Howdy, Stranger!

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

Punters remain convinced that BJ will last the course – politicalbetting.com

145679

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Given current energy prices and the price cap, energy companies are going to lose an average of £400 between now and April and that depends on prices staying at current levels.

    I'm locked in at 4.08p/kwh for gas and 20.58p for leccy till Sep 2023, with £396 of standing charges till then.
    Given the dates that looks a good deal. I managed to get 3.09 and 16.86, but it's only fixed until June. Low standing charge though, only £68 to pay on that.
    It works out to an average annual bill of £1284, which is slightly above the current cap of 1277 but it's fixed in for 2 years. Got the last available decent fixed 2 yr deal as the gas prices rose and rose.
    My employer has locked in at 96% above previous for 2 years (There's no cap for commercial of course)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    edited November 2021

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Omnium said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Completely off topic but I've just started playing online poker as a hobby - I used to play each week in a pub tournament for a few years before the pandemic but I haven't played since before the pandemic began until recently. I like tournaments where you get potentially a couple of hours play from a small buy-in and are capped at losing your entry fee and that's that . . . the way I've always viewed it is I'd pay a comparable fee to go eg bowling or to a movie etc so I'm paying for the entertainment with that amount and any small amount won back is a bonus.

    I had a morning off this morning so I thought I'd give it a go and bought a $4.40 satellite ticket to a $33 buy-in tournament. Managed to win a seat to the main event from the satellite. Even getting 6th (the lowest prize) would be my biggest ever poker win and I certainly wasn't expecting that, but I actually managed to win the whole tournament. First place prize $432.20 from a $33 ticket I'd won for a $4.40 buy-in.

    Over the moon with that, but I wanted to mention it here not to show off but because the one thing I don't want is to get intoxicated from that victory and develop a problem habit; so I thought I'd mention it to a group of people here many of whom probably gamble overall more than I do. I'm happy but want to keep my feet firmly on the ground.

    Which company? I tried a few back in the day and the weirdest one was Betfair. The number of times you'd see three players in a single deal get pocket Qs, Ks, and As was astounding. It made me feel that there was an algorithm dealing people powerful hands to encourage looser play and so knocking people out faster. I can't prove anything of course, but it felt a bit deliberate.
    888

    I doubt there's any funny business but the thing to remember with Hold Em is that you'll disproportionately see good cards when it comes to a showdown. Since crap gets mucked those with QQ, KK or AA will end up showing those hands while all the 72 that got dealt to other players you'll almost never see.

    One of the best lessons I learnt from the good player I mentioned before is too be very wary of an Ace with a poor kicker. I used to go in almost any time I had an Ace [and lots of poor players do] but as he said to me the problem is even if you hit your Ace, you'll never know if someone else is in the hand with an Ace and a better kicker.

    Thus today I quite often folded hands like A4 or A6 that when I first started playing I'd have gone in with - then seeing something like AQ at showdown and I'd have lost that hand had I gone in with my Ace.
    I'm trying to do a calculation to work out on an 8-player table the chances that there are is a pocket A pair, a pocket K pair, and a pocket Q pair out there in a single deal. It "feels" like a 1000/1 shot, but I can't work out the odds.
    Its extremely unlikely, sure probably even less likely than that. Though I doubt it actually happened many times and false recall will merge people showing AA versus KK with another time someone showed KK versus QQ and that's not that unusual.

    One factor to bear in mind with the difference between online and real-life poker is how fast online poker is. In a pub, house or even a casino people play much slower, the cards get physically shuffled then dealt, conversations are had, people play in turn etc . . . online there's no interruption, no shuffling, the cards are shown almost instantaneously and people can queue the fact they're folding so everyone who's folding is out of the hand instantly.

    As a result in online poker you'll face many, many more hands per hour than you will in physical poker. Which means that 'rare' hands can and will come up from time to time.

    According to my software since I started playing earlier this month, I've been in over ten thousand hands already.

    If you play ten thousand hands then you're going to see a few 1000/1 shots in those hands.
    @Farooq - define the precise conditions - how many packs of cards etc, and I'll have a stab at working it out for you. I'm not familiar with poker terms, so you'll have to specify those too.
    Already been done elsewhere, about 1 in 25,000 if it was an 8 handed table.

    https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/probability-aa-vs-kk-vs-qq-pf-1434780/
    Brilliant! Now, considering I saw this happen a good dozen times at least, I'm back to thinking there was something fishy going on.

    I'll see if I can check through the maths but it's making my head hurt looking at it, so I might program a Monte Carlo simulation this evening and run it a few million times to see whether I get something in the same ball park. There's no way I should have seen this happen more than about three times. I doubt I've ever played even 25,000 hands of poker, let alone 300,000.
    Remember to account for the hundreds of thousands (estimate) of players as well. If none of them were seeing this more often than normal then it would be fixed. Others might have seen an unusual amount of AA v AA hands, or AK v AK v QQ hands etc which they remember.
    That's a fair point, but it hasn't helped my headache.
    The online player community found (and proved beyond reasonable doubt) some very obscure cases of cheating going on. If a major site was doing as you say, it would have been known about.
    The thing is with games of chance online is that you're pretty close to the "infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters" scenario.

    Almost any odd thing you can think of has probably happened to someone, somewhere, at some time. If it hadn't, that'd be an issue!
    Exactly. The classic case is that poor woman who found herself in court accused of child murder, because two of her babies had suffered cot deaths. A key witness was a statistician who argued that the chances of her having had two cot deaths were infinitesimal. Whereas the right question to ask was, what is the chance that any mother would suffer two cot deaths (particularly given the correlation of such sad occurrences with various environmental factors) and then find herself suspected of foul play.
    On point of order - the infamous 1 in 73 million figure witness was a paediatrician, not a statistician. He didn't understand statistics or probability and simply multiplied two figures together to get that one.

    Name of Roy Meadow, knighted for services as an expert witness, almost all of which testimony turned out to be at the very least wrong.
    On top the way they facilitated antivaxx scares, its worth noting that the Lancet was a big defender and proponent of Roy Meadow too.
    What is the difference between Richard Horton and a 15 inch penis?

    One is a massive dick and the other is a very large genital appendage.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,087

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Twenty migrants now dead in Channel after boat capsized - according to @AFP
    https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1463543831694131211

    The depressing thing is that ghouls will be practically celebrating this. "Their own fault", "shouldn't be coming here" etc etc.
    I hope this gets picked up by the media in their origin countries and deters the next generation of migrants.

    These people are fundamentally miscalculating the risk they’re taking. And the reward is far less than they imagine.

    RIP. This was avoidable.
    I think you miss the point. Many flee because their lives are shit. Some are already in genuine fear for their lives. Others know that war and poverty and disease are all they can look forward to.

    This kind of tragedy is what the Home Secretary was hoping for. "Accidentally" drown the buggers with a wave machine or a tow back or swamping them. That'll show them and if it doesn't at least the ghouls will be satisfied for 5 minutes.

    There is a simple solution. We (a) can't stop the boats and (b) can't catch the people who make it across. So if we are serious about an off-shore processing centre simply collect them up onto a plane in France...
    Chill. The allegation that this was deliberately engineered by the Home Sec to satisfy "ghouls" who exist and say stuff in your head is off-the-scale batshit, up there with your attack on @TimT for saying the diametrical opposite of what he actually said. Good lunch?
    It is an utterly disgraceful comment and is beyond excuse
    Which bit was disgraceful. That Farage-supporters are out there actively calling for asylum seekers to be drowned? Thats out there on Twitter. That the Home Secretary is pandering to those voters? She is according to HYUFD, thats the remaining core Tory vote after northerners are driven away. That tow backs and interventions with large boats will cause small dinghys to sink? Thats obvious surely. That they tried to criminalise the RNLI? Thats long since been covered and corrected by the government.

    So again, where is it disgraceful. We can't stop these boats, we can't intercept the people getting off the ones who land here successfully which is almost all of them. So if we want it to stop we need to work with the rest of Europe. Might help if we actually had a channel to accept a reasonable number of asylum seekers rather than the trickle who come here vs the much larger numbers in France etc etc.
    Your comments are unacceptable and your reference to twitter to try to justify your comments says it all

    You are driven by an all encompassing hatred of this government and do not add to a very serious debate
    You aren't saying how they are unacceptable.

    It is a fact that ghouls are on Farage's twitter feed right now saying awful things.
    It is a declared risk that her proposed solutions to the boats would sink some.
    It is a fact that by accident or design a bill would have had the RNLI criminalised for picking people out of the water after having their boat sunk.

    When you stop thinking rationally and go back to blind loyalty to the government you start going on about my "all-encompassing hatred of this government". You miss my pro-Sunak and pro-furlough comments which I make a lot.

    My views aren't the issue, nor do they somehow change the facts on hand.

    As for not adding to serious debate I have made a very serious proposal. We can't stop the boats. We can't detain the people who get off the boats. So if we want to process asylum seekers off-shore the simple solution is offer them a plane ride from Calais airport to Albania or wherever.
    Your repetitive comments about the criminalising the RNLI are pure political spin and as my son who is RNLI crew has just said their operational requirements are not affected by any legislation proposed or otherwise

    I am sure you can find ghouls on twitter but David Cameron's comments about twitter are succinct

    Even by your own admission you know nothing about boats and your motivation is purely anti HMG propaganda

    We can stop or certainly reduce the number of boats crossing and sadly today's tragedy will concentrate minds across the EU-France-EU to take concerted action

    Your idea of Albania or anywhere else is rejected by Labour who when asked raised the issue of human rights
    The criminalisation of the RNLI was still in the bill a couple of days ago. Not sure if it has been removed yet.

    That's been in the bill an awfully long time, right in print in a proposed set of new laws, for something that you dismiss as political spin.
    It is not passed into law neither will it be
    It will be unless the bill is amended or the clause is withdrawn. The only way that happens - to protect your son - is for people like me to upset you by calling out what the government are doing. You don't like the proposal and neither do I, so I don't understand why it is such a fractious issue between us.
    The bill will be amended and in view of today's tragedy with 31 drowning confirmed by France, it is time to take the politics out of this and support the UK-France -EU to come together and take action
    I am glad we are in agreement that this clause needs to be taken out of the bill - not "pure political spin" at all.

    I am less optimistic about prospects for a UK - France deal. We take very few asylum seekers comparative to other countries but think they are swamping us. Hard to find solutions when we refuse to accept the status quo.
    If there is one thing that is so sad and sobering is that it often takes a tragedy of this enormity to concentrate politicians minds, and I expect there will be a lot of pressure within France to deal with this serious issue as it has happened in French waters and equally in the UK and the EU

    My son did say tonight that should we ever forget the picture of the three year old Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, who drowned in the Med in 2015 in that iconic picture and yet again we have drowned innocent children; it has to be the moment for politics to make way for compassion
    IIRC the result of the Aylan Kurdi case was that the EU paid the Turks a fat wad of cash to stop the migrants from coming, whilst the Greeks have been building up their defences, constructing more secure holding facilities and engaging in pushback tactics at sea ever since.

    We can argue forever about what should be done with these migrants and where they ought to end up, but the bottom line is that nobody (save for a handful of charities and advocacy groups) wants them. Not here, not in France, not in Italy, not in Greece, nowhere. If anyone is waiting for compassion to trump politics in this whole sordid business then they're going to be doing so for a very long time.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    edited November 2021
    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Crossing the channel in a dinghy has an effective mortality rate of about 0.1%

    Time to stop living in fear etc etc and let people have the freedom to etc etc

    If you are trying to be funny, it’s not really very funny today though isn’t it.

    Maybe I should stop commenting now I am tipsy before I say something very out of place. I was banned from a site a few weeks ago for calling someone a poisonous rock fish, but despite looking rather funny they are very poisonous.
    No, satire isn't always meant to be funny. In this case it's meant to reflect the irony of people saying we can live with Covid deaths whilst saying we can't live with migrants dying in the sea.
    If I was trying to be funny I would accuse them of racism against white people, but I'm not so I won't.
    Sorry. It’s just right now I want to see TV pictures of the gang members and gang bosses in a French or UK court. The BBC news just said the gangs make as much as two hundred and fifty million from each dingy and there’s been 25,000 making it over this year.

    Get the gangs and their bosses! How difficult can that be?
    250m whats? Don't be bloody ridiculous. These guys don't pay in advance, they don't have the dosh, the deal is structured so the migrants send money home to their families who pay off the debt to the people smugglers. So whatever it costs, it is repayable out of the amount of money a penniless immigrant can send home to Africa each month. Two hundred and fifty millionths of a million dollars sounds about right.
    250,000 pound from a dingy boat sorry! I’m sure that’s what BBC reporter (Mark Easton?) said.

    But media does often say how much people have paid for a ticket?

    If you are economic migrant I appreciate won’t have much money. If you are Kurd or Syrian, more middle class refuge you might pay up front?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    edited November 2021

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Twenty migrants now dead in Channel after boat capsized - according to @AFP
    https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1463543831694131211

    The depressing thing is that ghouls will be practically celebrating this. "Their own fault", "shouldn't be coming here" etc etc.
    I hope this gets picked up by the media in their origin countries and deters the next generation of migrants.

    These people are fundamentally miscalculating the risk they’re taking. And the reward is far less than they imagine.

    RIP. This was avoidable.
    I think you miss the point. Many flee because their lives are shit. Some are already in genuine fear for their lives. Others know that war and poverty and disease are all they can look forward to.

    This kind of tragedy is what the Home Secretary was hoping for. "Accidentally" drown the buggers with a wave machine or a tow back or swamping them. That'll show them and if it doesn't at least the ghouls will be satisfied for 5 minutes.

    There is a simple solution. We (a) can't stop the boats and (b) can't catch the people who make it across. So if we are serious about an off-shore processing centre simply collect them up onto a plane in France...
    Chill. The allegation that this was deliberately engineered by the Home Sec to satisfy "ghouls" who exist and say stuff in your head is off-the-scale batshit, up there with your attack on @TimT for saying the diametrical opposite of what he actually said. Good lunch?
    It is an utterly disgraceful comment and is beyond excuse
    Which bit was disgraceful. That Farage-supporters are out there actively calling for asylum seekers to be drowned? Thats out there on Twitter. That the Home Secretary is pandering to those voters? She is according to HYUFD, thats the remaining core Tory vote after northerners are driven away. That tow backs and interventions with large boats will cause small dinghys to sink? Thats obvious surely. That they tried to criminalise the RNLI? Thats long since been covered and corrected by the government.

    So again, where is it disgraceful. We can't stop these boats, we can't intercept the people getting off the ones who land here successfully which is almost all of them. So if we want it to stop we need to work with the rest of Europe. Might help if we actually had a channel to accept a reasonable number of asylum seekers rather than the trickle who come here vs the much larger numbers in France etc etc.
    Your comments are unacceptable and your reference to twitter to try to justify your comments says it all

    You are driven by an all encompassing hatred of this government and do not add to a very serious debate
    You aren't saying how they are unacceptable.

    It is a fact that ghouls are on Farage's twitter feed right now saying awful things.
    It is a declared risk that her proposed solutions to the boats would sink some.
    It is a fact that by accident or design a bill would have had the RNLI criminalised for picking people out of the water after having their boat sunk.

    When you stop thinking rationally and go back to blind loyalty to the government you start going on about my "all-encompassing hatred of this government". You miss my pro-Sunak and pro-furlough comments which I make a lot.

    My views aren't the issue, nor do they somehow change the facts on hand.

    As for not adding to serious debate I have made a very serious proposal. We can't stop the boats. We can't detain the people who get off the boats. So if we want to process asylum seekers off-shore the simple solution is offer them a plane ride from Calais airport to Albania or wherever.
    Your repetitive comments about the criminalising the RNLI are pure political spin and as my son who is RNLI crew has just said their operational requirements are not affected by any legislation proposed or otherwise

    I am sure you can find ghouls on twitter but David Cameron's comments about twitter are succinct

    Even by your own admission you know nothing about boats and your motivation is purely anti HMG propaganda

    We can stop or certainly reduce the number of boats crossing and sadly today's tragedy will concentrate minds across the EU-France-EU to take concerted action

    Your idea of Albania or anywhere else is rejected by Labour who when asked raised the issue of human rights
    The criminalisation of the RNLI was still in the bill a couple of days ago. Not sure if it has been removed yet.

    That's been in the bill an awfully long time, right in print in a proposed set of new laws, for something that you dismiss as political spin.
    It is not passed into law neither will it be
    It will be unless the bill is amended or the clause is withdrawn. The only way that happens - to protect your son - is for people like me to upset you by calling out what the government are doing. You don't like the proposal and neither do I, so I don't understand why it is such a fractious issue between us.
    The bill will be amended and in view of today's tragedy with 31 drowning confirmed by France, it is time to take the politics out of this and support the UK-France -EU to come together and take action
    I am glad we are in agreement that this clause needs to be taken out of the bill - not "pure political spin" at all.

    I am less optimistic about prospects for a UK - France deal. We take very few asylum seekers comparative to other countries but think they are swamping us. Hard to find solutions when we refuse to accept the status quo.
    If there is one thing that is so sad and sobering is that it often takes a tragedy of this enormity to concentrate politicians minds, and I expect there will be a lot of pressure within France to deal with this serious issue as it has happened in French waters and equally in the UK and the EU

    My son did say tonight that should we ever forget the picture of the three year old Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, who drowned in the Med in 2015 in that iconic picture and yet again we have drowned innocent children; it has to be the moment for politics to make way for compassion
    Thanks for that post, glad we've both deescalated this. Compromise and compassion is needed - the challenge is finding it when so many people have had their souls closed to humanity for political gain.

    EDIT - I note that Patel states "this government’s New Plan for Immigration will overhaul our broken asylum system and address many of the long-standing pull factors encouraging migrants to make the perilous journey from France to the United Kingdom.” That is her bill which still has the clauses to make assisting drowning refugee children a criminal offence.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    We do need to find some workable ideas for this crisis that are based on reality. We don't take remotely the number of asylum seekers that people are told (by the government and their friends in the media) and we treat those that claim it badly. But in truth the issue are all those who land and disappear into the black economy.

    As we're not keeping track of these boats nor able to detain the people who run off all the talk about off-shore processing is just posturing. You can't render asylum seekers abroad if you haven't detained them.

    So we need to actually engage with the EU and the French government about a joint effort to stop this, not just shout abuse at them. The simple truth is that whether it be language or other family already here they don't want to be in France, they want to be here. They're on these dinghies because we have closed their legal options. And if the French close the camps as they have done before, new camps spring up.

    So the bulk of this is on us. We can't stop people coming. The French can't stop people coming. So we need to let them come legally and control the traffic. If that means building a UK overseas processing facility then ok - Falklands or Cyprus though not a gulag in Albania. But let them come safely, process them, welcome the genuine, return the chancers.

    Good post. Handling it badly or even cruelly out of frustration or anger at the numbers/route that it is happening doesn't help those making the attempt, it certainly has not dissuaded them, and it doesn't help us deal with the issue either.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Actually I'd like to apologise to HYUFD, that was unnecessarily snappy and bitchy of me.

    Just from this and without checking I know that was one of your very best posts.
    I choose to believe that is not because that is a very slim field to pick from.
  • pigeon said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Twenty migrants now dead in Channel after boat capsized - according to @AFP
    https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1463543831694131211

    The depressing thing is that ghouls will be practically celebrating this. "Their own fault", "shouldn't be coming here" etc etc.
    I hope this gets picked up by the media in their origin countries and deters the next generation of migrants.

    These people are fundamentally miscalculating the risk they’re taking. And the reward is far less than they imagine.

    RIP. This was avoidable.
    I think you miss the point. Many flee because their lives are shit. Some are already in genuine fear for their lives. Others know that war and poverty and disease are all they can look forward to.

    This kind of tragedy is what the Home Secretary was hoping for. "Accidentally" drown the buggers with a wave machine or a tow back or swamping them. That'll show them and if it doesn't at least the ghouls will be satisfied for 5 minutes.

    There is a simple solution. We (a) can't stop the boats and (b) can't catch the people who make it across. So if we are serious about an off-shore processing centre simply collect them up onto a plane in France...
    Chill. The allegation that this was deliberately engineered by the Home Sec to satisfy "ghouls" who exist and say stuff in your head is off-the-scale batshit, up there with your attack on @TimT for saying the diametrical opposite of what he actually said. Good lunch?
    It is an utterly disgraceful comment and is beyond excuse
    Which bit was disgraceful. That Farage-supporters are out there actively calling for asylum seekers to be drowned? Thats out there on Twitter. That the Home Secretary is pandering to those voters? She is according to HYUFD, thats the remaining core Tory vote after northerners are driven away. That tow backs and interventions with large boats will cause small dinghys to sink? Thats obvious surely. That they tried to criminalise the RNLI? Thats long since been covered and corrected by the government.

    So again, where is it disgraceful. We can't stop these boats, we can't intercept the people getting off the ones who land here successfully which is almost all of them. So if we want it to stop we need to work with the rest of Europe. Might help if we actually had a channel to accept a reasonable number of asylum seekers rather than the trickle who come here vs the much larger numbers in France etc etc.
    Your comments are unacceptable and your reference to twitter to try to justify your comments says it all

    You are driven by an all encompassing hatred of this government and do not add to a very serious debate
    You aren't saying how they are unacceptable.

    It is a fact that ghouls are on Farage's twitter feed right now saying awful things.
    It is a declared risk that her proposed solutions to the boats would sink some.
    It is a fact that by accident or design a bill would have had the RNLI criminalised for picking people out of the water after having their boat sunk.

    When you stop thinking rationally and go back to blind loyalty to the government you start going on about my "all-encompassing hatred of this government". You miss my pro-Sunak and pro-furlough comments which I make a lot.

    My views aren't the issue, nor do they somehow change the facts on hand.

    As for not adding to serious debate I have made a very serious proposal. We can't stop the boats. We can't detain the people who get off the boats. So if we want to process asylum seekers off-shore the simple solution is offer them a plane ride from Calais airport to Albania or wherever.
    Your repetitive comments about the criminalising the RNLI are pure political spin and as my son who is RNLI crew has just said their operational requirements are not affected by any legislation proposed or otherwise

    I am sure you can find ghouls on twitter but David Cameron's comments about twitter are succinct

    Even by your own admission you know nothing about boats and your motivation is purely anti HMG propaganda

    We can stop or certainly reduce the number of boats crossing and sadly today's tragedy will concentrate minds across the EU-France-EU to take concerted action

    Your idea of Albania or anywhere else is rejected by Labour who when asked raised the issue of human rights
    The criminalisation of the RNLI was still in the bill a couple of days ago. Not sure if it has been removed yet.

    That's been in the bill an awfully long time, right in print in a proposed set of new laws, for something that you dismiss as political spin.
    It is not passed into law neither will it be
    It will be unless the bill is amended or the clause is withdrawn. The only way that happens - to protect your son - is for people like me to upset you by calling out what the government are doing. You don't like the proposal and neither do I, so I don't understand why it is such a fractious issue between us.
    The bill will be amended and in view of today's tragedy with 31 drowning confirmed by France, it is time to take the politics out of this and support the UK-France -EU to come together and take action
    I am glad we are in agreement that this clause needs to be taken out of the bill - not "pure political spin" at all.

    I am less optimistic about prospects for a UK - France deal. We take very few asylum seekers comparative to other countries but think they are swamping us. Hard to find solutions when we refuse to accept the status quo.
    If there is one thing that is so sad and sobering is that it often takes a tragedy of this enormity to concentrate politicians minds, and I expect there will be a lot of pressure within France to deal with this serious issue as it has happened in French waters and equally in the UK and the EU

    My son did say tonight that should we ever forget the picture of the three year old Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, who drowned in the Med in 2015 in that iconic picture and yet again we have drowned innocent children; it has to be the moment for politics to make way for compassion
    IIRC the result of the Aylan Kurdi case was that the EU paid the Turks a fat wad of cash to stop the migrants from coming, whilst the Greeks have been building up their defences, constructing more secure holding facilities and engaging in pushback tactics at sea ever since.

    We can argue forever about what should be done with these migrants and where they ought to end up, but the bottom line is that nobody (save for a handful of charities and advocacy groups) wants them. Not here, not in France, not in Italy, not in Greece, nowhere. If anyone is waiting for compassion to trump politics in this whole sordid business then they're going to be doing so for a very long time.
    Unfortunately the rich countries are very good at flaunting their wealth and screwing up poor countries with "you can't have this" and proxy wars as we have had in Syria et al. Its no surprise that people want to escape that. The long term fix has to be to transform prospects for people who stay in their own countries, but Gordon Brown begging world leaders to forgive third-world debt seems a long time ago.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    There is believed to be fairly major under-reporting, IIRC. Societal pressure, not being believed, risk of arrest.....
    A sad fact is that a proportion of these will be relationships where both partners are abusive to each other - albeit perhaps in different ways.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,584
    edited November 2021

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
  • kle4 said:

    We do need to find some workable ideas for this crisis that are based on reality. We don't take remotely the number of asylum seekers that people are told (by the government and their friends in the media) and we treat those that claim it badly. But in truth the issue are all those who land and disappear into the black economy.

    As we're not keeping track of these boats nor able to detain the people who run off all the talk about off-shore processing is just posturing. You can't render asylum seekers abroad if you haven't detained them.

    So we need to actually engage with the EU and the French government about a joint effort to stop this, not just shout abuse at them. The simple truth is that whether it be language or other family already here they don't want to be in France, they want to be here. They're on these dinghies because we have closed their legal options. And if the French close the camps as they have done before, new camps spring up.

    So the bulk of this is on us. We can't stop people coming. The French can't stop people coming. So we need to let them come legally and control the traffic. If that means building a UK overseas processing facility then ok - Falklands or Cyprus though not a gulag in Albania. But let them come safely, process them, welcome the genuine, return the chancers.

    Good post. Handling it badly or even cruelly out of frustration or anger at the numbers/route that it is happening doesn't help those making the attempt, it certainly has not dissuaded them, and it doesn't help us deal with the issue either.
    Lets remember just how shit a deal asylum seekers get in this country. Housed in properties that literally nobody will live in due to crime & deprivation. When I lived in Sunderland there was some local complaint about refugees being given "free houses" - yes, in Murder Mile (Hendon) that nobody in their right mind wants to live in hence why there were so many available properties. Wasn't much better on Teesside.

    And then they have to live on a tiny voucher to exchange for basics. Can't work. Have no rights. Its hardly a life of riches and glamour as part of our press tries to make out. No, I suspect the real cause of people's frustration is what we are mostly getting now. As odious as the Nigel is, he is reporting repeatedly on boats that make it across and the people on them disappear off into the distance. Some may claim asylum but I suspect most disappear into the black economy. We don't know numbers because they're not legally here.

    The only way to stop them is to detain them. Which means resources we don't have on our side or on the French side - even if both of us decide to co-operate it will be like playing Frogger with the traffickers always dodging past...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,614

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Crossing the channel in a dinghy has an effective mortality rate of about 0.1%

    Time to stop living in fear etc etc and let people have the freedom to etc etc

    If you are trying to be funny, it’s not really very funny today though isn’t it.

    Maybe I should stop commenting now I am tipsy before I say something very out of place. I was banned from a site a few weeks ago for calling someone a poisonous rock fish, but despite looking rather funny they are very poisonous.
    No, satire isn't always meant to be funny. In this case it's meant to reflect the irony of people saying we can live with Covid deaths whilst saying we can't live with migrants dying in the sea.
    If I was trying to be funny I would accuse them of racism against white people, but I'm not so I won't.
    Sorry. It’s just right now I want to see TV pictures of the gang members and gang bosses in a French or UK court. The BBC news just said the gangs make as much as two hundred and fifty million from each dingy and there’s been 25,000 making it over this year.

    Get the gangs and their bosses! How difficult can that be?
    250m whats? Don't be bloody ridiculous. These guys don't pay in advance, they don't have the dosh, the deal is structured so the migrants send money home to their families who pay off the debt to the people smugglers. So whatever it costs, it is repayable out of the amount of money a penniless immigrant can send home to Africa each month. Two hundred and fifty millionths of a million dollars sounds about right.
    250,000 pound from a dingy boat sorry! I’m sure that’s what BBC reporter (Mark Easton?) said.

    But media does often say how much people have paid for a ticket?

    If you are economic migrant I appreciate won’t have much money. If you are Kurd or Syrian, more middle class refuge you might pay up front?
    Both economic migrants and refugees - and the groups aren't separate, many are both - are paying huge sums. 5 figures often. This represents everything their family has, very often.

    This is one of the reasons they are so desperate.
  • This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    You asked 'where this one third stat came from.'

    You were provided with a source that indicated one third of DA cases were directed against men.

    True, it's an estimate. That's true of all crime figures. Because not all crimes are detected (including murder) or reported.

    It seems to me you got exactly what you requested, TBH.
  • Looks like the NZ National Party leader Judith Collins might get ousted tonight.

    She’s realised her rival, former leader Simon Bridges (Oxon), has the numbers to depose her so she suddenly stripped him of his portfolio for a five-year-old offence of making a sexist remark to a colleague.

    Live blog on National Party situation in New Zealand

    Live: Simon Bridges demoted by National Party leader Judith Collins over allegation of misconduct - all the latest updates

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/456496/live-simon-bridges-demoted-by-national-party-leader-judith-collins-over-allegation-of-misconduct-all-the-latest-updates

    From my (sporadic) observations from across the Pacific Rim, my impression is that Judith Collins makes the late Margaret Thatcher look like a wet softie.
  • Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Twenty migrants now dead in Channel after boat capsized - according to @AFP
    https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1463543831694131211

    The depressing thing is that ghouls will be practically celebrating this. "Their own fault", "shouldn't be coming here" etc etc.
    I hope this gets picked up by the media in their origin countries and deters the next generation of migrants.

    These people are fundamentally miscalculating the risk they’re taking. And the reward is far less than they imagine.

    RIP. This was avoidable.
    I think you miss the point. Many flee because their lives are shit. Some are already in genuine fear for their lives. Others know that war and poverty and disease are all they can look forward to.

    This kind of tragedy is what the Home Secretary was hoping for. "Accidentally" drown the buggers with a wave machine or a tow back or swamping them. That'll show them and if it doesn't at least the ghouls will be satisfied for 5 minutes.

    There is a simple solution. We (a) can't stop the boats and (b) can't catch the people who make it across. So if we are serious about an off-shore processing centre simply collect them up onto a plane in France...
    Chill. The allegation that this was deliberately engineered by the Home Sec to satisfy "ghouls" who exist and say stuff in your head is off-the-scale batshit, up there with your attack on @TimT for saying the diametrical opposite of what he actually said. Good lunch?
    It is an utterly disgraceful comment and is beyond excuse
    Which bit was disgraceful. That Farage-supporters are out there actively calling for asylum seekers to be drowned? Thats out there on Twitter. That the Home Secretary is pandering to those voters? She is according to HYUFD, thats the remaining core Tory vote after northerners are driven away. That tow backs and interventions with large boats will cause small dinghys to sink? Thats obvious surely. That they tried to criminalise the RNLI? Thats long since been covered and corrected by the government.

    So again, where is it disgraceful. We can't stop these boats, we can't intercept the people getting off the ones who land here successfully which is almost all of them. So if we want it to stop we need to work with the rest of Europe. Might help if we actually had a channel to accept a reasonable number of asylum seekers rather than the trickle who come here vs the much larger numbers in France etc etc.
    Your comments are unacceptable and your reference to twitter to try to justify your comments says it all

    You are driven by an all encompassing hatred of this government and do not add to a very serious debate
    You aren't saying how they are unacceptable.

    It is a fact that ghouls are on Farage's twitter feed right now saying awful things.
    It is a declared risk that her proposed solutions to the boats would sink some.
    It is a fact that by accident or design a bill would have had the RNLI criminalised for picking people out of the water after having their boat sunk.

    When you stop thinking rationally and go back to blind loyalty to the government you start going on about my "all-encompassing hatred of this government". You miss my pro-Sunak and pro-furlough comments which I make a lot.

    My views aren't the issue, nor do they somehow change the facts on hand.

    As for not adding to serious debate I have made a very serious proposal. We can't stop the boats. We can't detain the people who get off the boats. So if we want to process asylum seekers off-shore the simple solution is offer them a plane ride from Calais airport to Albania or wherever.
    Your repetitive comments about the criminalising the RNLI are pure political spin and as my son who is RNLI crew has just said their operational requirements are not affected by any legislation proposed or otherwise

    I am sure you can find ghouls on twitter but David Cameron's comments about twitter are succinct

    Even by your own admission you know nothing about boats and your motivation is purely anti HMG propaganda

    We can stop or certainly reduce the number of boats crossing and sadly today's tragedy will concentrate minds across the EU-France-EU to take concerted action

    Your idea of Albania or anywhere else is rejected by Labour who when asked raised the issue of human rights
    The criminalisation of the RNLI was still in the bill a couple of days ago. Not sure if it has been removed yet.

    That's been in the bill an awfully long time, right in print in a proposed set of new laws, for something that you dismiss as political spin.
    It is not passed into law neither will it be
    It will be unless the bill is amended or the clause is withdrawn. The only way that happens - to protect your son - is for people like me to upset you by calling out what the government are doing. You don't like the proposal and neither do I, so I don't understand why it is such a fractious issue between us.
    The bill will be amended and in view of today's tragedy with 31 drowning confirmed by France, it is time to take the politics out of this and support the UK-France -EU to come together and take action
    I am glad we are in agreement that this clause needs to be taken out of the bill - not "pure political spin" at all.

    I am less optimistic about prospects for a UK - France deal. We take very few asylum seekers comparative to other countries but think they are swamping us. Hard to find solutions when we refuse to accept the status quo.
    If there is one thing that is so sad and sobering is that it often takes a tragedy of this enormity to concentrate politicians minds, and I expect there will be a lot of pressure within France to deal with this serious issue as it has happened in French waters and equally in the UK and the EU

    My son did say tonight that should we ever forget the picture of the three year old Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, who drowned in the Med in 2015 in that iconic picture and yet again we have drowned innocent children; it has to be the moment for politics to make way for compassion
    Thanks for that post, glad we've both deescalated this. Compromise and compassion is needed - the challenge is finding it when so many people have had their souls closed to humanity for political gain.

    EDIT - I note that Patel states "this government’s New Plan for Immigration will overhaul our broken asylum system and address many of the long-standing pull factors encouraging migrants to make the perilous journey from France to the United Kingdom.” That is her bill which still has the clauses to make assisting drowning refugee children a criminal offence.
    I have posted an explanation on the RNLI exemption as documented by the European Journal of International Law up thread to hopefully clarify the position
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,140
    edited November 2021

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Crossing the channel in a dinghy has an effective mortality rate of about 0.1%

    Time to stop living in fear etc etc and let people have the freedom to etc etc

    If you are trying to be funny, it’s not really very funny today though isn’t it.

    Maybe I should stop commenting now I am tipsy before I say something very out of place. I was banned from a site a few weeks ago for calling someone a poisonous rock fish, but despite looking rather funny they are very poisonous.
    No, satire isn't always meant to be funny. In this case it's meant to reflect the irony of people saying we can live with Covid deaths whilst saying we can't live with migrants dying in the sea.
    If I was trying to be funny I would accuse them of racism against white people, but I'm not so I won't.
    Sorry. It’s just right now I want to see TV pictures of the gang members and gang bosses in a French or UK court. The BBC news just said the gangs make as much as two hundred and fifty million from each dingy and there’s been 25,000 making it over this year.

    Get the gangs and their bosses! How difficult can that be?
    250m whats? Don't be bloody ridiculous. These guys don't pay in advance, they don't have the dosh, the deal is structured so the migrants send money home to their families who pay off the debt to the people smugglers. So whatever it costs, it is repayable out of the amount of money a penniless immigrant can send home to Africa each month. Two hundred and fifty millionths of a million dollars sounds about right.
    250,000 pound from a dingy boat sorry! I’m sure that’s what BBC reporter (Mark Easton?) said.

    But media does often say how much people have paid for a ticket?

    If you are economic migrant I appreciate won’t have much money. If you are Kurd or Syrian, more middle class refuge you might pay up front?
    Both economic migrants and refugees - and the groups aren't separate, many are both - are paying huge sums. 5 figures often. This represents everything their family has, very often.

    This is one of the reasons they are so desperate.
    IshmaelZ May still have a point though. I’m sure I heard BBC report say gangs make up to £250K each inflatable boat, that still sounds a lot of money on average for everyone on there?

    The old adage is wealth is power, and I probably know more through TV shows than real life, but they probably can afford to pay politicians, police and others to watch a wall whilst they smuggle 😟
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited November 2021

    pigeon said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Twenty migrants now dead in Channel after boat capsized - according to @AFP
    https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1463543831694131211

    The depressing thing is that ghouls will be practically celebrating this. "Their own fault", "shouldn't be coming here" etc etc.
    I hope this gets picked up by the media in their origin countries and deters the next generation of migrants.

    These people are fundamentally miscalculating the risk they’re taking. And the reward is far less than they imagine.

    RIP. This was avoidable.
    I think you miss the point. Many flee because their lives are shit. Some are already in genuine fear for their lives. Others know that war and poverty and disease are all they can look forward to.

    This kind of tragedy is what the Home Secretary was hoping for. "Accidentally" drown the buggers with a wave machine or a tow back or swamping them. That'll show them and if it doesn't at least the ghouls will be satisfied for 5 minutes.

    There is a simple solution. We (a) can't stop the boats and (b) can't catch the people who make it across. So if we are serious about an off-shore processing centre simply collect them up onto a plane in France...
    Chill. The allegation that this was deliberately engineered by the Home Sec to satisfy "ghouls" who exist and say stuff in your head is off-the-scale batshit, up there with your attack on @TimT for saying the diametrical opposite of what he actually said. Good lunch?
    It is an utterly disgraceful comment and is beyond excuse
    Which bit was disgraceful. That Farage-supporters are out there actively calling for asylum seekers to be drowned? Thats out there on Twitter. That the Home Secretary is pandering to those voters? She is according to HYUFD, thats the remaining core Tory vote after northerners are driven away. That tow backs and interventions with large boats will cause small dinghys to sink? Thats obvious surely. That they tried to criminalise the RNLI? Thats long since been covered and corrected by the government.

    So again, where is it disgraceful. We can't stop these boats, we can't intercept the people getting off the ones who land here successfully which is almost all of them. So if we want it to stop we need to work with the rest of Europe. Might help if we actually had a channel to accept a reasonable number of asylum seekers rather than the trickle who come here vs the much larger numbers in France etc etc.
    Your comments are unacceptable and your reference to twitter to try to justify your comments says it all

    You are driven by an all encompassing hatred of this government and do not add to a very serious debate
    You aren't saying how they are unacceptable.

    It is a fact that ghouls are on Farage's twitter feed right now saying awful things.
    It is a declared risk that her proposed solutions to the boats would sink some.
    It is a fact that by accident or design a bill would have had the RNLI criminalised for picking people out of the water after having their boat sunk.

    When you stop thinking rationally and go back to blind loyalty to the government you start going on about my "all-encompassing hatred of this government". You miss my pro-Sunak and pro-furlough comments which I make a lot.

    My views aren't the issue, nor do they somehow change the facts on hand.

    As for not adding to serious debate I have made a very serious proposal. We can't stop the boats. We can't detain the people who get off the boats. So if we want to process asylum seekers off-shore the simple solution is offer them a plane ride from Calais airport to Albania or wherever.
    Your repetitive comments about the criminalising the RNLI are pure political spin and as my son who is RNLI crew has just said their operational requirements are not affected by any legislation proposed or otherwise

    I am sure you can find ghouls on twitter but David Cameron's comments about twitter are succinct

    Even by your own admission you know nothing about boats and your motivation is purely anti HMG propaganda

    We can stop or certainly reduce the number of boats crossing and sadly today's tragedy will concentrate minds across the EU-France-EU to take concerted action

    Your idea of Albania or anywhere else is rejected by Labour who when asked raised the issue of human rights
    The criminalisation of the RNLI was still in the bill a couple of days ago. Not sure if it has been removed yet.

    That's been in the bill an awfully long time, right in print in a proposed set of new laws, for something that you dismiss as political spin.
    It is not passed into law neither will it be
    It will be unless the bill is amended or the clause is withdrawn. The only way that happens - to protect your son - is for people like me to upset you by calling out what the government are doing. You don't like the proposal and neither do I, so I don't understand why it is such a fractious issue between us.
    The bill will be amended and in view of today's tragedy with 31 drowning confirmed by France, it is time to take the politics out of this and support the UK-France -EU to come together and take action
    I am glad we are in agreement that this clause needs to be taken out of the bill - not "pure political spin" at all.

    I am less optimistic about prospects for a UK - France deal. We take very few asylum seekers comparative to other countries but think they are swamping us. Hard to find solutions when we refuse to accept the status quo.
    If there is one thing that is so sad and sobering is that it often takes a tragedy of this enormity to concentrate politicians minds, and I expect there will be a lot of pressure within France to deal with this serious issue as it has happened in French waters and equally in the UK and the EU

    My son did say tonight that should we ever forget the picture of the three year old Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, who drowned in the Med in 2015 in that iconic picture and yet again we have drowned innocent children; it has to be the moment for politics to make way for compassion
    IIRC the result of the Aylan Kurdi case was that the EU paid the Turks a fat wad of cash to stop the migrants from coming, whilst the Greeks have been building up their defences, constructing more secure holding facilities and engaging in pushback tactics at sea ever since.

    We can argue forever about what should be done with these migrants and where they ought to end up, but the bottom line is that nobody (save for a handful of charities and advocacy groups) wants them. Not here, not in France, not in Italy, not in Greece, nowhere. If anyone is waiting for compassion to trump politics in this whole sordid business then they're going to be doing so for a very long time.
    Unfortunately the rich countries are very good at flaunting their wealth and screwing up poor countries with "you can't have this" and proxy wars as we have had in Syria et al. Its no surprise that people want to escape that. The long term fix has to be to transform prospects for people who stay in their own countries, but Gordon Brown begging world leaders to forgive third-world debt seems a long time ago.
    Syria's a poor example here, aside from some air strikes against ISIL the UK has barely been involved in that one, much less so than Assad, ISIL, the Kurds, Turkey, the Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Iran & ... Russia.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,614

    kle4 said:

    We do need to find some workable ideas for this crisis that are based on reality. We don't take remotely the number of asylum seekers that people are told (by the government and their friends in the media) and we treat those that claim it badly. But in truth the issue are all those who land and disappear into the black economy.

    As we're not keeping track of these boats nor able to detain the people who run off all the talk about off-shore processing is just posturing. You can't render asylum seekers abroad if you haven't detained them.

    So we need to actually engage with the EU and the French government about a joint effort to stop this, not just shout abuse at them. The simple truth is that whether it be language or other family already here they don't want to be in France, they want to be here. They're on these dinghies because we have closed their legal options. And if the French close the camps as they have done before, new camps spring up.

    So the bulk of this is on us. We can't stop people coming. The French can't stop people coming. So we need to let them come legally and control the traffic. If that means building a UK overseas processing facility then ok - Falklands or Cyprus though not a gulag in Albania. But let them come safely, process them, welcome the genuine, return the chancers.

    Good post. Handling it badly or even cruelly out of frustration or anger at the numbers/route that it is happening doesn't help those making the attempt, it certainly has not dissuaded them, and it doesn't help us deal with the issue either.
    Lets remember just how shit a deal asylum seekers get in this country. Housed in properties that literally nobody will live in due to crime & deprivation. When I lived in Sunderland there was some local complaint about refugees being given "free houses" - yes, in Murder Mile (Hendon) that nobody in their right mind wants to live in hence why there were so many available properties. Wasn't much better on Teesside.

    And then they have to live on a tiny voucher to exchange for basics. Can't work. Have no rights. Its hardly a life of riches and glamour as part of our press tries to make out. No, I suspect the real cause of people's frustration is what we are mostly getting now. As odious as the Nigel is, he is reporting repeatedly on boats that make it across and the people on them disappear off into the distance. Some may claim asylum but I suspect most disappear into the black economy. We don't know numbers because they're not legally here.

    The only way to stop them is to detain them. Which means resources we don't have on our side or on the French side - even if both of us decide to co-operate it will be like playing Frogger with the traffickers always dodging past...
    Change the law so that if someone is working illegally, and gives evidence against the employer, the illegal employee gets half the fine and indefinite leave to remain.

    There won't to any black market jobs within a day.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459
    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, in other news, the second edition of the acclaimed board game ‘Great Western Trail’ will be released any day now.

    I guess they're not going ahead with 'Northern Powerhouse Train' now?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742

    Looks like the NZ National Party leader Judith Collins might get ousted tonight.

    She’s realised her rival, former leader Simon Bridges (Oxon), has the numbers to depose her so she suddenly stripped him of his portfolio for a five-year-old offence of making a sexist remark to a colleague.

    Live blog on National Party situation in New Zealand

    Live: Simon Bridges demoted by National Party leader Judith Collins over allegation of misconduct - all the latest updates

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/456496/live-simon-bridges-demoted-by-national-party-leader-judith-collins-over-allegation-of-misconduct-all-the-latest-updates

    From my (sporadic) observations from across the Pacific Rim, my impression is that Judith Collins makes the late Margaret Thatcher look like a wet softie.
    Funny, it's her opponent that's meant to be an Arden.
  • Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter

    You may not accept it but then that is your right
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,584
    Taz said:

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
    I baulk against all injustice.
  • Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter

    You may not accept it but then that is your right
    Do you have a link to it?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,614

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    I once had to contemplate er... violent action. My only possible weapon was a hardback book I'd picked from the self at home, somewhat in a daze.

    Then I noticed what it was. "On Thermonuclear War" by Herman Kahn.
  • kle4 said:

    We do need to find some workable ideas for this crisis that are based on reality. We don't take remotely the number of asylum seekers that people are told (by the government and their friends in the media) and we treat those that claim it badly. But in truth the issue are all those who land and disappear into the black economy.

    As we're not keeping track of these boats nor able to detain the people who run off all the talk about off-shore processing is just posturing. You can't render asylum seekers abroad if you haven't detained them.

    So we need to actually engage with the EU and the French government about a joint effort to stop this, not just shout abuse at them. The simple truth is that whether it be language or other family already here they don't want to be in France, they want to be here. They're on these dinghies because we have closed their legal options. And if the French close the camps as they have done before, new camps spring up.

    So the bulk of this is on us. We can't stop people coming. The French can't stop people coming. So we need to let them come legally and control the traffic. If that means building a UK overseas processing facility then ok - Falklands or Cyprus though not a gulag in Albania. But let them come safely, process them, welcome the genuine, return the chancers.

    Good post. Handling it badly or even cruelly out of frustration or anger at the numbers/route that it is happening doesn't help those making the attempt, it certainly has not dissuaded them, and it doesn't help us deal with the issue either.
    Lets remember just how shit a deal asylum seekers get in this country. Housed in properties that literally nobody will live in due to crime & deprivation. When I lived in Sunderland there was some local complaint about refugees being given "free houses" - yes, in Murder Mile (Hendon) that nobody in their right mind wants to live in hence why there were so many available properties. Wasn't much better on Teesside.

    And then they have to live on a tiny voucher to exchange for basics. Can't work. Have no rights. Its hardly a life of riches and glamour as part of our press tries to make out. No, I suspect the real cause of people's frustration is what we are mostly getting now. As odious as the Nigel is, he is reporting repeatedly on boats that make it across and the people on them disappear off into the distance. Some may claim asylum but I suspect most disappear into the black economy. We don't know numbers because they're not legally here.

    The only way to stop them is to detain them. Which means resources we don't have on our side or on the French side - even if both of us decide to co-operate it will be like playing Frogger with the traffickers always dodging past...
    Change the law so that if someone is working illegally, and gives evidence against the employer, the illegal employee gets half the fine and indefinite leave to remain.

    There won't to any black market jobs within a day.
    Sounds good! Can you see this government having a crack down on such employment practices...?

    Too many people make money from too many people.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703

    Taz said:

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
    I baulk against all injustice.
    You’ll spend the rest of your days baulking, I suspect.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,614
    edited November 2021

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter

    You may not accept it but then that is your right
    Do you have a link to it?
    The Great God Google found this https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-nationality-and-borders-bill-closing-space-for-humanitarian-assistance-at-sea/
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,584
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
    I baulk against all injustice.
    You’ll spend the rest of your days baulking, I suspect.
    I am a bit of a baulker!
  • Personally would be very happy to be governed by a cabinet that included either Big_G or Roch - or both.

    At least for starters!

    Same is true for other PBers I could (but won't) mention.

    As for myself, am a strict Marxist: I oppose ANY administration that would have me as a member!
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,087

    kle4 said:

    We do need to find some workable ideas for this crisis that are based on reality. We don't take remotely the number of asylum seekers that people are told (by the government and their friends in the media) and we treat those that claim it badly. But in truth the issue are all those who land and disappear into the black economy.

    As we're not keeping track of these boats nor able to detain the people who run off all the talk about off-shore processing is just posturing. You can't render asylum seekers abroad if you haven't detained them.

    So we need to actually engage with the EU and the French government about a joint effort to stop this, not just shout abuse at them. The simple truth is that whether it be language or other family already here they don't want to be in France, they want to be here. They're on these dinghies because we have closed their legal options. And if the French close the camps as they have done before, new camps spring up.

    So the bulk of this is on us. We can't stop people coming. The French can't stop people coming. So we need to let them come legally and control the traffic. If that means building a UK overseas processing facility then ok - Falklands or Cyprus though not a gulag in Albania. But let them come safely, process them, welcome the genuine, return the chancers.

    Good post. Handling it badly or even cruelly out of frustration or anger at the numbers/route that it is happening doesn't help those making the attempt, it certainly has not dissuaded them, and it doesn't help us deal with the issue either.
    Lets remember just how shit a deal asylum seekers get in this country. Housed in properties that literally nobody will live in due to crime & deprivation. When I lived in Sunderland there was some local complaint about refugees being given "free houses" - yes, in Murder Mile (Hendon) that nobody in their right mind wants to live in hence why there were so many available properties. Wasn't much better on Teesside.

    And then they have to live on a tiny voucher to exchange for basics. Can't work. Have no rights. Its hardly a life of riches and glamour as part of our press tries to make out. No, I suspect the real cause of people's frustration is what we are mostly getting now. As odious as the Nigel is, he is reporting repeatedly on boats that make it across and the people on them disappear off into the distance. Some may claim asylum but I suspect most disappear into the black economy. We don't know numbers because they're not legally here.

    The only way to stop them is to detain them. Which means resources we don't have on our side or on the French side - even if both of us decide to co-operate it will be like playing Frogger with the traffickers always dodging past...
    Change the law so that if someone is working illegally, and gives evidence against the employer, the illegal employee gets half the fine and indefinite leave to remain.

    There won't to any black market jobs within a day.
    Sounds good! Can you see this government having a crack down on such employment practices...?

    Too many people make money from too many people.
    Yep, follow the money.

    The most logical explanation for the Government's chronic failure to do anything of use about the flow of boat people is that they want it to continue as it is (whilst maintaining the pretence that they do not.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,140

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter

    You may not accept it but then that is your right
    It's an academic paper commenting about the law. It's not a government statement. It clearly says that the law is still unclear. It wouldn't use words like 'suggest' if the exemption was clear.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,614

    Taz said:

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
    I baulk against all injustice.
    For! Great! Justice!
  • ydoethur said:

    Looks like the NZ National Party leader Judith Collins might get ousted tonight.

    She’s realised her rival, former leader Simon Bridges (Oxon), has the numbers to depose her so she suddenly stripped him of his portfolio for a five-year-old offence of making a sexist remark to a colleague.

    Live blog on National Party situation in New Zealand

    Live: Simon Bridges demoted by National Party leader Judith Collins over allegation of misconduct - all the latest updates

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/456496/live-simon-bridges-demoted-by-national-party-leader-judith-collins-over-allegation-of-misconduct-all-the-latest-updates

    From my (sporadic) observations from across the Pacific Rim, my impression is that Judith Collins makes the late Margaret Thatcher look like a wet softie.
    Funny, it's her opponent that's meant to be an Arden.
    groan
  • Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter

    You may not accept it but then that is your right
    Do you have a link to it?
    Yes

    ejiltalk.org/the-nationality-and-borders-bill-closing-space-for humanitarian-assistance-at-sea/

    I hope this helps
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    edited November 2021

    Personally would be very happy to be governed by a cabinet that included either Big_G or Roch - or both.

    At least for starters!

    Same is true for other PBers I could (but won't) mention.

    As for myself, am a strict Marxist: I oppose ANY administration that would have me as a member!

    Well, after first Bush, a brief respite, then Trump and now Biden, I imagine even Hyufd and his Holy Alliance style antics would be an improvement.

    At the end of a Johnson administration I might well feel the same way...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited November 2021

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, in other news, the second edition of the acclaimed board game ‘Great Western Trail’ will be released any day now.

    I guess they're not going ahead with 'Northern Powerhouse Train' now?
    The already published ‘rails to the north’ extension to the original edition is believed still to work with the second, although the expansion board doesn’t quite fit.

    Personally I have always been sceptical about whether it adds anything to the game.
  • Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter

    You may not accept it but then that is your right
    Do you have a link to it?
    The Great God Google found this https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-nationality-and-borders-bill-closing-space-for-humanitarian-assistance-at-sea/
    As I thought, that is is from the summer, events have moved on from that.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,140
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,140

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter

    You may not accept it but then that is your right
    Do you have a link to it?
    The Great God Google found this https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-nationality-and-borders-bill-closing-space-for-humanitarian-assistance-at-sea/
    As I thought, that is is from the summer, events have moved on from that.
    Indeed, and it is also not a refereed paper but an informal opinion column.
  • ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    As we discussed at the time, its inclusion in the bill - "simply poor drafting" assured Charles - is a clear marker for those kinds of organisations and they have reacted accordingly.

    An interpretation by a European Law journal does not provide sufficient cover for RNLI's insurers. Until case law provides actual clarification the grey area is sufficient to get done what the Home Secretary wants doing.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    edited November 2021

    Taz said:

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
    I baulk against all injustice.
    It might just have been someone on the wine early, thought they hit one of two like buttons they saw?

    The injustice might be your post not matching the reality many of us watched in entirety on telly at lunchtime, that if anything was an even contest, but Starmer possibly has an away goal due to Boris said no one will sell a home, that no spokesman in his government will now repeat to camera, and if reports to be believed isn’t even what Boris told his cabinet yesterday.

    If you want to rid the world of injustice Pete perhaps you could start with the factual imbalance in your own posts?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited November 2021

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    Thanks for sharing, hopefully wallopers like IshmaelZ aren't anywhere near anything domestic violence policy related.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
  • ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    The RNLI acts under the request of the Coastguard and both are specifically named in this paper

    The rescue of lives at sea by the RNLI is nothing to do with their legal status, it is all to do with saving lives
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,614
    edited November 2021

    kle4 said:

    We do need to find some workable ideas for this crisis that are based on reality. We don't take remotely the number of asylum seekers that people are told (by the government and their friends in the media) and we treat those that claim it badly. But in truth the issue are all those who land and disappear into the black economy.

    As we're not keeping track of these boats nor able to detain the people who run off all the talk about off-shore processing is just posturing. You can't render asylum seekers abroad if you haven't detained them.

    So we need to actually engage with the EU and the French government about a joint effort to stop this, not just shout abuse at them. The simple truth is that whether it be language or other family already here they don't want to be in France, they want to be here. They're on these dinghies because we have closed their legal options. And if the French close the camps as they have done before, new camps spring up.

    So the bulk of this is on us. We can't stop people coming. The French can't stop people coming. So we need to let them come legally and control the traffic. If that means building a UK overseas processing facility then ok - Falklands or Cyprus though not a gulag in Albania. But let them come safely, process them, welcome the genuine, return the chancers.

    Good post. Handling it badly or even cruelly out of frustration or anger at the numbers/route that it is happening doesn't help those making the attempt, it certainly has not dissuaded them, and it doesn't help us deal with the issue either.
    Lets remember just how shit a deal asylum seekers get in this country. Housed in properties that literally nobody will live in due to crime & deprivation. When I lived in Sunderland there was some local complaint about refugees being given "free houses" - yes, in Murder Mile (Hendon) that nobody in their right mind wants to live in hence why there were so many available properties. Wasn't much better on Teesside.

    And then they have to live on a tiny voucher to exchange for basics. Can't work. Have no rights. Its hardly a life of riches and glamour as part of our press tries to make out. No, I suspect the real cause of people's frustration is what we are mostly getting now. As odious as the Nigel is, he is reporting repeatedly on boats that make it across and the people on them disappear off into the distance. Some may claim asylum but I suspect most disappear into the black economy. We don't know numbers because they're not legally here.

    The only way to stop them is to detain them. Which means resources we don't have on our side or on the French side - even if both of us decide to co-operate it will be like playing Frogger with the traffickers always dodging past...
    Change the law so that if someone is working illegally, and gives evidence against the employer, the illegal employee gets half the fine and indefinite leave to remain.

    There won't to any black market jobs within a day.
    Sounds good! Can you see this government having a crack down on such employment practices...?

    Too many people make money from too many people.
    Think of it as "Fuck Business".....

    EDIT: But seriously - remember when a burger chain had the temerity to cooperate with the Home Office about illegal workers? I have jokingly suggested such a law in front of various people of the progressive persuasion. The anger reflected back suggests that they can easily conceive of the effect it would have.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    I am sorry this is written by the European Journal of International Law and clarifies the matter

    You may not accept it but then that is your right
    Do you have a link to it?
    The Great God Google found this https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-nationality-and-borders-bill-closing-space-for-humanitarian-assistance-at-sea/
    As I thought, that is is from the summer, events have moved on from that.
    Indeed, and it is also not a refereed paper but an informal opinion column.
    Yup, at best it is an amicus curiae.
  • Taz said:

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
    I baulk against all injustice.
    I think that is actually the definition of woke.
  • ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    The RNLI acts under the request of the Coastguard and both are specifically named in this paper

    The rescue of lives at sea by the RNLI is nothing to do with their legal status, it is all to do with saving lives
    Their ability to operate has everything to do with their legal status.
  • Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
  • Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Given where I've run and walked, I should have died hundreds of times ... ;)

    I've actually encountered very few GOMLs (*). One of which was in Scotland, in an area where there is very much right-to-roam. They followed me in a Land Rover off their land. I had been walking along a well-made track.

    Ooh, have I just admitted to being a criminal ?

    (*) Get Orf my Lands.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703
    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    Trespassing on a building site. So what. I jog most mornings and I take different routes to break it up, including a new housing estate. That doesn’t mean I am going to steal anything.. In the UK trespass isn’t even a criminal offence.

    Given what they have been found guilty of they will get long terms.
  • Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Pulpstar said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    Thanks for sharing, hopefully wallopers like IshmaelZ aren't anywhere near anything domestic violence policy related.
    What the fuck is a walloper? If you are suggesting I hit women, what a revolting, dickless and, as it happens, completely baseless slur. Neither, on the other hand, have I ever been hit by a woman.

    If Mrs Pulpstar has been smacking you abaht a bit, I am sure counselling is available.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
    The Guardian is correct.

    Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459
    edited November 2021

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    I don't dispute the ONS data, nor your personal experience. However, I think it's worth looking at the definition of 'domestic abuse' in the ONS data (from the Glossary). It is:

    "Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. It can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse:
    psychological
    physical
    sexual
    financial
    emotional”


    We have no breakdown between these categories. All abuse is serious, of course. But I strongly suspect that it is women who suffer from the vast majority of the abuse in the 'physical' and 'sexual' categories, while men may well be over-represented in the others. Your personal experience of physical abuse is sad but, I think, atypical.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,584
    edited November 2021

    Taz said:

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
    I baulk against all injustice.
    It might just have been someone on the wine early, thought they hit one of two like buttons they saw?

    The injustice might be your post not matching the reality many of us watched in entirety on telly at lunchtime, that if anything was an even contest, but Starmer possibly has an away goal due to Boris said no one will sell a home, that no spokesman in his government will now repeat to camera, and if reports to be believed isn’t even what Boris told his cabinet yesterday.

    If you want to rid the world of injustice Pete perhaps you could start with the factual imbalance in your own posts?
    I was quite specific in that I explained it was the BBC "edit" that I heard. I haven't seen the original PMQs TV broadcast but on the evidence of the radio clip just before the end of PM, Johnson's riposte to Starmer's question was fluent and succinct. Are you suggesting the edit didn't tell the whole story and I was hoodwinked by our state broadcaster? Surely not!
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    Thanks for sharing, hopefully wallopers like IshmaelZ aren't anywhere near anything domestic violence policy related.
    What the fuck is a walloper? If you are suggesting I hit women, what a revolting, dickless and, as it happens, completely baseless slur. Neither, on the other hand, have I ever been hit by a woman.

    If Mrs Pulpstar has been smacking you abaht a bit, I am sure counselling is available.
    A Scottish friend uses the word 'walloper' for a dick(head).

    She frequently calls me a walloper.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703
    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
    The Guardian is correct.

    Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
    Also the owner of the building site testified the murder victim had not disturbed the property or interfered with it.

    In court it was made clear there was no reason to suspect Aubery had involvement in any thefts.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Taz said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    Trespassing on a building site. So what. I jog most mornings and I take different routes to break it up, including a new housing estate. That doesn’t mean I am going to steal anything.. In the UK trespass isn’t even a criminal offence.

    Given what they have been found guilty of they will get long terms.
    I love the elision between "new housing estate" and "trespass." We both know that you are not trespassing, in night time hours, inside a newbuild house, on your runs. The point you are missing is that the rule that truth should be told is absolute, especially where justice and journalism are involved. The Guardian said there wasn't evidence: actually, there was.

    There's people saying of the victim "Serve him right, he was a n****r" and there's you saying of the perps "serve them right, they was whiteys", and you know which is more contemptible? I don't.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    edited November 2021

    Looks like the NZ National Party leader Judith Collins might get ousted tonight.

    She’s realised her rival, former leader Simon Bridges (Oxon), has the numbers to depose her so she suddenly stripped him of his portfolio for a five-year-old offence of making a sexist remark to a colleague.

    Live blog on National Party situation in New Zealand

    Live: Simon Bridges demoted by National Party leader Judith Collins over allegation of misconduct - all the latest updates

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/456496/live-simon-bridges-demoted-by-national-party-leader-judith-collins-over-allegation-of-misconduct-all-the-latest-updates

    From my (sporadic) observations from across the Pacific Rim, my impression is that Judith Collins makes the late Margaret Thatcher look like a wet softie.
    Looking as the NZ opinion poling, Jacinda is down about 10 points form the GE a year ago, but its not the main opposition that's been gaining National party's are stuck at around 26% instead ACT party are up form 8 to about 16% and their leader David Seymore is the second in the leader rankings.

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

    If National have a undignified fight over the leadership, could this prompt 5% to switch to ACT and for the to be second in the polls?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election
  • IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    I don't dispute the ONS data, nor your personal experience. However, I think it's worth looking at the definition of 'domestic abuse' in the ONS data (from the Glossary). It is:

    "Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. It can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse:
    psychological
    physical
    sexual
    financial
    emotional”


    We have no breakdown between these categories. All abuse is serious, of course. But I strongly suspect that it is women who suffer from the vast majority of the abuse in the 'physical' and 'sexual' categories, while men may well be over-represented in the others. Your personal experience of physical abuse is sad but, I think, atypical.
    How would you know if we have no data and people don't talk about it?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    edited November 2021
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    Thanks for sharing, hopefully wallopers like IshmaelZ aren't anywhere near anything domestic violence policy related.
    What the fuck is a walloper? If you are suggesting I hit women, what a revolting, dickless and, as it happens, completely baseless slur. Neither, on the other hand, have I ever been hit by a woman.

    If Mrs Pulpstar has been smacking you abaht a bit, I am sure counselling is available.
    I'm assuming that Pulpy has adopted some Glaswegian, ie

    walloper
    A Scots word meaning a penis, usually large and floppy, often used as an insult

    I have a huge walloper

    I don't like him, he's a walloper


    I express no opinion on whether it's deserved in this instance
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    edited November 2021

    Taz said:

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It wasn’t me but why are you bothered ? What does it matter ? Does it affect your ability to post ? Just curious.
    I baulk against all injustice.
    It might just have been someone on the wine early, thought they hit one of two like buttons they saw?

    The injustice might be your post not matching the reality many of us watched in entirety on telly at lunchtime, that if anything was an even contest, but Starmer possibly has an away goal due to Boris said no one will sell a home, that no spokesman in his government will now repeat to camera, and if reports to be believed isn’t even what Boris told his cabinet yesterday.

    If you want to rid the world of injustice Pete perhaps you could start with the factual imbalance in your own posts?
    I was quite specific in that I explained it was the BBC "edit" that I heard. I haven't seen the original PMQs TV broadcast but on the evidence of the radio clip just before the end of PM, Johnson's riposte to Starmer's question was fluent and succinct. Are you saying the edit didn't tell the whole story and I was hoodwinked by our state broadcaster? Surely not!
    it’s NDBC now isn’t it?

    Looking at your original rather over the top post again Pete, does it really sound like you?

    To borrow a quote from a reporter on Monday “is everything alright?” Or put another way, would you like the key to the drinks cabinet?

    It wasn’t me who marked you off topic! But I think I know the injustice they saw in your post. Maybe they thought it said off colour?

    It’s not personal, I’m not personally getting at you. And it’s not that I’m grumpy because my other half hasn’t come in from office yet, she’s gone for a drink with office friends. I might start dinner without her.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    I don't dispute the ONS data, nor your personal experience. However, I think it's worth looking at the definition of 'domestic abuse' in the ONS data (from the Glossary). It is:

    "Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. It can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse:
    psychological
    physical
    sexual
    financial
    emotional”


    We have no breakdown between these categories. All abuse is serious, of course. But I strongly suspect that it is women who suffer from the vast majority of the abuse in the 'physical' and 'sexual' categories, while men may well be over-represented in the others. Your personal experience of physical abuse is sad but, I think, atypical.
    How would you know if we have no data and people don't talk about it?
    I don't know - that's why I used the phrase 'strongly suspect'.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
    The Guardian is correct.

    Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
    Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    My now-ex-wife once threw a pint glass at me. On another occasion she hit me on the head with a metal pole (we were inside so she didn't have much room to swing it hard) while I changed the baby's nappy.

    That time the police were called by our neighbours when she started screaming because I was restraining her after she'd started hitting herself with the metal pole (due to not being a reaction from hitting me with it).

    The police suggested I take the baby and stay with my mother in London to let everyone calm down. That night, we spoke on the phone and she was furious with me for being more worried about things than about her. So she threatened to smash up my laptop unless I told her not to (thus proving her right).

    I didn't, so she smashed up my laptop with a hammer. When this didn't get a rise out of me she threatened to hit herself with the hammer, but we managed to defuse that situation and I read Harry Potter to her on the phone while her mother drove 100 miles through the night to be with her.

    I spent a long time refusing to think of anything that happened as abuse, because she was nearly one foot shorter than me and so I never felt in any personal physical danger.

    She's, er, training to be a GP now.

    I'm so glad that our daughter is an adult now and there's no need for me to have any contact with her (my daughter's mother) again.
  • BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited November 2021

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    Thanks for sharing, hopefully wallopers like IshmaelZ aren't anywhere near anything domestic violence policy related.
    What the fuck is a walloper? If you are suggesting I hit women, what a revolting, dickless and, as it happens, completely baseless slur. Neither, on the other hand, have I ever been hit by a woman.

    If Mrs Pulpstar has been smacking you abaht a bit, I am sure counselling is available.
    I'm assuming that Pulpy has adopted some Glaswegian, ie

    walloper
    A Scots word meaning a penis, usually large and floppy, often used as an insult

    I have a huge walloper

    I don't like him, he's a walloper


    I express no opinion on whether it's deserved in this instance
    I'll take 50% of your walloper definition.

    Not saying which half, mind.
  • ydoethur said:

    Personally would be very happy to be governed by a cabinet that included either Big_G or Roch - or both.

    At least for starters!

    Same is true for other PBers I could (but won't) mention.

    As for myself, am a strict Marxist: I oppose ANY administration that would have me as a member!

    Well, after first Bush, a brief respite, then Trump and now Biden, I imagine even Hyufd and his Holy Alliance style antics would be an improvement.

    At the end of a Johnson administration I might well feel the same way...
    You can dream whatever dreams you dream, and welcome to them. Mine are my own.

    And do NOT share the PB disdain for Uncle Joe. Not by a long shot.

    As for the Holy Alliance, it did have it's good points, sort of. For example, was key to development of Monroe Doctrine, which for all it's manifold flaws did keep (direct) European colonization of Americas at bay for over a century.

  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703
    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    Trespassing on a building site. So what. I jog most mornings and I take different routes to break it up, including a new housing estate. That doesn’t mean I am going to steal anything.. In the UK trespass isn’t even a criminal offence.

    Given what they have been found guilty of they will get long terms.
    I love the elision between "new housing estate" and "trespass." We both know that you are not trespassing, in night time hours, inside a newbuild house, on your runs. The point you are missing is that the rule that truth should be told is absolute, especially where justice and journalism are involved. The Guardian said there wasn't evidence: actually, there was.

    There's people saying of the victim "Serve him right, he was a n****r" and there's you saying of the perps "serve them right, they was whiteys", and you know which is more contemptible? I don't.
    No, I am saying serves them right, they are murderers. I have never once mentioned their colour. They took the life of an innocent man out jogging and their claims of local break ins were disputed by local law enforcement and the owner of the building site also testified in Ahmed’s favour.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Taz said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    Trespassing on a building site. So what. I jog most mornings and I take different routes to break it up, including a new housing estate. That doesn’t mean I am going to steal anything.. In the UK trespass isn’t even a criminal offence.

    Given what they have been found guilty of they will get long terms.
    I love the elision between "new housing estate" and "trespass." We both know that you are not trespassing, in night time hours, inside a newbuild house, on your runs. The point you are missing is that the rule that truth should be told is absolute, especially where justice and journalism are involved. The Guardian said there wasn't evidence: actually, there was.

    There's people saying of the victim "Serve him right, he was a n****r" and there's you saying of the perps "serve them right, they was whiteys", and you know which is more contemptible? I don't.
    No, I am saying serves them right, they are murderers. I have never once mentioned their colour. They took the life of an innocent man out jogging and their claims of local break ins were disputed by local law enforcement and the owner of the building site also testified in Ahmed’s favour.
    You keep sucking those teeth.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703
    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
    The Guardian is correct.

    Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
    Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
    The site owner testified Ahmed had not disturbed or taken anything from his property on the one visit he was filmed on the site and also that others had been on the same site.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,060
    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
    The Guardian is correct.

    Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
    Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
    The owner of the site said nothing was taken, and the jogger wasn't carrying anything.

    It was a plain old fashioned lynching.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
  • RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Do you think that’s going to be the news at ten line “who to believe? Well the stats say UK takes zillions fewer migrants each year than say France, or 1$ or 2$.”

    That news, if fact, would actually make the UK government look good in eyes of its voters 😃.

    Conservative poll surge incoming!
  • kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    That sounds about right to me. The boat crossings have increased while the more conventional routes to asylum have diminished. France takes a lot more asylum seekers than we do.

    The only thing I'd add is that France is also much tougher on not allowing illegal immigrants to live and work there; one incentive for some to come to the UK is that it's much easier to disappear off the official radar than it is in France.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Taz said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
    The Guardian is correct.

    Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
    Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
    The site owner testified Ahmed had not disturbed or taken anything from his property on the one visit he was filmed on the site and also that others had been on the same site.

    Sure

    If you are on a site where you are nicking stuff, for the vast majority of the time you are on that site, you are not actually nicking stuff.
  • NEW THREAD

  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459
    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
    The Guardian is correct.

    Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
    Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
    The owner of the site said nothing was taken, and the jogger wasn't carrying anything.

    It was a plain old fashioned lynching.
    I'm with you. It sounded to me reminiscent of the old KKK days, when a black man in the wrong place could be executed for nothing more than that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,060
    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
    The Guardian is correct.

    Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
    Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
    The site owner testified Ahmed had not disturbed or taken anything from his property on the one visit he was filmed on the site and also that others had been on the same site.

    Sure

    If you are on a site where you are nicking stuff, for the vast majority of the time you are on that site, you are not actually nicking stuff.
    What is it that drives you to victim blame the jogger, when three men have just been convicted of murder?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,614

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274
    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Thanks. I can't see anything in those notes which excludes the RNLI or Coasstguard from potential prosecution.

    "it remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402) ...but the RNLI does not 'aim to assist asylum seekers'.

    It would seem crazy for the authorities to try to proscute the an RNLI crew member, and would no doubt cause national uproar, but why doesn't the Home Office just amend the bill to make it clear?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274
    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Taz said:

    The three white men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery have been found guilty of murder, following his 2020 shooting death in south Georgia, which led to a wave of racial justice protest and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the US.

    Travis McMicheal, his father Greg McMichael and their neighbour William “Roddie” Bryan were each convicted for murdering Arbery, who was unarmed, after pursuing him in February last year and claiming, without evidence, he had been involved in a spate of burglaries in their neighborhood.

    The verdict was announced after two weeks of testimony and evidence in the closely watched trial, during which the McMichaels had claimed the shooting was an act of self-defense and that they had attempted to enact a citizen’s arrest.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-verdict-guilty

    Good. This always struck me as an appalling case. The man was just out jogging. I hope they All get very long terms.
    Simply not true. There is footage of the victim trespassing inside a building site, from which thefts had occurred (none of that is contested). So the Guardian's "without evidence" is a flat lie.

    Do you jog? When you do, how often do you take time out to mooch around inside other peoples' partly built houses?

    I am happy to believe that the jury were less lazy and prejudiced than you and the Guardian and that the verdict is spot on, but the ill informed tooth-sucking spite of "I hope they All get very long terms" is not a great look.
    OK so he committed trespass. For which the appropriate penalty is death by good ol' boy?
    Don't be so bloody childish. My point was purely that a respected news source was misstating the facts, out of laziness or prejudice. If that doesn't concern you, it should.
    The Guardian is correct.

    Evidence of trespass is no evidence of "involvement in a spate of burglaries", which is what they denied.
    Just plain, boringly wrong. Burglary = in lay terms trespassing, and nicking stuff while you are at it. So evidence of trespass is halfway there. You just don't know what you are talking about.
    The site owner testified Ahmed had not disturbed or taken anything from his property on the one visit he was filmed on the site and also that others had been on the same site.

    Sure

    If you are on a site where you are nicking stuff, for the vast majority of the time you are on that site, you are not actually nicking stuff.
    What is it that drives you to victim blame the jogger, when three men have just been convicted of murder?
    Desperation, I suspect.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air. It is striking that there is no comparably zealous campaign to abandon the word “men” in favour of “prostate-havers”, “ejaculators” or “bodies with testicles”. It is almost always women who are being ordered to dispense with a useful word they have used all their lives.

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

    Whilst I agree with them on most of the trans debate questions, the conversation is usually about women because of campaign success in marketing women as eternally oppressed victims with limited agency, and men/boys who suffer abuse etc tend to be silenced.

    The phrases "violence against women and girls" and "Women and Equalities Committee" capture the predominant attitude of the contemporary debate perfectly.
    + this.

    A rather prominent charity used to have a website that, if you claimed to be a woman, went to help services about abuse. If you claimed to be a man, went to a 'you are an abuser, you evil scum. Here's how you can get help.' page.

    It was a women's charity, but it was well-known and its name was non-gendered. Any man wanting to go there for help would be treated as a perpetrator, not a victim. And 1/3 of all victims of abuse are male.

    I sent them a strongly-worded email, and it changed - with a link to a charity helping men. I'd like to think that was down to me, but who knows ...
    I seem to recall probably apocryphal tales of police policies of when there was a call out re domestic abuse to automatically arrest the man, regardless of who made the call and what it was about.
    Um, frankly, there's worse rules of thumb. I'd love to know where this 1/3 stat comes from.
    Ask and ye shall receive (even after a few whiskies):

    "the Crime Survey for England and Wales showed that an estimated 2.3 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year (1.6 million women and 757,000 men), a slight but non-significant decrease from the previous year"

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

    It's a ratio that, as far as I can see, has been stable for a long time.

    Domestic abuse is a hidden scandal. The chances are that most of us will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse - male and/or female.
    Refuge's website hasn't actually changed much. It still describes itself as 'support for women and children' and only the section on men has a button for 'I am an abuser,' not the one for women. Moreover the section for men is well down the list and has a binary choice: 'I am abused' and 'I am an abuser.'
    Thanks for that. From memory, the bu**ers have somewhat regressed it. :(

    I have got really angry/frustrated over this in the past. 1/3 (sorry, Ishmael) of domestic abuse victims are male. That's a vast number of victims per year - but too many people treat them as perpetrators. And when it is charities, it makes it even worse.
    When your statistic is challenged, you can a. justify it or b. apologise. a. is more convincing than b.
    ????

    I justified it. I gave you figures - and ones I have posted (from various years) on here many times before.

    One of the interesting (and sad) things is that some statistics seem to remain stable for years, whatever political interventions occur. This is one of them.
    On this occasion you seem to me to have done both. You have justified it, and apologised for the upset you believe that will cause.
    What? The figure I've been given is "estimated" without any account of the basis for the estimation.LOL. And the emotion I feel when I am told about all these blokes being secretly slapped about by the missus is closer to derision than to upset. I hope that doesn't make me a bad person.
    Perhaps you should trust the estimation - I often provide links and sources on here, perhaps more than some. And when queried, I backed it up with the source. I generally do not b/s on here.

    I've said this in the past, and I'll say it here again: I was a 'victim' of domestic abuse when I was in my twenties. A dear friend hit me on two occasions, once with a Tom Clancy hardback (*), and once with a (cold) iron. The injury from the latter still troubles me occasionally.

    You can believe that or not - I don't care. But it was a fuckload more that a 'slap'. She was over a foot shorter than me, and I never laid a finger on her. My 'crime' was not wanting to move with her to another country (and it was not my Aussie GF).

    The sad thing is: I still care for her. I haven't talked to her for years, but I hope she was well. She had issues (tm), as, to be fair, did I.

    (*) Yes, they're remarkably heavy.
    My now-ex-wife once threw a pint glass at me. On another occasion she hit me on the head with a metal pole (we were inside so she didn't have much room to swing it hard) while I changed the baby's nappy.

    That time the police were called by our neighbours when she started screaming because I was restraining her after she'd started hitting herself with the metal pole (due to not being a reaction from hitting me with it).

    The police suggested I take the baby and stay with my mother in London to let everyone calm down. That night, we spoke on the phone and she was furious with me for being more worried about things than about her. So she threatened to smash up my laptop unless I told her not to (thus proving her right).

    I didn't, so she smashed up my laptop with a hammer. When this didn't get a rise out of me she threatened to hit herself with the hammer, but we managed to defuse that situation and I read Harry Potter to her on the phone while her mother drove 100 miles through the night to be with her.

    I spent a long time refusing to think of anything that happened as abuse, because she was nearly one foot shorter than me and so I never felt in any personal physical danger.

    She's, er, training to be a GP now.

    I'm so glad that our daughter is an adult now and there's no need for me to have any contact with her (my daughter's mother) again.
    Sounds awful! On your final paragraph that is exactly my own position. It has taken several attempts for me to successfully get the message across that we are not going to speak again but I think its finally sunk in.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It’s a PB tradition… by the middle of the thread anyone engaging with the header is off topic…
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Charles said:

    Just caught up with the BBCR4 PM edit of PMQs. I have to say contrary to what I read on here Johnson smashed Starmer out of the park.

    Whoever off-topiced me can you explain why when the thread header is about Boris Johnson lasting the course?

    Or have I missed something and if posters change the subject mid thread, that is then the new 'on topic'.
    It’s a PB tradition… by the middle of the thread anyone engaging with the header is off topic…
    Underestimate.
This discussion has been closed.