Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.
"The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.
"There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."
What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
Is she the Standard Commissioner or just acting as a self appointed judge on these matters
Dodds is a member of the opposition. Their job is to oppose.
Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.
"The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.
"There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."
What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.
So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
It was designed to allow ensure social distancing, not to allow MPs to decamp overseas.
Cox is just pointing out he’s in a completely different class to everyone else, though. Top social distancing,
My wife can beat that. When the pandemic started last Feb she was atop Kilimanjaro.
Kiwi's have struggled to accelerate, their best player is a plodder in this format, and they just lost their usual source of a flying start, so hopefully we can get well on top of negate the dew
Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.
"The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.
"There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."
What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.
So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
It was designed to allow ensure social distancing, not to allow MPs to decamp overseas.
Cox is just pointing out he’s in a completely different class to everyone else, though. Top social distancing,
My wife can beat that. When the pandemic started last Feb she was atop Kilimanjaro.
Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.
"The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.
"There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."
What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
Is she the Standard Commissioner or just acting as a self appointed judge on these matters
She's a politician who thinks she has a chance to make some political capital, create a narrative that may stick, and have a pop at the other lot.
As ever it has to be made to look as far as possible like an appeal to objective authority.
There may be a real issue under that.
It is very revealing to read the list of things that have been complained about to the Commissioner.
Adam Boulton on leaving Sky News: ‘We baby boomers have had our day’ After spending 33 years at the channel, Boulton is departing Sky News. It’s over for the public school, Oxbridge, male old guard, he says
Don’t you get the feeling that pressure is building up behind a dam that is going to burst? With huge implications for our politics and our society.
The transition of power to the next generation is going to be a bumpy one, IMHO.
Sounds like Woke nonsense to me.
Ageing liberals retiring from positions of influence and stumbling off in to the sunset has been the story of the last 10 years. Andrew Neill's experience at GB News late in life was instructive; in trying to resuscitate the ideals and values of free speech that he felt were being lost at the BBC, he was actually found that he was part of a dying age.
He found that his new employer valued those ideals rather less than his old one, certainly.
Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.
"The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.
"There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."
What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.
So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
As a lawyer, do you often construe statutes and contracts according to what they were "intended" to achieve?
Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.
"The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.
"There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."
What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.
So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
As a lawyer, do you often construe statutes and contracts according to what they were "intended" to achieve?
Should MPs really conduct their affairs as if they're in a bitter contractual dispute ?!
Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.
"The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.
"There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."
What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.
So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
As a lawyer, do you often construe statutes and contracts according to what they were "intended" to achieve?
Dealing with the SEC on a regular basis that's exactly what I have to do.
Think I'd almost rather Kane stayed in, he's never going to win the match on his own. Anyway nice chance to get them feeling pressure, not the longest batting line up and both stars gone already.
Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.
"The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.
"There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."
What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.
So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
It was designed to allow ensure social distancing, not to allow MPs to decamp overseas.
Cox is just pointing out he’s in a completely different class to everyone else, though. Top social distancing,
My wife can beat that. When the pandemic started last Feb she was atop Kilimanjaro.
England cases still down WoW despite schools being open, that's the effect of having that additional R budget available. Even if cases fall more slowly than when they were closed, we're still going to see falling cases over the next few weeks and then very, very big drops over the Xmas holidays.
39,329 Not falling very quickly, unlike Kiwi wickets.
There's been a steady downward trend for nearly a month now. And the same observation applies as has done for a long time: nobody cares about loads of cases picked up through obsessional mass screening of schoolchildren.
Since it's impossible to live on my lecturer's income, which is somewhat lower than an MP's, I will be forced to start selling A grades to students. The only way to stop me to is to immediately double my salary. I'm sure everyone will agree this is a reasonable position
Like with Trump, if people think you are "on their side", you can get away with an awful lot.
However, when things start to turn, you don't have any reserve of goodwill to fall back on to. That is the risk for the Conservative Party - that things turn negatively, and then a number of voters suddenly decide that they don't like your previous behaviour.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
39,329 Not falling very quickly, unlike Kiwi wickets.
There's been a steady downward trend for nearly a month now. And the same observation applies as has done for a long time: nobody cares about loads of cases picked up through obsessional mass screening of schoolchildren.
That's untrue on every level. Until very recently the real daily figure was almost certainly close to 100,000 (ZOE).
I don't know anyone who doesn't care about the situation here, which remains precarious.
Although you could argue that all five FAILED because the Iranian regime is keeping her prisoner as a bargaining chip for the money they claim we owe. We are not paying, sadly they are not releasing.
Two down, that was a silly attempt to hook the ball over. England definitely favourites.
Are you there?
Sadly not tonight. Watching on telly with everyone else!
Annoyed again at all the empty seats, for a match which was “sold out” weeks ago.
Take you’ve got tickets for the final?
Not unless you know where I can get some?
I prioritised the England games when they went on sale, and by the time I got down the list to India v Pakistan, the semis and the final, they were all sold out.
Because it’s the World Cup, there’s not that much of a public sale, with a lot of tickets reserved for national associations and sponsors. The tournament was originally to be held in India, so a lot of the sponsors are Indian companies who can’t easily fly a plane load of competition winners to a different country, in the same way they could if it were at home. Ditto with all the national associations, many of whom couldn’t attend for covid-related reasons.
39,329 Not falling very quickly, unlike Kiwi wickets.
England only: Last Wednesday (by date reported): 34,317 This Wednesday (by date reported): 31,541- down 8% still.
We have to remember we have no restrictions and cases are still falling. Anecdotally cases seem to be "filling in the gaps" of those who haven't had it. Friend of my son's (Y4) tested positive this week despite his Dad having Covid a couple of months ago. Can't be many secondary school kids who have yet to be exposed to Covid.
39,329 Not falling very quickly, unlike Kiwi wickets.
There's been a steady downward trend for nearly a month now. And the same observation applies as has done for a long time: nobody cares about loads of cases picked up through obsessional mass screening of schoolchildren.
Unfortunately some people do care about that. I do wish the NHS would stop with this 4pm gloom-fest.
England cases still down WoW despite schools being open, that's the effect of having that additional R budget available. Even if cases fall more slowly than when they were closed, we're still going to see falling cases over the next few weeks and then very, very big drops over the Xmas holidays.
There aren't many children still to catch it. And we're vaccinating that group. (And vaccination + infection is as good as it gets for preventing transmission.)
I wouldn't be surprised if - thanks to Delta - we never get to the sub-1,000/day that we had in the Summer of 2020. But that's OK. 2,000 people getting, but not getting particularly sick from, Covid is not the end of the world.
Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.
"The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.
"There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."
What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.
So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
It was designed to allow ensure social distancing, not to allow MPs to decamp overseas.
Cox is just pointing out he’s in a completely different class to everyone else, though. Top social distancing,
My wife can beat that. When the pandemic started last Feb she was atop Kilimanjaro.
Like with Trump, if people think you are "on their side", you can get away with an awful lot.
However, when things start to turn, you don't have any reserve of goodwill to fall back on to. That is the risk for the Conservative Party - that things turn negatively, and then a number of voters suddenly decide that they don't like your previous behaviour.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
I don't think the British public is as inelastic as the US in their potential voting. Thank goodness.
We should be opening up the boosters to the under 50s now. I'm 44 and it will be 5 months to the day tomorrow since I had my second jab. They've got the vaccine supplies so might as well get them in arms ASAP.
Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.
"The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.
"There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."
What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.
So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
It was designed to allow ensure social distancing, not to allow MPs to decamp overseas.
Cox is just pointing out he’s in a completely different class to everyone else, though. Top social distancing,
My wife can beat that. When the pandemic started last Feb she was atop Kilimanjaro.
England cases still down WoW despite schools being open, that's the effect of having that additional R budget available. Even if cases fall more slowly than when they were closed, we're still going to see falling cases over the next few weeks and then very, very big drops over the Xmas holidays.
There aren't many children still to catch it. And we're vaccinating that group. (And vaccination + infection is as good as it gets for preventing transmission.)
I wouldn't be surprised if - thanks to Delta - we never get to the sub-1,000/day that we had in the Summer of 2020. But that's OK. 2,000 people getting, but not getting particularly sick from, Covid is not the end of the world.
Plenty of informed estimates have the long run equilibrium level of infections for the UK at something like 10x that given how often people get flu in their lifetime despite widespread immunity, and how much more infectious this is. Regardless, it doesn't need to be a big problem anymore.
On the argument: "His/her constituents will have the final say" on MPs doing something arguably legal but dodgy.
Say, for the sake of argument, that your (Tory) MP was caught bang to rights doing something that you agreed was utterly unacceptable. For example, say he'd managed to get contracts with no competition to a company that couldn't provide something essential in a pandemic (and therefore blocked other companies that could) - but the House, whipped, voted to excuse him for this.
A General Election is comping up. It is, as a matter of fact, 2017.
How do you vote?
Specifically the Conservative supporters on here. I'd just like to see how effective the suggested "constituents final say" argument would be for them in practice.
We should be opening up the boosters to the under 50s now. I'm 44 and it will be 5 months to the day tomorrow since I had my second jab. They've got the vaccine supplies so might as well get them in arms ASAP.
Infections by sample date, last date regarded as complete is 5/11 vs 29/10 shows a 25% fall in cases (R around 0.88)
The partial dates coming through look to be a bit higher though, might be that 5/11 is the lagging sweet spot case number date from the school holidays.
6/11 will be a little under 20% below 30/10 7/11 is already only 14% below 31/10 8/11 is already 15% below 1/11
I think these dates will all end up slight falls, but 8/11 will be quite tight.
I did expect some post return to school case rises, but on what I described overall as a 'falling sawtooth' graph.
39,329 Not falling very quickly, unlike Kiwi wickets.
There's been a steady downward trend for nearly a month now. And the same observation applies as has done for a long time: nobody cares about loads of cases picked up through obsessional mass screening of schoolchildren.
That's untrue on every level. Until very recently the real daily figure was almost certainly close to 100,000 (ZOE).
I don't know anyone who doesn't care about the situation here, which remains precarious.
If the true number of cases is that much higher, then the day of herd immunity is closer than we think it is.
39,329 Not falling very quickly, unlike Kiwi wickets.
There's been a steady downward trend for nearly a month now. And the same observation applies as has done for a long time: nobody cares about loads of cases picked up through obsessional mass screening of schoolchildren.
That's untrue on every level. Until very recently the real daily figure was almost certainly close to 100,000 (ZOE).
I don't know anyone who doesn't care about the situation here, which remains precarious.
Poppycock. Why bring in Zoe when we are discussing the recorded positive tests? That shows a substantial decline since 18th October, all with NO NPIs in England. How is the situation precarious? Hospitals are under pressure, but to be frank I don't recall a winter when they weren't. I think you are fully signed up to the iSAGE crowd, who have gone a bit quiet the last two weeks after their last gasp about restrictions.
I've wittered on about this before, but I still feel the gov is walking onto another controversy over the care worker vaccination deadline, which is tomorrow.
Infections by sample date, last date regarded as complete is 5/11 vs 29/10 shows a 25% fall in cases (R around 0.88)
The partial dates coming through look to be a bit higher though, might be that 5/11 is the lagging sweet spot case number date from the school holidays.
6/11 will be a little under 20% below 30/10 7/11 is already only 14% below 31/10 8/11 is already 15% below 1/11
I think these dates will all end up slight falls, but 8/11 will be quite tight.
I did expect some post return to school case rises, but on what I described overall as a 'falling sawtooth' graph.
This projects forward a bit further using the usual weekly patterns for later cases coming through. Yesterday's pretty marginal fall implied a day on day rise in the 7 day rate across most age groups (not oldies, thanks boosters) but at a level which would still show as a week on week fall. Hopefully today's slightly better figures levels that out.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
We don't negotiate with terrorists. And that's what the Iranian regime are.
Except for the Taliban. And the IRA. And so on and so on.
We do actually negotiate with Iran.
I appreciate at it's a grey area, but simply holding someone hostage and hoping to get paid for it is unlikely to get very far (cue the government paying the ransom!).
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
We don't negotiate with terrorists. And that's what the Iranian regime are.
Except for the Taliban. And the IRA. And so on and so on.
We do actually negotiate with Iran.
I appreciate at it's a grey area, but simply holding someone hostage and hoping to get paid for it is unlikely to get very far (cue the government paying the ransom!).
Which it might well do because, after all, hostage diplomacy has already been shown to work in high profile cases. It's what the Chinese used successfully against the Canadians to get their Huawei executive back, after all.
Infections where people get a mild illness is not a problem.
This is what I mean when I talk about the ‘stigma’ of covid. There’s an axiomatic obsession with avoiding it, even when in many (most?) cases now it’s a relatively mild illness. It will be a long time, and will require lots of comms effort, for this irrational stigma to be removed, I fear.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
He’d better get fundraising then.
Again, rather heartless.
Especially from someone who expects sympathy for your own circumstances.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
She's British too, you know! Unless you want to go down the Indian path and ban dual citizenship?
Iran does the same as India iirc, for their purposes she's an Iranian citizen. You have to do what my mum did her Indian citizenship and relinquish it entirely but loads of Iranians (and Indians) don't because it means visa costs and hassle at the border vs travelling as a returning citizen.
While it might not seem like a big deal in international terms it makes a huge difference because the Iranians are detaining an Iranian national and Iran doesn't recognise dual nationality.
We don't negotiate with terrorists. And that's what the Iranian regime are.
Except for the Taliban. And the IRA. And so on and so on.
We do actually negotiate with Iran.
We also have absolutely no leg to stand on with respect to the tank deal. We took the money, we didn't deliver the goods.
So I've heard. But whether or not we should have paid up, paying up as a result of transparent hostage taking of our citizens feels like it would go badly for the nation long term in many areas. Poor woman is just a game piece to them.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
She's British too, you know! Unless you want to go down the Indian path and ban dual citizenship?
It seems to be OK on the Brexity right to treat dual citizens (or even potential dual citizens) as having lesser protection.
Isn't it the case that if someone is a dual citizen and they're in their other country of nationality they'll be treated as a citizen of that country though ? Which might be good, or less good.
The main issue is with the iranian Gov't not the British one here.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
He’d better get fundraising then.
Again, rather heartless.
Especially from someone who expects sympathy for your own circumstances.
Not at all, just have a good enough understanding of how these things work to know she doesn’t have a leg to stand on, as an Iranian in Iran.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
But dual citizens get no special right of protection from their first/second country of citizenship while in the other.
Yes, and a rather unfortunate example of why what one nation says is their law on citizenship issues is not always the whole picture. Our view of her status holds no weight to them.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
He’d better get fundraising then.
Again, rather heartless.
Especially from someone who expects sympathy for your own circumstances.
Not at all, just have a good enough understanding of how these things work to know she doesn’t have a leg to stand on, as an Iranian in Iran.
Perhaps even the Ayatollahs will have pity on her eventually.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
He probably inadvertently told the truth about her visit to Iran, I'm sure it didn't help but I also don't think it's made any real difference. Ultimately what we have is someone who is an Iranian citizen being detained by Iran for breaking an Iranian law on teaching subversive ideas (in their view, not mine, of course). I'm not sure what we can really do about it except hope that they release her one day.
Her husband seems like a prize idiot, what we needed last time when her original sentence was ending was a silent diplomatic route to her release to allow both sides to save face but instead he went all over the news to get attention for himself and it was obvious that Iran wouldn't take that well but he kept ploughing on with his campaign all over the media and I'm pretty sure the path for Iran to quietly release her to house arrest and eventually freedom closed when he went on the news.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
He’d better get fundraising then.
I know its not a serious suggestion, but I'd think it's about the money and not the money at the same time. That is, the dispute is about that money, but theyd not want to get it from somewhere else. They want us to clear that obligation, not just make some dosh, and not clearing it is useful for their political purposes.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Comments
As ever it has to be made to look as far as possible like an appeal to objective authority.
There may be a real issue under that.
It is very revealing to read the list of things that have been complained about to the Commissioner.
https://twitter.com/pimlicat/status/1458340443071127562?s=21
Not falling very quickly, unlike Kiwi wickets.
@BestForBritain 2h
Under Theresa May, five different ministers visited Iran to push for Nazanin's release.
Under Boris Johnson, zero ministers have visited.
#FreeNazanin
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1458431261375143938
Annoyed again at all the empty seats, for a match which was “sold out” weeks ago.
https://twitter.com/LFC/status/1458464071603441672
England cases higher or lower than 30,166 tommorow ?
Anyway, Mr Ratcliffe seems to think that it's all about the money...
https://twitter.com/FreeNazanin/status/1458437902476656640
The proportion of e.g., firsts and 2.1s has increased dramatically since the introduction of student fees.
Last Wednesday (by date reported): 34,317
This Wednesday (by date reported): 31,541- down 8% still.
However, when things start to turn, you don't have any reserve of goodwill to fall back on to. That is the risk for the Conservative Party - that things turn negatively, and then a number of voters suddenly decide that they don't like your previous behaviour.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
I don't know anyone who doesn't care about the situation here, which remains precarious.
I prioritised the England games when they went on sale, and by the time I got down the list to India v Pakistan, the semis and the final, they were all sold out.
Because it’s the World Cup, there’s not that much of a public sale, with a lot of tickets reserved for national associations and sponsors. The tournament was originally to be held in India, so a lot of the sponsors are Indian companies who can’t easily fly a plane load of competition winners to a different country, in the same way they could if it were at home. Ditto with all the national associations, many of whom couldn’t attend for covid-related reasons.
A lot depends on boosters now. We're starting to see growing infections amongst those double jabbed.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data#levels-over-time
I wouldn't be surprised if - thanks to Delta - we never get to the sub-1,000/day that we had in the Summer of 2020. But that's OK. 2,000 people getting, but not getting particularly sick from, Covid is not the end of the world.
Say, for the sake of argument, that your (Tory) MP was caught bang to rights doing something that you agreed was utterly unacceptable. For example, say he'd managed to get contracts with no competition to a company that couldn't provide something essential in a pandemic (and therefore blocked other companies that could) - but the House, whipped, voted to excuse him for this.
A General Election is comping up. It is, as a matter of fact, 2017.
How do you vote?
Specifically the Conservative supporters on here. I'd just like to see how effective the suggested "constituents final say" argument would be for them in practice.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
The partial dates coming through look to be a bit higher though, might be that 5/11 is the lagging sweet spot case number date from the school holidays.
6/11 will be a little under 20% below 30/10
7/11 is already only 14% below 31/10
8/11 is already 15% below 1/11
I think these dates will all end up slight falls, but 8/11 will be quite tight.
I did expect some post return to school case rises, but on what I described overall as a 'falling sawtooth' graph.
And the IRA.
And so on and so on.
We do actually negotiate with Iran.
https://www.unison.org.uk/news/press-release/2021/11/double-jab-rule-risks-care-collapse-says-unison/
and
https://inews.co.uk/news/mandatory-covid-jabs-32000-unvaccinated-care-home-workers-facing-sack-new-rules-1292464
I'm surprised the deadline hasn't been extended and it's too late now I would think.
This projects forward a bit further using the usual weekly patterns for later cases coming through. Yesterday's pretty marginal fall implied a day on day rise in the 7 day rate across most age groups (not oldies, thanks boosters) but at a level which would still show as a week on week fall. Hopefully today's slightly better figures levels that out.
And anyway the Iranians could well regards us as duplicitous, and as people who don’t pay their debts.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
And swap her out.
I actually like it, but do wish Sky could pull their finger our and give me a nice biased set of English commentators rather than this.
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Especially from someone who expects sympathy for your own circumstances.
While it might not seem like a big deal in international terms it makes a huge difference because the Iranians are detaining an Iranian national and Iran doesn't recognise dual nationality.
Which might be good, or less good.
The main issue is with the iranian Gov't not the British one here.
WTF?
She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
Her husband seems like a prize idiot, what we needed last time when her original sentence was ending was a silent diplomatic route to her release to allow both sides to save face but instead he went all over the news to get attention for himself and it was obvious that Iran wouldn't take that well but he kept ploughing on with his campaign all over the media and I'm pretty sure the path for Iran to quietly release her to house arrest and eventually freedom closed when he went on the news.
Puts a different gloss on it for me, rather.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.