidies and incentives given to electric car drivers - and the fact that this was all going to rich people, as they we the only people who could afford such cars.
The poor are getting shafted. As ever.
Those subsidies were nuts, they were giving a subsidy to people buying some quite expensive cars, people who almost certainly required no handout from the state.
In my own personal view, I'd add onto this the massive subsidies and incentives given to electric car drivers - and the fact that this was all going to rich people, as they we the only people who could afford such cars.
The poor are getting shafted. As ever.
Those subsidies were nuts, they were giving a subsidy to people buying some quite expensive cars, people who almost certainly required no handout from the state.
The really startling one is the company car subsidies - if you have your own business, you can buy a top end Tesla S/X and pay about as much as purchasing a hatchback, in the end.
And you are *encouraged* to use it for personal use.....
I believe Sagan said we are children of the stars, which is fine, so long as no one seeks to say our parental stars have the right to family life here in the UK.
As those stars blew up over four and a half billion years ago, I think the point is moot.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/95203 ...While full vaccination may seem like a lofty goal, it is not completely out of reach. The Indian district of Raigarh, which has a population of approximately 1.6 million (in the state of Chhattisgarh, where mean per capita income is $1,400 per year), was able to achieve 100% first-dose vaccination of all eligible, adult citizens without financial incentives or a governmental mandate. This made national headline news across India. Raigarh achieved this success despite severe resource limitations (including the sharp vaccine shortages throughout India in early 2021), and heterogeneity in geographical, ethnic, linguistic, social, and religious attributes, which added to the mission's complexity.
Below, we share five actionable strategies learned from the Raigarh case study, which can help bolster vaccination rates in both resource-poor and well-resourced settings....
That is good news. But I have to suspect part of the reason it was able to get to 100% thus was that it has a very high population growth rate, and the 100% represents the population from the last census, not the current population figure.
Or, as in the case of the county I live in (Montgomery, MD), its efficiency at delivering vaccine means that many out of area people came to get their vaccinations where they were available, and were counted towards the local population.
More vaccinations, whomever's arm they go into, is good news. But there are so many political reasons for reporting good numbers, and so many ways the raw numbers can be misleading, that I am very wary of them in general.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
I seem to recall a GCE subject 'Physics with Chemistry'
Not highly regarded by those of us doing all three sciences as separate subjects.
Indeed, but the downside of doing them as separate subjects is that schools do not teach us that chemistry is physics, and biology is chemistry. We lose the continuity between the disciplines. Unless that has changed since I was in school
Nowhere is this clearer than in vaccines. The biological effects are achieved by the molecular chemistry of the spike protein, which is in turn achieved by the 3-dimensional presentation of electrical charges of the spike protein and the ACE-2 receptor.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/95203 ...While full vaccination may seem like a lofty goal, it is not completely out of reach. The Indian district of Raigarh, which has a population of approximately 1.6 million (in the state of Chhattisgarh, where mean per capita income is $1,400 per year), was able to achieve 100% first-dose vaccination of all eligible, adult citizens without financial incentives or a governmental mandate. This made national headline news across India. Raigarh achieved this success despite severe resource limitations (including the sharp vaccine shortages throughout India in early 2021), and heterogeneity in geographical, ethnic, linguistic, social, and religious attributes, which added to the mission's complexity.
Below, we share five actionable strategies learned from the Raigarh case study, which can help bolster vaccination rates in both resource-poor and well-resourced settings....
That is good news. But I have to suspect part of the reason it was able to get to 100% thus was that it has a very high population growth rate, and the 100% represents the population from the last census, not the current population figure.
Or, as in the case of the county I live in (Montgomery, MD), its efficiency at delivering vaccine means that many out of area people came to get their vaccinations where they were available, and were counted towards the local population.
More vaccinations, whomever's arm they go into, is good news. But there are so many political reasons for reporting good numbers, and so many ways the raw numbers can be misleading, that I am very wary of them in general.
“There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout.
I believe Sagan said we are children of the stars, which is fine, so long as no one seeks to say our parental stars have the right to family life here in the UK.
As those stars blew up over four and a half billion years ago, I think the point is moot.
They have nearby cousins still going.
“Nearby” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
“There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
I seem to recall a GCE subject 'Physics with Chemistry'
Not highly regarded by those of us doing all three sciences as separate subjects.
Indeed, but the downside of doing them as separate subjects is that schools do not teach us that chemistry is physics, and biology is chemistry. We lose the continuity between the disciplines. Unless that has changed since I was in school
Nowhere is this clearer than in vaccines. The biological effects are achieved by the molecular chemistry of the spike protein, which is in turn achieved by the 3-dimensional presentation of electrical charges of the spike protein and the ACE-2 receptor.
Which is more important: someone telling you that “chemistry is physics” (which is misleading anyway) or having those two subjects taught properly by someone who knows their subject?
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
Leak after leak after leak. Wednesday's will be the shortest budget speech on record. Rishi will stand up, exhort Honourable Members to read the papers, then sit down again.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
Leak after leak after leak. Wednesday's will be the shortest budget speech on record. Rishi will stand up, exhort Honourable Members to read the papers, then sit down again.
re. Begum, it appears that the UK thinks that by virtue of her mother being a Bangladeshi national she is a Bangladeshi citizen (which is indeed the case; one inherits citizenship in Bangladesh from one's parents).
Except that Bangladesh, exercising its pesky sovereign power, no doubt, has said that whatever she might normally be entitled to hereditarily, she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.
Which latter the UK has decided to ignore.
“Entitled to” isn’t the same as “is not”
The key thing is that Bangladesh has said she is not a citizen. Hence, I think we can take it that she is not a citizen. Of Bangladesh.
Is anyone getting caught by Mayor Sadiq's latest ULEZ wheeze?
£12.50 per day for commuting from Wood Green, Walthamstow, Chiswick or Kew out of London if you have the wrong car. £3k a year for all the working days.
Hmmm.
The other interesting one is that afaik he has not yet restored the 90% discount on the CC for residents of the CC zone. That's an extra £13.50 a day for anyone living in most of Zone 1 and part of Zone 2 every time they use a car.
Electorally relevant? Who may this hurt?
Do those of you living there notice this?
Yes!
He’s also refused to roll back the weekend charge as he promised in the election.
It costs us £20 each time we drive
Checking I see that people registered for CC pre-July 2020 have their discount grandfathered in. Shouldn't this be you, or do you live in the 'burbs eg Zone 2 ?
I’m in the burbs
How can it cost you £20 each time you drive if you don't live in the CC zone? I live in zone 2 and in the ten years I've lived here I've never paid the CC, for the simple reason that I never drive into Central London. Get the bus!
Yup. That also applies to me. I have a lovely big Audi that is great for weekends away and ferrying bulky equipment and materials.
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
I predict Addison Lee will do good business on their courier service - doing car sized moving of stuff.
My Audi is clean diesel Ad Blue and Ulez compliant anyway, so it's fine for me to use inside the North Circular. I don't really understand the moaning – London's air quality needs to improve. Getting filthy old diesels off the road is a good place to start.
I agree about London's air quality needing improving - although, to be fair, it has been improving for decades. The Clean Air Acts have been wonderful.
I think much of the anger about the new anti-diesel move is that, from about 2001 to 2015, the government were incentivising people to buy diesels rather than petrol. Then, all of a sudden, diesel cars were *evil*.
In my own personal view, I'd add onto this the massive subsidies and incentives given to electric car drivers - and the fact that this was all going to rich people, as they we the only people who could afford such cars.
The poor are getting shafted. As ever.
This is a trend I have been pointing out for a while. Government seem to have started a war on poor people and their cars. It is absolutely astonishing. Every political party are in on the act: Tories, Labour, Liberals, Greens. It is a classic case of educated people thinking they know best and imposing their preferences on the rest of the country.
This, in combination with the war on traditional values and free speech; is politically toxic. It will ultimately fuel a popular revolt.
re. Begum, it appears that the UK thinks that by virtue of her mother being a Bangladeshi national she is a Bangladeshi citizen (which is indeed the case; one inherits citizenship in Bangladesh from one's parents).
Except that Bangladesh, exercising its pesky sovereign power, no doubt, has said that whatever she might normally be entitled to hereditarily, she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.
Which latter the UK has decided to ignore.
“Entitled to” isn’t the same as “is not”
Given that she is now 22 years old and never organised Bangladeshi citizenship, she no longer qualifies for it under the act the UK High Court used as the basis of her having citizenship.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
I seem to recall a GCE subject 'Physics with Chemistry'
Not highly regarded by those of us doing all three sciences as separate subjects.
Indeed, but the downside of doing them as separate subjects is that schools do not teach us that chemistry is physics, and biology is chemistry. We lose the continuity between the disciplines. Unless that has changed since I was in school
Nowhere is this clearer than in vaccines. The biological effects are achieved by the molecular chemistry of the spike protein, which is in turn achieved by the 3-dimensional presentation of electrical charges of the spike protein and the ACE-2 receptor.
Which is more important: someone telling you that “chemistry is physics” (which is misleading anyway) or having those two subjects taught properly by someone who knows their subject?
I'd argue having a good teacher is way more important than having a teacher who is the best expert in the subject.
Chemistry is physics is not at all misleading, although it might be better expressed as 'chemistry is the emergent properties of physics, and biology is the emergent properties of chemistry, and behaviour is the emergent properties of biology' etc...
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
I have always wondered why antidisestablishmentarianism is considered the longest word, because there must have been folk that opposed the antidisestablishmentarianism movement and hence there must have been an antiantidisestablishmentarianism
Isn't that just disestablishmentarianism?
Perhaps there wee centre-grounders, who believed that antidisestablishmentarianists were going a little too far, and that compromise was possible. Hence semiantidisestablishmentarianism.
(Though that would probably be just semidisestablishmentarianism)
I declare antieuropeaneuionreestablishmentarianism (TM) open for business....
Also europeaneuionreestablishmentarianism (TM).....
Are we going to have europeaneuionreestablishmentarianism-oaners (and antieuropeaneuionreestablishmentarianism-eers), too?
Yes.
Personally, I floccinaucinihilipilificate some of the stuff from the European Commission.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
Leak after leak after leak. Wednesday's will be the shortest budget speech on record. Rishi will stand up, exhort Honourable Members to read the papers, then sit down again.
Good news though
Some supposedly serious commentators were recently saying on here that a rise in the minimum wage is bad news because more people are then on the minimum wage.
Nice to know that it's "good news" again.
I didn't say that and I am all for increases in the minimum wage towards the living wage
re. Begum, it appears that the UK thinks that by virtue of her mother being a Bangladeshi national she is a Bangladeshi citizen (which is indeed the case; one inherits citizenship in Bangladesh from one's parents).
Except that Bangladesh, exercising its pesky sovereign power, no doubt, has said that whatever she might normally be entitled to hereditarily, she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.
Which latter the UK has decided to ignore.
Does their own law allow them to declare she is not entitled to that which she would 'normally' be entitled?
I think our own government's approach on this is questionable at best, but I think it is not as straightforward sometimes presented - our own government gets what is the law and what is lawful wrong from time to time, hence losing judicial reviews, and the Bangladeshi government presumably is not immune from being wrong either, so it could be it says she is not entitled but she is.
Government pronouncement of what is the law, any government, is not always right.
Re Begum, I thought the position was that she wanted to be let into the country in order to appeal against the decision to strip her of her British nationality on the basis that she could not properly appeal from Syria where she is currently based.
The HS declined to let her in and the SC ruled in the HS's favour stating that her appeal will have to be stayed until she is in a position to continue with her appeal. That could mean when conditions have improved in Syria. It does not mean when she is allowed to returned to the UK.
Until that appeal is heard, there has been no definitive ruling on her nationality. At present she no longer has British nationality. Whether she is entitled to the nationality of another nation is a matter for such other nations.
A country cannot remove a person's nationality if that would leave someone stateless. Britain has taken the view that Begum is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality not that she currently has it. So the issue in an appeal would be whether you can remove nationality from someone when they are theoretically entitled to a different nationality but that country has the choice of whether to grant it. In short, if she is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality does the Bangladeshi government have to grant it? And even if it does what if she chooses not to apply for it? Etc etc.
So basically the argument is we can make someone stateless because they seemingly qualify for citizenship elsewhere.
I think that still ends up with the person being stateless..
And it really doesn't answer nor justify the reality that is she was raised in the UK and should be the UK's problem to deal with. We should not be trying to throw our problems elsewhere.
The last point is irrelevant to the question in my opinion. The issue is whether the decision was legal, not whether it is morally 'right'. Many things are shitty but legal. We might well criticise those, but it is a different type of criticism (eg I thought the Boris prorogration was wrong, irrespective of its lawfulness, but wrong and unlawful is a different level of criticism).
As the Australian citizenship issue a few years back showed, when some MPs became ineligible due to dual citizenships that in some cases they did not even know they had (showing in some places you don't need to positively apply for it), law on citizenship is different in many places and can have unintentional effects due to the law in another place.
It might be absurd, yet still legally the case, that someone can qualify and have citizenship of another country because of the way the laws of that country are written, regardless of what the person or that country might want.
A lot of people on this issue criticise things like the government or Home Secretary having the power to strip nationality at all, which is fair enough I think that's problematic too, but is separate to whether it was done properly in this case. Similarly, her putative Bangladeshi citizenship might well be a sound interpretation under the law, even if we dislike the law allowing such an interpretation.
The question seems unresolved on that, but that it is a crappy approach to shift a problem onto somebody else is distinct from it I think.
Bangladesh has said she is not a citizen. Surely that is enough for her not to be a Bangladeshi citizen.
Probably. But not necessarily. Our government has said she is no longer a British citizen - but if they are wrong about her citizenship status, our government will be wrong about that as they would not be able to make that decision. Governments can be wrong about their power.
The problem with your argument - she is no longer entitled to citizenship for Begum is now 22 years old and citizen via a parent needed to be claimed before she was 21.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
Leak after leak after leak. Wednesday's will be the shortest budget speech on record. Rishi will stand up, exhort Honourable Members to read the papers, then sit down again.
Good news though
Some supposedly serious commentators were recently saying on here that a rise in the minimum wage is bad news because more people are then on the minimum wage.
Nice to know that it's "good news" again.
It's an interesting rebalance of the benefit/work balance.
We still need UC restored to what it was intended to be before Osborne wrecked it, though.
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
In real terms it is next to nothing (with inflation expected to hit 5%+).
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
Indeed, though I can't find the Welsh equivalent (rather hoping for something almost as long as Llanfair PG). Or rather I get something but the reverse translation is completely different, so no good ...
Redundant in Wales.
The church is already disestablished. Happened in 1914.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
Combined sciences has been a disaster in the US
Combined science has been a GCSE subject since 2006 so we should by now have some data on its effects. Ironically, perhaps, it started out with good intentions as a way of forcing boys to do biology and girls to study physics. Obviously chemistry is the best science so there was never a problem there.
Combined science can work if it is taught as three sciences, and by three different teachers, just with two-thirds of the normal curriculum. The worst problem comes when schools do combine it and have only one teacher for all three.
I seem to recall a GCE subject 'Physics with Chemistry'
Not highly regarded by those of us doing all three sciences as separate subjects.
Indeed, but the downside of doing them as separate subjects is that schools do not teach us that chemistry is physics, and biology is chemistry. We lose the continuity between the disciplines. Unless that has changed since I was in school
Nowhere is this clearer than in vaccines. The biological effects are achieved by the molecular chemistry of the spike protein, which is in turn achieved by the 3-dimensional presentation of electrical charges of the spike protein and the ACE-2 receptor.
It's a tricky one and no mistaking.
There's a lot of interesting important stuff that falls between the gaps of the big three classic sciences, but it's hard to find people who are able and willing to teach all three sciences well. Indeed, some studies have correlated the virtual extinction of physics teachers in many schools to the introduction of combined science in the National Curriculum in the late 80's.
Also, whilst teaching children science is clearly an excellent thing to do, doing 3 separate GCSEs (even 2) takes up an awful.lot of the school day.
TL;DR version: Wales is proposing to abolish separate sciences as a GCSE option.
I’m very glad I’m not teaching in Wales…
The sheep botherers are always wrong and stupid.
It help explains their rugby union fans.
So you disapprove of their contribution to Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers? Not to mention founding the C of E.
Plus they gave us antidisestablishmentarianism
Which is an awesome word.
Indeed, though I can't find the Welsh equivalent (rather hoping for something almost as long as Llanfair PG). Or rather I get something but the reverse translation is completely different, so no good ...
Redundant in Wales.
The church is already disestablished. Happened in 1914.
Comments
"The Stalwart's over-terrain capabilities come from the fact that the six-wheel-drive system lacks differentials, using simple bevel gears to transmit drive. A centre mounted no-spin differential allows a certain amount of slip between the two sets of wheels on each side of the vehicle on hard surfaces, but there is no allowance for rotational speed differences between front and rear. The centre no-spin unit allows the wheels on either side of the vehicle with most grip to drive when off-road. This has the effect of making the vehicle appear to crab (move from side to side) when negotiating muddy conditions, thus making the Stalwart a true six-wheel-drive vehicle, with three wheels locked together and turning at the same speed. Wiki:
However, this system causes "wind up" in the transmission (inter-component stress) as all the wheels are forced to rotate at the same speed, which during cornering is impossible.[5] This led to rapid wear and breakage of the tracta joints within the drive train if the vehicle was used on firm surfaces, such as tarmac or concrete – in off-road conditions, the natural 'slip' of a loose surface, such as mud or gravel, reduced wind up. This problem is of special concern for modern-day Stalwart owners – to get a vehicle to a show requires moving it by low-loader or driving it on the road, risking damage to the transmission. Alternatively, the front and rear driveshafts can be removed, eliminating wind up at the expense of off-road capability.
During military use, the problem of transmission wind up was solved by laying out railway sleepers (railroad ties) in a grid on flat ground and driving over them on long road moves; this allowed the transmission to unwind.[6] On more than one occasion, servicemen drove Stalwarts into car parks and used the kerbstones separating parking bays for the same purpose. Another problem with the transmission was that the vehicle was designed to be driven loaded. Driving the vehicle unloaded caused increased wear on the drivelines to the wheels as a result of the increased angle of mesh of the joints."
I have driven it into town precisely zero times. Why would I when I can catch the train, tube and/or bus?
It was quite sad, in way. With a bit of effort, the design could have eliminated those issues. Semi-automatic gearbox, power steering,, 4 wheel steering (out of 6)... all in the 1950s. It was nicer to drive than a similar sized white van....
Monday is MisUnderstandingWeekendEffects day.
Tuesday is ReportingDayPanic...
Incidentally, for the panic this Tuesday, what kind of biscuits should we serve?
And this comes after weeks of the most extreme state of emergency to date, where restaurants were asked (although not required obviously, we're not fascists) to stop serving alcohol.
And to remind everyone - after the panic is over, could some people please help folding the tables and chairs and putting them away at the back of the hall?
The HS declined to let her in and the SC ruled in the HS's favour stating that her appeal will have to be stayed until she is in a position to continue with her appeal. That could mean when conditions have improved in Syria. It does not mean when she is allowed to returned to the UK.
Until that appeal is heard, there has been no definitive ruling on her nationality. At present she no longer has British nationality. Whether she is entitled to the nationality of another nation is a matter for such other nations.
A country cannot remove a person's nationality if that would leave someone stateless. Britain has taken the view that Begum is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality not that she currently has it. So the issue in an appeal would be whether you can remove nationality from someone when they are theoretically entitled to a different nationality but that country has the choice of whether to grant it. In short, if she is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality does the Bangladeshi government have to grant it? And even if it does what if she chooses not to apply for it? Etc etc.
However, it's my belief that it is not right for the Government to be able to unilaterally remove the rights of citizenship from an individual. Such a power should give us pause for concern about its misuse against British citizens who hold dual nationality. Are they lesser than single nationals? Less British?
However more than 550 revellers without passports refused entry to venues, some staff abused and footfall down 40% in the hospitality venues affected after early teething problems
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59034619
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/10/northern-ireland-citizens-must-register-to-identify-as-irish-tribunal-told
https://medium.com/@ecklewchuk/desouza-case-summary-and-timeline-9deb6fb17402
I think that still ends up with the person being stateless..
And it really doesn't answer nor justify the reality that is she was raised in the UK and should be the UK's problem to deal with. We should not be trying to throw our problems elsewhere.
But only for parasites… and a virus is not a parasite…
That’s why we have the court system for prison (internal exclusion). There should be an appropriate structure for exile (external exclusion).
(Depends on the crime, I suppose, though!)
Edit: also, think of the betting opportunities!
Not highly regarded by those of us doing all three sciences as separate subjects.
A very British sort of panic!
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-judgment.pdf
I think much of the anger about the new anti-diesel move is that, from about 2001 to 2015, the government were incentivising people to buy diesels rather than petrol. Then, all of a sudden, diesel cars were *evil*.
In my own personal view, I'd add onto this the massive subsidies and incentives given to electric car drivers - and the fact that this was all going to rich people, as they we the only people who could afford such cars.
The poor are getting shafted. As ever.
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/shamima-begum-loses-statelessness-argument-against-citizenship-deprivation/
Given that the argument seems to come down to - what does the law says versus what anyone who knows Bangladesh knows will actually happen - I can see the issue here.
The reality is that given she is now 22 - she no longer qualifies for Bangladesh citizenship so we did make her Stateless.
As the Australian citizenship issue a few years back showed, when some MPs became ineligible due to dual citizenships that in some cases they did not even know they had (showing in some places you don't need to positively apply for it), law on citizenship is different in many places and can have unintentional effects due to the law in another place.
It might be absurd, yet still legally the case, that someone can qualify and have citizenship of another country because of the way the laws of that country are written, regardless of what the person or that country might want.
A lot of people on this issue criticise things like the government or Home Secretary having the power to strip nationality at all, which is fair enough I think that's problematic too, but is separate to whether it was done properly in this case. Similarly, her putative Bangladeshi citizenship might well be a sound interpretation under the law, even if we dislike the law allowing such an interpretation.
The question seems unresolved on that, but that it is a crappy approach to shift a problem onto somebody else is distinct from it I think.
Except that Bangladesh, exercising its pesky sovereign power, no doubt, has said that whatever she might normally be entitled to hereditarily, she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.
Which latter the UK has decided to ignore.
I think our own government's approach on this is questionable at best, but I think it is not as straightforward sometimes presented - our own government gets what is the law and what is lawful wrong from time to time, hence losing judicial reviews, and the Bangladeshi government presumably is not immune from being wrong either, so it could be it says she is not entitled but she is.
Government pronouncement of what is the law, any government, is not always right. Probably. But not necessarily. Our government has said she is no longer a British citizen - but if they are wrong about her citizenship status, our government will be wrong about that as they would not be able to make that decision. Governments can be wrong about their power.
Telegraph
* not a frequent occurrence - has happened twice in 50 years ...
And you are *encouraged* to use it for personal use.....
Or, as in the case of the county I live in (Montgomery, MD), its efficiency at delivering vaccine means that many out of area people came to get their vaccinations where they were available, and were counted towards the local population.
More vaccinations, whomever's arm they go into, is good news. But there are so many political reasons for reporting good numbers, and so many ways the raw numbers can be misleading, that I am very wary of them in general.
http://news.sky.com/story/budget-2021-national-living-wage-to-increase-from-163891-to-163950-an-hour-12444307
I expect it will be some way last labour's pledge for £10 per hour by 2024
* Just over £20 per week increase on a 35 hour week
Indeed, but the downside of doing them as separate subjects is that schools do not teach us that chemistry is physics, and biology is chemistry. We lose the continuity between the disciplines. Unless that has changed since I was in school
Nowhere is this clearer than in vaccines. The biological effects are achieved by the molecular chemistry of the spike protein, which is in turn achieved by the 3-dimensional presentation of electrical charges of the spike protein and the ACE-2 receptor.
a short thread of Nicolas Cage as various philosophers
https://twitter.com/HaneMaung/status/1450863600147603456
The former Polish foreign minister on his country’s anti-EU turn under PiS, its ruling party.
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2021/10/radoslaw-sikorski-poland-is-on-the-path-of-hungary-and-russia
This, in combination with the war on traditional values and free speech; is politically toxic. It will ultimately fuel a popular revolt.
Chemistry is physics is not at all misleading, although it might be better expressed as 'chemistry is the emergent properties of physics, and biology is the emergent properties of chemistry, and behaviour is the emergent properties of biology' etc...
If the Bangladeshi government says "this is a law" then it is a law. Just like here in the UK.
We still need UC restored to what it was intended to be before Osborne wrecked it, though.
Why can't this Government be a little bit more generous for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. They can roll out corrupt contracts for their rich friends but when it comes to helping the needy, they fall short once again.
The only way for things to improve for most in this country is to kick out this incompetent, vile and nasty Government.
The church is already disestablished. Happened in 1914.
There's a lot of interesting important stuff that falls between the gaps of the big three classic sciences, but it's hard to find people who are able and willing to teach all three sciences well. Indeed, some studies have correlated the virtual extinction of physics teachers in many schools to the introduction of combined science in the National Curriculum in the late 80's.
Also, whilst teaching children science is clearly an excellent thing to do, doing 3 separate GCSEs (even 2) takes up an awful.lot of the school day.
Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.