Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Could Britain’s COVID rate be impacted by the actual jab that was used? – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,571
    Radosław Sikorski: “Poland is on the path of Hungary and Russia”
    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
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,746

    Charles said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    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 :smile: ?
    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    edited October 2021

    TimT said:

    Charles said:

    Off topic: has anyone seen this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58967630

    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...
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited October 2021

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Off topic: has anyone seen this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58967630

    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Age, not sure I'd go as far, but it is remarkable how the self-righteous are eagerly throwing cost after cost upon the public.
  • Farooq said:

    Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    kle4 said:

    Does their own law allow them to declare she is not entitled to that which she would 'normally' be entitled?

    While I am very happy for our courts to opine on UK law I'm not sure they are able to opine on the Bangladeshi constitution.

    If the Bangladeshi government says "this is a law" then it is a law. Just like here in the UK.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    Farooq said:

    Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Off topic: has anyone seen this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58967630

    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.
  • TimT said:

    Charles said:

    Off topic: has anyone seen this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58967630

    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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.

    Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,138
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Off topic: has anyone seen this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58967630

    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.
    They do have historians in Wales, you know!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    I wonder if the "don't charge yet" approach (if such exists) wrt Insulate Britain is going to work.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. B2, is there a reason for the mineral water ban or is it because the berk in Number 10 just wants an excuse to bang on about the EU/UK differences again?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    IanB2 said:

    Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.

    Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.

    A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Europhile works.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,613
    murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
    You sure about that?
  • murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
    I make it 6.6%
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,613
    Farooq said:

    murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
    You sure about that?
    Sorry, 6.21%, my bad....
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited October 2021

    murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
    I make it 6.6%
    8.91 is 93.7% of 9.5... I think that's the mistake Malmesbury made
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,746

    Mr. Age, not sure I'd go as far, but it is remarkable how the self-righteous are eagerly throwing cost after cost upon the public.

    The idea that having an expensive EV funded by subsidies and tax breaks is saving the world is laughable. There are moderate benefits in terms of noise and air quality, and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. But the production of another new car and battery has an impact on the environment, and the electricity it uses has to be generated somehow. All in all, it would be a much better idea to take up cycling.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    edited October 2021

    Farooq said:

    murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
    You sure about that?
    Sorry, 6.21%, my bad....
    6.6% (59/891)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,613
    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.

    Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.

    A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Europhile works.
    Shipping water around in one shot plastic bottles is insanely bad for the environment.

    And half the "brands" are rebadged tap water....
  • RattersRatters Posts: 756

    murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
    No, it's a 6.6% increase. So a fairly modest real-terms increase in the context of inflation that will rise to 4-5%.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    darkage said:

    Mr. Age, not sure I'd go as far, but it is remarkable how the self-righteous are eagerly throwing cost after cost upon the public.

    The idea that having an expensive EV funded by subsidies and tax breaks is saving the world is laughable. There are moderate benefits in terms of noise and air quality, and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. But the production of another new car and battery has an impact on the environment, and the electricity it uses has to be generated somehow. All in all, it would be a much better idea to take up cycling.
    But then we eat beef and lamb to get our energy, and those critters fart so much.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Ratters said:

    murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
    No, it's a 6.6% increase. So a fairly modest real-terms increase in the context of inflation that will rise to 4-5%.
    But for those low paid working 35 hours a week it will completely replace the reduction in UC at the cost of the employer rather than the taxpayer. Clever.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    IanB2 said:

    Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.

    Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.

    That makes a lot of sense on environmental grounds. Trucking water around in plastic bottles to satisfy marketing-induced demand is absurd.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Off topic: has anyone seen this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58967630

    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.
    They do have historians in Wales, you know!
    But not many scientists based on the proposed curriculum.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Age, cost of creation and disposal tend to get ignored.

    It's a bit like the middle class, metropolitan love affair with biofuel. Nice idea, shame about the pristine rainforests in Indonesia that got cut down for oil plantations.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    IanB2 said:

    Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.

    Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.

    Seems pretty smart and green.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    IanB2 said:

    Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.

    Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.

    That makes a lot of sense on environmental grounds. Trucking water around in plastic bottles to satisfy marketing-induced demand is absurd.
    Next up, ban cheese imports!
    Liz Truss was way ahead of the curve.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,138
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Off topic: has anyone seen this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58967630

    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.
    They do have historians in Wales, you know!
    But not many scientists based on the proposed curriculum.
    Bit of a logic fail: a 'future' and 'maybe' missing.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited October 2021
    Farooq said:

    Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    When the minimum wage has increased at a rate faster than inflation, it's had a nasty habit of dragging more people and skillsets into the minimum wage tier.

    Ideally most people should be being paid above the minimum wage yet for the past 10 years, the supply of low skilled workers (from Europe and elsewhere) has meant that the ideal wasn't reality.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    eek said:

    Farooq said:

    Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    When the minimum wage has increased at a rate faster than inflation, it's had a nasty habit of dragging more people and skillsets into the minimum wage tier.

    Ah, so it's bad news again.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,613

    Mr. Age, cost of creation and disposal tend to get ignored.

    It's a bit like the middle class, metropolitan love affair with biofuel. Nice idea, shame about the pristine rainforests in Indonesia that got cut down for oil plantations.

    https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/electric-cars-have-much-lower-life-cycle-emissions-new-study-confirms/
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080

    Farooq said:

    murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
    You sure about that?
    Sorry, 6.21%, my bad....
    I make it 6.2177%, which is 6.22% :smile:
  • murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    Then you need an opposition that is credible and no signs of that at present
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Off topic: has anyone seen this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58967630

    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.
    They do have historians in Wales, you know!
    Aha. Forgot.

    It is science that is being banned !
  • IanB2 said:

    Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.

    Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.

    If my Evian water is going to be at risk then I will be very angry.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Malmesbury, does that take into account how long vehicles last?

    If an electric car is twice as 'green'* as a normal one but lasts only a third as long, then it's not better on that score.

    *I loathe the way 'green' has become so fixated on carbon dioxide. There are other things to consider, not least whether stewardship of the natural world should mean preservation above all else, trying to re-wild, reintroduce species where they went extinct due to mankind's activities etc etc.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    IanB2 said:

    Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.

    Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.

    Are they actually being banned?

    Talk earlier in the year was to require the particular product to be 'registered' with a UK Food Safety Authority. Which would be the same as the regime the EU introduced for UK mineral water imports from January 1st 2021.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/02/eu-mineral-water-exports-uk-will-need-authorised-next-year/

    Or are they going beyond that?

    Though reducing water being shipped around the world could be a good thing.
  • I completed a survey by Opinium and one of the supplementary questions are what words I would use to describe Prince Charles.

    I think I was fair and balanced.


  • RattersRatters Posts: 756
    DavidL said:

    Ratters said:

    murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
    No, it's a 6.6% increase. So a fairly modest real-terms increase in the context of inflation that will rise to 4-5%.
    But for those low paid working 35 hours a week it will completely replace the reduction in UC at the cost of the employer rather than the taxpayer. Clever.
    It does have a nice symmetry in that regard at first glance, although it does require you to ignore inflation, tax and the tapering of UC as you earn more. So in practice it doesn't come even remotely close.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.

    Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.

    That makes a lot of sense on environmental grounds. Trucking water around in plastic bottles to satisfy marketing-induced demand is absurd.
    Next up, ban cheese imports!
    Liz Truss was way ahead of the curve.
    If Boris Johnson announced that, thanks to Brexit, we could now strengthen our animal cruelty laws, would you suddenly find yourself in favour of kicking puppies?
  • I need to lie down, I agree with Priti Patel.

    Where Starmer leads, the government leads.

    Get tough on anti-vaxx protests outside schools, Priti Patel urges police

    Home Secretary speaks out as Sir Keir Starmer calls for exclusion zones to prevent demonstrators 'spreading misinformation'


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/24/police-must-do-crack-dangerous-anti-vaxx-protests-outside-schools/
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foreign mineral water imports are going to be banned from January.

    Brexit Britain is turning into a parody of itself.

    That makes a lot of sense on environmental grounds. Trucking water around in plastic bottles to satisfy marketing-induced demand is absurd.
    Next up, ban cheese imports!
    Liz Truss was way ahead of the curve.
    If Boris Johnson announced that, thanks to Brexit, we could now strengthen our animal cruelty laws, would you suddenly find yourself in favour of kicking puppies?
    Who says I'm not already?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    I completed a survey by Opinium and one of the supplementary questions are what words I would use to describe Prince Charles.

    I think I was fair and balanced.


    Not 100% sure of liar but I'm equally struggling to think of a better option.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    New Thread

    Stock up on Perrier while you still have the chance.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 756
    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    murali_s said:

    *Good news for those on the National Living Wage

    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

    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.
    £8.91 to £9.50 is a 9.37% increase.
    You sure about that?
    Sorry, 6.21%, my bad....
    I make it 6.2177%, which is 6.22% :smile:
    Back to school for anyone saying 6.22% or 6.21%!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,613

    Mr. Malmesbury, does that take into account how long vehicles last?

    If an electric car is twice as 'green'* as a normal one but lasts only a third as long, then it's not better on that score.

    *I loathe the way 'green' has become so fixated on carbon dioxide. There are other things to consider, not least whether stewardship of the natural world should mean preservation above all else, trying to re-wild, reintroduce species where they went extinct due to mankind's activities etc etc.

    So far, the vehicles seem to last just as long as ICE - there are examples of multi-100K etc. There are some indications that they may well last longer.

    The batteries degrade, but the degradation rate seems to be similar to how HP "leaks" away from old bangers.

    Battery replacement costs are currently high, but are rapidly falling.

    Car makers are moving rapidly to *million mile* guaranteed batteries - that is the goal at GM, and they have packs under test....
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,393
    Bozo: "We could feed some of the human beings to the animals."

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,571
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Off topic: has anyone seen this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58967630

    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.
    So Wales is a postantidisestablishmentarianist society.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    Strip all physics teachers of their citizenship!

    We are citizens of the Universe…
    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.
    I have use the word “local” to refer to objects about a million parsecs away.
  • TimT said:

    TimT said:

    Charles said:

    Off topic: has anyone seen this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58967630

    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...
    Trying to predict the effects of molecules based purely on the laws of Physics has not had a good track record. For biology that is even more of an issue (if it weren’t we wouldn’t have to muck around with all that clinical testing of drugs; we would be able to calculate which would work and why).
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    I completed a survey by Opinium and one of the supplementary questions are what words I would use to describe Prince Charles.

    I think I was fair and balanced.


    And, I thought you were an admirer.
  • eek said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
    Isn't that her own damned fault?

    She knew she had no British citizenship before she was 21. So we didn't make her stateless, if she's chosen to make herself stateless then that's her own damned fault. She can go rot.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
    Isn't that her own damned fault?

    She knew she had no British citizenship before she was 21. So we didn't make her stateless, if she's chosen to make herself stateless then that's her own damned fault. She can go rot.
    Philip, the “liberal”.
This discussion has been closed.