Whether they are yuppies or football hooligans should make no difference. Cocaine users should face stiff penalties. Their demand is responsible for the supply chain, and all that involves. The blood is on their hands.
And that should include those in public office or are 'celebrities' who have confessed to their crimes.
It's a remarkable trick to make drugs illegal and then blame the users for buying them from criminals.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Of the 15 countries judged to be more democratic than the UK (Economist Democracy Index 2020), 8 of them are constitutional monarchies, 7 of them are republics.
Both systems work. Don't cherry pick basket cases like USA just to suit your argument.
Most countries in the world are now republics, so percentage wise then constitutional monarchies are far more democratic than republics on those figures. Thanks for proving my point.
As long as a monarchy is a constitutional not an absolute monarchy it preserves democracy the best of any system
No, because you're lumping republics without democracy in with those that do. Nobody here is pushing for a republic and an end to democracy, any more than anyone is pushing for the restoration of absolute monarchy. If you're arguing in favour of monarchy, you don't really look to Saudi Arabia as your model.
Percentage wise there are more republics in the world headed by Presidents who are dictators effectively than there are monarchies headed by absolute monarchs
Goodness, sounds like we must support democracy whether republic or monarchy. Not sure whether you'll agree with me being as how you're a fan of Franco an all.
People act like prorogation was some constitutional outrage or that the monarch should have intervened. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Until the Supreme Court invented the grounds for overturning the prorogation it was entirely legal.
The standard due process for having one was followed in full. It is worth remembering that England's prior court before the Supreme Court had ruled that the prorogation was legal. If that ruling had been upheld by the Supreme Court instead of being overturned, then on what grounds should the Queen have pre-empted it by denying the prorogation?
The Supreme Court issued its ruling, which was then implemented, but prior courts had disagreed, so its not like the issue was always obvious which way it would go.
Because this country used to be built on basic principles of right and wrong.
Exactly, on the grounds that he was trying to use it as a means to force a policy (no deal Brexit) through for which he did not have a Commons majority.
It strikes at the very heart of our democracy, but was nodded through by our have puppet Monarch.
You had no complaints when the Monarch signed the Benn Act though, which meant the PM could in effect have never been able to deliver Brexit at the time and the will of the people in 2016. The monarch in any case merely suspended parliament for a few weeks until the State Opening of Parliament in October, they did not prevent Parliament meeting indefinitely
The Benn Act did not prevent Brexit. It prevented Brexit without a deal. Regardless it's entirely constitutionally proper (though politically unwise) for the Commons to legislate contrary to a referendum if MPs decide to do so. The voters have the remedy of electing different MPs - which is what they did at GE2019.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
It tends not to be taken by the teetotal and is rather synergistic with alcohol.
The classic upper/downer combination I suppose. I would propose that only teetotal non smokers who don't drink cafeinated drinks should opine on illegal drug use. Everyone else who does so is just a hypocrite.
Or eat chocolate or have nutmeg in their rice pudding.
Tea and chocolate are my drugs of choice these days - sometimes deployed in combination.
If you are dunking chocolate digestives, you'll have the police breaking your door down.
Whether they are yuppies or football hooligans should make no difference. Cocaine users should face stiff penalties. Their demand is responsible for the supply chain, and all that involves. The blood is on their hands.
And that should include those in public office or are 'celebrities' who have confessed to their crimes.
It's a remarkable trick to make drugs illegal and then blame the users for buying them from criminals.
Just heard a short clip of BJ trying to do serious politician over new drugs policy. While his comic turns are of course apex arsehole, BJ being prime ministerial really turns the stomach. At least unserious Boris is the authentic Boris.
He was also wearing what seemed to be a police uniform. Isn't impersonating a police officer a criminal offence?
Just heard a short clip of BJ trying to do serious politician over new drugs policy. While his comic turns are of course apex arsehole, BJ being prime ministerial really turns the stomach. At least unserious Boris is the authentic Boris.
He was also wearing what seemed to be a police uniform. Isn't impersonating a police officer a criminal offence?
Haha. The hi-viz jackets have have had their day then, and it's time to look through some more hangers in the fancy-dress and make up wardrobe.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
The compare and contrast between England and Scotland has been stark. In Scotland the network provider has been providing very regular updates to people, has paid for hot food every day and provided feeding stations in the centre of affected towns / villages. In England I know several people who have had nothing and were told by the network operator to stop asking them for the updates they weren't getting.
Yep. Had a friend off 5 days. In a town of more than 13k population. No mobile signal. No information whatsoever. Luckily he had an open fire. It's not been much above freezing and is now nine days in. Scandalous really.
It would be much more efficient if it were in private hands........ Oh, wait.
Clearly there will be an inquiry into this. I heard somewhere last week that cutting back of trees/branches has been scaled back and it seems this might be a contributing factor? Echoes of the lack of dredging in the Somerset levels being implicated in flooding, and possible 'green' reasons for not doing so.
Greenery has been used on a number of occasions to not do maintenance.
Certainly, after the big flood during the coalition government, the minor streams and rivers around Abingdon got sorted out in a matter of weeks, after decades of people being threatened with legal action for attempting to clear them...
Rather than tree branches, it is rotten poles which haven't been replaced for decades due to cost which appears to be the major issue.
I'm surprised people are actually without power. Can't they be issued with a petrol generator? Would be noisy, but would allow the central heating to be run, and cooking
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
Whether they are yuppies or football hooligans should make no difference. Cocaine users should face stiff penalties. Their demand is responsible for the supply chain, and all that involves. The blood is on their hands.
And that should include those in public office or are 'celebrities' who have confessed to their crimes.
About 15 million of us have taken drugs at some point. Lock us all up if you like but your taxes will be lively!
Or just randomly select those of us on the fringes of society or those in public office to set an example, but that is not really fair is it?
Correction: Almost all 70 million of us have taken drugs at some point.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
It tends not to be taken by the teetotal and is rather synergistic with alcohol.
The classic upper/downer combination I suppose. I would propose that only teetotal non smokers who don't drink cafeinated drinks should opine on illegal drug use. Everyone else who does so is just a hypocrite.
Or eat chocolate or have nutmeg in their rice pudding.
Tea and chocolate are my drugs of choice these days - sometimes deployed in combination.
If you are dunking chocolate digestives, you'll have the police breaking your door down.
Reminds me of the time Slab got very carbonated about alcoholic cocaine drinks (tbf, I don;'t know the facts).
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
As a grandfather to three dual nationals I look forward to reading it.
I am looking forward to @Cyclefree's header on this subject. The fate of dual nationals has been very troubling. This, together with the denial of citizenship rights to the Windrush generation, has struck me as evidence of the worst kind of institutional racism against certain minorites, for which I personally (as an British person) feel very deeply ashamed.
If it's how it's currently written it's not just those with Dual Nationality - it's those with even the vaguest chance of a second passport.
Shamima Begum was the precedent, of course.
A wicked person, who ought to have been repatriated to this country for trial.
Instead, the government are ripping up basic liberties to please - who, precisely?
The more I think about it, the government are heading in to disaster regarding Judicial Review. I've been thinking about this specifically in terms of planning law.
Judicial Review is the backstop of the planning system - if a decision is wrong due to maladministration or corruption then it can go to the courts to be overturned. In the very recent case of the Westferry Print works, it turned out that the Secretary of State granted permission for the development overturning the Inspectors recommendation following some questionable encounters with the developer concerned, who was also a conservative party donor. This only really came to light because of the existence of Judicial Review.
They now seem to be trying to change the law to circumvent this process and make it meaningless; so it can nullify court decisions at will. In terms of planning decisions, that literally means that they just get the final say on everything without regard to any legal process. If you take that, plus their past suspicious dealings with developers, the preponderance of property developers amongst its donors, plus the current sleaze scandal; you can see that it is absolutely toxic.
The slightly sad thing is that the Patterson U turn suggests that they don't seem to even understand what they are doing. They just seem to be reckless and foolish.
Technically they could already do that via a Statutory Instrument or a short Act of Parliament which is how such things should be dealt with.
The problem ultimately comes back to people trying to use law fare to prevent/slow down development.
So we are now at the stage where building a train line takes 30 years.
Which means the reaction to it will be sweeping enough to smash things up, in the other direction.
With house building - I've been saying for years. Better getting the building started now, while you control it. Otherwise the constituency of people who want houses will get big enough, that the developers will get given carte blanche....
Railway lines have always been Acts of Parliament (it's quicker).
Interestingly, both matters (Begum and planning) come from a similar situation.
The lawyers for Mr Hooky (remember him) made it quite clear that they were trying to prevent deportation in any way possible. Indeed, a number of them were campaigners on that issue. Instead of the politicians sitting and staring at the majesty of the rulings, they set to work legislating. The laws under which Begum was deprived of citizenship came from that.
I actually pointed out at the time to some friends that this was the likely result - they took the view that somehow The Law would remain more powerful than politics.
Just heard a short clip of BJ trying to do serious politician over new drugs policy. While his comic turns are of course apex arsehole, BJ being prime ministerial really turns the stomach. At least unserious Boris is the authentic Boris.
He was also wearing what seemed to be a police uniform. Isn't impersonating a police officer a criminal offence?
Not once you have changed out of those clothes as it is then out of scope for the police to investigate.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
I know more teachers than bankers that are habitual cocaine users.
A sad piece of fallout of the urban myth that all bankers are on coke - a kid a DB thought that this was how the world worked, got caught, lost his job and jumped off a roof top.......
I don't think teachers are subject to the random and mandatory drug testing that many bankers are subject to.
And with all those kids they work with, they probably know several dealers.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
I was not proposing a strong Executive President. I had more in mind a President who was a figurehead, as in Ireland.
In which case the Irish President has the same powers as the UK monarch to dissolve Parliament but without the ceremony and name recognition we enjoy in our head of state
Yes. The difference is that President Higgins has democratic legitimacy, so it would be easier for him to use his powers.
The Queen has her powers in name only. She will not use them for fear of the consequences. She is a hand puppet head of state.
Rubbish, the Monarch is guardian against dictatorship as much as Higgins is.
If the PM refused to dissolve Parliament and call a general election then the monarch would do so themselves. The Queen most likely, King Charles IIIrd absolutely as he knows the powers he has as monarch and will use them if needed. King Charles will be a more interventionist monarch than his mother when required.
As for Higgins, he himself was originally a Labour member of the Dail. The fact the Irish President tends to have been a party politician means if the Taoiseach is a politician from the same party as the President, no guarantee the President would not refuse to dissolve the Dail to keep their party in power
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
As a grandfather to three dual nationals I look forward to reading it.
I am looking forward to @Cyclefree's header on this subject. The fate of dual nationals has been very troubling. This, together with the denial of citizenship rights to the Windrush generation, has struck me as evidence of the worst kind of institutional racism against certain minorites, for which I personally (as an British person) feel very deeply ashamed.
If it's how it's currently written it's not just those with Dual Nationality - it's those with even the vaguest chance of a second passport.
Shamima Begum was the precedent, of course.
A wicked person, who ought to have been repatriated to this country for trial.
Instead, the government are ripping up basic liberties to please - who, precisely?
The more I think about it, the government are heading in to disaster regarding Judicial Review. I've been thinking about this specifically in terms of planning law.
Judicial Review is the backstop of the planning system - if a decision is wrong due to maladministration or corruption then it can go to the courts to be overturned. In the very recent case of the Westferry Print works, it turned out that the Secretary of State granted permission for the development overturning the Inspectors recommendation following some questionable encounters with the developer concerned, who was also a conservative party donor. This only really came to light because of the existence of Judicial Review.
They now seem to be trying to change the law to circumvent this process and make it meaningless; so it can nullify court decisions at will. In terms of planning decisions, that literally means that they just get the final say on everything without regard to any legal process. If you take that, plus their past suspicious dealings with developers, the preponderance of property developers amongst its donors, plus the current sleaze scandal; you can see that it is absolutely toxic.
The slightly sad thing is that the Patterson U turn suggests that they don't seem to even understand what they are doing. They just seem to be reckless and foolish.
Technically they could already do that via a Statutory Instrument or a short Act of Parliament which is how such things should be dealt with.
The problem ultimately comes back to people trying to use law fare to prevent/slow down development.
So we are now at the stage where building a train line takes 30 years.
Which means the reaction to it will be sweeping enough to smash things up, in the other direction.
With house building - I've been saying for years. Better getting the building started now, while you control it. Otherwise the constituency of people who want houses will get big enough, that the developers will get given carte blanche....
Railway lines have always been Acts of Parliament (it's quicker).
Interestingly, both matters (Begum and planning) come from a similar situation.
The lawyers for Mr Hooky (remember him) made it quite clear that they were trying to prevent deportation in any way possible. Indeed, a number of them were campaigners on that issue. Instead of the politicians sitting and staring at the majesty of the rulings, they set to work legislating. The laws under which Begum was deprived of citizenship came from that.
I actually pointed out at the time to some friends that this was the likely result - they took the view that somehow The Law would remain more powerful than politics.
I have never seen a bad law enacted which is then not abused by the powers that be.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Boris knows that his base (which skews very stupid) might remember the image of jolly Boris-in-his-police-beanie long after they have forgotten the systematic undermining of the criminal and justice systems by the Tories.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
The compare and contrast between England and Scotland has been stark. In Scotland the network provider has been providing very regular updates to people, has paid for hot food every day and provided feeding stations in the centre of affected towns / villages. In England I know several people who have had nothing and were told by the network operator to stop asking them for the updates they weren't getting.
Yep. Had a friend off 5 days. In a town of more than 13k population. No mobile signal. No information whatsoever. Luckily he had an open fire. It's not been much above freezing and is now nine days in. Scandalous really.
It would be much more efficient if it were in private hands........ Oh, wait.
Clearly there will be an inquiry into this. I heard somewhere last week that cutting back of trees/branches has been scaled back and it seems this might be a contributing factor? Echoes of the lack of dredging in the Somerset levels being implicated in flooding, and possible 'green' reasons for not doing so.
Greenery has been used on a number of occasions to not do maintenance.
Certainly, after the big flood during the coalition government, the minor streams and rivers around Abingdon got sorted out in a matter of weeks, after decades of people being threatened with legal action for attempting to clear them...
Rather than tree branches, it is rotten poles which haven't been replaced for decades due to cost which appears to be the major issue.
I'm surprised people are actually without power. Can't they be issued with a petrol generator? Would be noisy, but would allow the central heating to be run, and cooking
If I was threatened with being cut off for 7 days I'd definitely be getting one (if I didn't have one in the garage already). It isn't as if they aren't available next day delivery on Amazon.
Running the central heating pump off it might be tricky without doing something electrically dodgy but I doubt the power company could complain that much if you pulled their fuse given the circumstances.
The death toll from people running their own generators after US hurricanes is often quite high though.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Of the 15 countries judged to be more democratic than the UK (Economist Democracy Index 2020), 8 of them are constitutional monarchies, 7 of them are republics.
Both systems work. Don't cherry pick basket cases like USA just to suit your argument.
Most countries in the world are now republics, so percentage wise then constitutional monarchies are far more democratic than republics on those figures. Thanks for proving my point.
As long as a monarchy is a constitutional not an absolute monarchy it preserves democracy the best of any system
No, because you're lumping republics without democracy in with those that do. Nobody here is pushing for a republic and an end to democracy, any more than anyone is pushing for the restoration of absolute monarchy. If you're arguing in favour of monarchy, you don't really look to Saudi Arabia as your model.
Percentage wise there are more republics in the world headed by Presidents who are dictators effectively than there are monarchies headed by absolute monarchs
Goodness, sounds like we must support democracy whether republic or monarchy. Not sure whether you'll agree with me being as how you're a fan of Franco an all.
Franco did keep the Communists out of power in Spain. Spain also returned to democracy and constituional monarchy quicker than Russia did under the Communists as Franco broiught Juan Carlos back as King in his final years overseeing that transition back to democracy
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
It tends not to be taken by the teetotal and is rather synergistic with alcohol.
The classic upper/downer combination I suppose. I would propose that only teetotal non smokers who don't drink cafeinated drinks [EDIT: or ever take painkillers] should opine on illegal drug use. Everyone else who does so is just a hypocrite.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Brewers pay tax and their property is protected by the state. Drug manufactures and dealers have to protect their property themselves because what they do is proscribed by the state.
The difference between the two is... well, you tell me.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
It tends not to be taken by the teetotal and is rather synergistic with alcohol.
The classic upper/downer combination I suppose. I would propose that only teetotal non smokers who don't drink cafeinated drinks should opine on illegal drug use. Everyone else who does so is just a hypocrite.
Or eat chocolate or have nutmeg in their rice pudding.
Tea and chocolate are my drugs of choice these days - sometimes deployed in combination.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Of the 15 countries judged to be more democratic than the UK (Economist Democracy Index 2020), 8 of them are constitutional monarchies, 7 of them are republics.
Both systems work. Don't cherry pick basket cases like USA just to suit your argument.
Most countries in the world are now republics, so percentage wise then constitutional monarchies are far more democratic than republics on those figures. Thanks for proving my point.
As long as a monarchy is a constitutional not an absolute monarchy it preserves democracy the best of any system
No, because you're lumping republics without democracy in with those that do. Nobody here is pushing for a republic and an end to democracy, any more than anyone is pushing for the restoration of absolute monarchy. If you're arguing in favour of monarchy, you don't really look to Saudi Arabia as your model.
Percentage wise there are more republics in the world headed by Presidents who are dictators effectively than there are monarchies headed by absolute monarchs
Goodness, sounds like we must support democracy whether republic or monarchy. Not sure whether you'll agree with me being as how you're a fan of Franco an all.
Franco did keep the Communists out of power in Spain. Spain also returned to democracy and constituional monarchy quicker than Russia did under the Communists as Franco broiught Juan Carlos back as King in his final years overseeing that transition back to democracy
Twitter, tell me who you’d have supported in post-Weimar Germany without telling me who you’d have supported in post-Weimar Germany.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Of the 15 countries judged to be more democratic than the UK (Economist Democracy Index 2020), 8 of them are constitutional monarchies, 7 of them are republics.
Both systems work. Don't cherry pick basket cases like USA just to suit your argument.
Most countries in the world are now republics, so percentage wise then constitutional monarchies are far more democratic than republics on those figures. Thanks for proving my point.
As long as a monarchy is a constitutional not an absolute monarchy it preserves democracy the best of any system
No, because you're lumping republics without democracy in with those that do. Nobody here is pushing for a republic and an end to democracy, any more than anyone is pushing for the restoration of absolute monarchy. If you're arguing in favour of monarchy, you don't really look to Saudi Arabia as your model.
Percentage wise there are more republics in the world headed by Presidents who are dictators effectively than there are monarchies headed by absolute monarchs
Goodness, sounds like we must support democracy whether republic or monarchy. Not sure whether you'll agree with me being as how you're a fan of Franco an all.
Franco did keep the Communists out of power in Spain. Spain also returned to democracy and constituional monarchy quicker than Russia did under the Communists as Franco broiught Juan Carlos back as King in his final years overseeing that transition back to democracy
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
You've never heard of Al Capone etc?
It is the supply chain being illegal that leads to mass shootings. It did when brewing was illegal, it does when drugs are illegal.
The consistent element is prohibition, not the consumers.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
It seems Barra is an Irish boy's name, but you'd have thought they might have ruled it out on the Xi principle
There are a mix of Irish, British and Dutch names on the list of storm names because it's a collaboration of the Irish, Dutch and British meteorological agencies.
Sure, but everyone but the Dutch should surely have said Can't have that, it's an island.
They're names. Of course there will be other things with the same name, so nobody is being picked on by the coincidence of having a name that happens to sound like a letter in a differing alphabet.
The WHO should have simply made a list of the names of the heads of government of all its members and then drawn them at random. All fair and no harm done.
The Secret Barrister @BarristerSecret · 4m County lines cases often take 3-4 years to come to trial - if not longer - because @BorisJohnson has supported the defunding of the criminal justice system and still refuses to give it the resources it needs to function.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Did you read my post? The problems with the supply chain are almost entirely a consequence of its prohibition. If you look into non fair-trade coffee or chocolate, you are going to discover some grim realities, perhaps not violent crime, but some grim realities nevertheless.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
It seems Barra is an Irish boy's name, but you'd have thought they might have ruled it out on the Xi principle
There are a mix of Irish, British and Dutch names on the list of storm names because it's a collaboration of the Irish, Dutch and British meteorological agencies.
Sure, but everyone but the Dutch should surely have said Can't have that, it's an island.
They're names. Of course there will be other things with the same name, so nobody is being picked on by the coincidence of having a name that happens to sound like a letter in a differing alphabet.
The WHO should have simply made a list of the names of the heads of government of all its members and then drawn them at random. All fair and no harm done.
Doctor, doctor, i've got a sort of raab thingy on my johnson. Really not very priti. Don't think you should handle it without goves.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Not since 1920s Chicago, at least?
Indeed. A salutary lesson from a century ago, about the futility of prohibition.
The law should be toward drugs as a medical not legal issue, but MPs specifically need to be whiter than white on drugs. They make the bloody laws ! And probably some indeed are.
The Secret Barrister @BarristerSecret · 4m County lines cases often take 3-4 years to come to trial - if not longer - because @BorisJohnson has supported the defunding of the criminal justice system and still refuses to give it the resources it needs to function.
Smoke and mirrors.
The Tories are incredibly weak on crime.
Crime is up. Knife crime is up, significantly. Successful prosecution is well down.
Tory criminal justice policy is a crook’s charter.
But, hey, you can now be sentenced to five years for dog-napping.
The Secret Barrister @BarristerSecret · 4m County lines cases often take 3-4 years to come to trial - if not longer - because @BorisJohnson has supported the defunding of the criminal justice system and still refuses to give it the resources it needs to function.
Smoke and mirrors.
The Tories are incredibly weak on crime.
Crime is up. Knife crime is up, significantly. Successful prosecution is well down.
Tory criminal justice policy is a crook’s charter.
But, hey, you can now be sentenced to five years for dog-napping.
And, without wanting to go full BJO on SKS's ass, this is meant to be his chosen specialised subject. If he can't make it here, he can't make it anywhere.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Not since 1920s Chicago, at least?
Indeed. A salutary lesson from a century ago, about the futility of prohibition.
Just been reading an account of forensic scientists, especially chemists, in NYC during that era. Adulteration of illicit alcohol was a massive public health issue.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Not since 1920s Chicago, at least?
Indeed. A salutary lesson from a century ago, about the futility of prohibition.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
I was not proposing a strong Executive President. I had more in mind a President who was a figurehead, as in Ireland.
In which case the Irish President has the same powers as the UK monarch to dissolve Parliament but without the ceremony and name recognition we enjoy in our head of state
Yes. The difference is that President Higgins has democratic legitimacy, so it would be easier for him to use his powers.
The Queen has her powers in name only. She will not use them for fear of the consequences. She is a hand puppet head of state.
Rubbish, the Monarch is guardian against dictatorship as much as Higgins is.
If the PM refused to dissolve Parliament and call a general election then the monarch would do so themselves. The Queen most likely, King Charles IIIrd absolutely as he knows the powers he has as monarch and will use them if needed. King Charles will be a more interventionist monarch than his mother when required.
As for Higgins, he himself was originally a Labour member of the Dail. The fact the Irish President tends to have been a party politician means if the Taoiseach is a politician from the same party as the President, no guarantee the President would not refuse to dissolve the Dail to keep their party in power
No system can defend against enough people acting to overthrow it. Law is a created thing, rather than a thing itself.
The difference is that the Taoiseach and the President would both have to agree to set aside democracy. In Britain you would require one person less, because the Monarch is a hand puppet. The bar to the end of democracy is set lower.
FPTP also reduces the independence that MPs have from their leadership - it also acts to lower the bar to ending democracy.
The Secret Barrister @BarristerSecret · 4m County lines cases often take 3-4 years to come to trial - if not longer - because @BorisJohnson has supported the defunding of the criminal justice system and still refuses to give it the resources it needs to function.
Smoke and mirrors.
The Tories are incredibly weak on crime.
Crime is up. Knife crime is up, significantly. Successful prosecution is well down.
Tory criminal justice policy is a crook’s charter.
But, hey, you can now be sentenced to five years for dog-napping.
The law should be toward drugs as a medical not legal issue, but MPs specifically need to be whiter than white on drugs. They make the bloody laws ! And probably some indeed are.
Some of the lining in the seats in the Commons seem to have turned white rather than green.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
It seems Barra is an Irish boy's name, but you'd have thought they might have ruled it out on the Xi principle
There are a mix of Irish, British and Dutch names on the list of storm names because it's a collaboration of the Irish, Dutch and British meteorological agencies.
Sure, but everyone but the Dutch should surely have said Can't have that, it's an island.
They're names. Of course there will be other things with the same name, so nobody is being picked on by the coincidence of having a name that happens to sound like a letter in a differing alphabet.
The WHO should have simply made a list of the names of the heads of government of all its members and then drawn them at random. All fair and no harm done.
Doctor, doctor, i've got a sort of raab thingy on my johnson. Really not very priti. Don't think you should handle it without goves.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Not since 1920s Chicago, at least?
Indeed. A salutary lesson from a century ago, about the futility of prohibition.
Just been reading an account of forensic scientists, especially chemists, in NYC during that era. Adulteration of illicit alcohol was a massive public health issue.
Though the number of users of alcohol fell in the US during the prohibition era, those who still consumed it would have found it less safe and controlled by criminals
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
It seems Barra is an Irish boy's name, but you'd have thought they might have ruled it out on the Xi principle
There are a mix of Irish, British and Dutch names on the list of storm names because it's a collaboration of the Irish, Dutch and British meteorological agencies.
Sure, but everyone but the Dutch should surely have said Can't have that, it's an island.
They're names. Of course there will be other things with the same name, so nobody is being picked on by the coincidence of having a name that happens to sound like a letter in a differing alphabet.
The WHO should have simply made a list of the names of the heads of government of all its members and then drawn them at random. All fair and no harm done.
Doctor, doctor, i've got a sort of raab thingy on my johnson. Really not very priti. Don't think you should handle it without goves.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Not since 1920s Chicago, at least?
Indeed. A salutary lesson from a century ago, about the futility of prohibition.
Just been reading an account of forensic scientists, especially chemists, in NYC during that era. Adulteration of illicit alcohol was a massive public health issue.
Though the number of users of alcohol fell in the US during the prohibition era, those who still consumed it would have found it less safe and controlled by criminals
Any actual evidence that the number of users actually fell that significantly?
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Not since 1920s Chicago, at least?
Indeed. A salutary lesson from a century ago, about the futility of prohibition.
Just been reading an account of forensic scientists, especially chemists, in NYC during that era. Adulteration of illicit alcohol was a massive public health issue.
Though the number of users of alcohol fell in the US during the prohibition era, those who still consumed it would have found it less safe and controlled by criminals
How would they get stats? Just think about that a little.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
As a grandfather to three dual nationals I look forward to reading it.
I am looking forward to @Cyclefree's header on this subject. The fate of dual nationals has been very troubling. This, together with the denial of citizenship rights to the Windrush generation, has struck me as evidence of the worst kind of institutional racism against certain minorites, for which I personally (as an British person) feel very deeply ashamed.
If it's how it's currently written it's not just those with Dual Nationality - it's those with even the vaguest chance of a second passport.
Shamima Begum was the precedent, of course.
A wicked person, who ought to have been repatriated to this country for trial.
Instead, the government are ripping up basic liberties to please - who, precisely?
The more I think about it, the government are heading in to disaster regarding Judicial Review. I've been thinking about this specifically in terms of planning law.
Judicial Review is the backstop of the planning system - if a decision is wrong due to maladministration or corruption then it can go to the courts to be overturned. In the very recent case of the Westferry Print works, it turned out that the Secretary of State granted permission for the development overturning the Inspectors recommendation following some questionable encounters with the developer concerned, who was also a conservative party donor. This only really came to light because of the existence of Judicial Review.
They now seem to be trying to change the law to circumvent this process and make it meaningless; so it can nullify court decisions at will. In terms of planning decisions, that literally means that they just get the final say on everything without regard to any legal process. If you take that, plus their past suspicious dealings with developers, the preponderance of property developers amongst its donors, plus the current sleaze scandal; you can see that it is absolutely toxic.
The slightly sad thing is that the Patterson U turn suggests that they don't seem to even understand what they are doing. They just seem to be reckless and foolish.
Technically they could already do that via a Statutory Instrument or a short Act of Parliament which is how such things should be dealt with.
The problem ultimately comes back to people trying to use law fare to prevent/slow down development.
So we are now at the stage where building a train line takes 30 years.
Which means the reaction to it will be sweeping enough to smash things up, in the other direction.
With house building - I've been saying for years. Better getting the building started now, while you control it. Otherwise the constituency of people who want houses will get big enough, that the developers will get given carte blanche....
Railway lines have always been Acts of Parliament (it's quicker).
Interestingly, both matters (Begum and planning) come from a similar situation.
The lawyers for Mr Hooky (remember him) made it quite clear that they were trying to prevent deportation in any way possible. Indeed, a number of them were campaigners on that issue. Instead of the politicians sitting and staring at the majesty of the rulings, they set to work legislating. The laws under which Begum was deprived of citizenship came from that.
I actually pointed out at the time to some friends that this was the likely result - they took the view that somehow The Law would remain more powerful than politics.
I have never seen a bad law enacted which is then not abused by the powers that be.
My favourite example of such abuse was the Prevention of Terrorism Act - which, if the arrests under it are an indication, that the Provisional IRA was 99% black.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Not since 1920s Chicago, at least?
Indeed. A salutary lesson from a century ago, about the futility of prohibition.
Just been reading an account of forensic scientists, especially chemists, in NYC during that era. Adulteration of illicit alcohol was a massive public health issue.
Though the number of users of alcohol fell in the US during the prohibition era, those who still consumed it would have found it less safe and controlled by criminals
Any actual evidence that the number of users actually fell that significantly?
There was certainly a big shift from beer/wine to spirits.
The Secret Barrister @BarristerSecret · 4m County lines cases often take 3-4 years to come to trial - if not longer - because @BorisJohnson has supported the defunding of the criminal justice system and still refuses to give it the resources it needs to function.
Smoke and mirrors.
The Tories are incredibly weak on crime.
Crime is up. Knife crime is up, significantly. Successful prosecution is well down.
Tory criminal justice policy is a crook’s charter.
But, hey, you can now be sentenced to five years for dog-napping.
And, without wanting to go full BJO on SKS's ass, this is meant to be his chosen specialised subject. If he can't make it here, he can't make it anywhere.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Not since 1920s Chicago, at least?
Indeed. A salutary lesson from a century ago, about the futility of prohibition.
Just been reading an account of forensic scientists, especially chemists, in NYC during that era. Adulteration of illicit alcohol was a massive public health issue.
Though the number of users of alcohol fell in the US during the prohibition era, those who still consumed it would have found it less safe and controlled by criminals
Any actual evidence that the number of users actually fell that significantly?
Levels of liver disease fell. Probably a pretty good proxy.
The bizarre fantasies of the PB authoritarians are terrifying.
With such ignorance around, no wonder this futile 'war on drugs' has endured.
Boris is the one I feel most sorry for. We all know he's a natural libertarian - you cut him and he bleeds small government and freedom from pettifogging officialdom - yet he's having to do all this stuff to appeal to his voters. It must be tearing him apart inside.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
I was not proposing a strong Executive President. I had more in mind a President who was a figurehead, as in Ireland.
In which case the Irish President has the same powers as the UK monarch to dissolve Parliament but without the ceremony and name recognition we enjoy in our head of state
Yes. The difference is that President Higgins has democratic legitimacy, so it would be easier for him to use his powers.
The Queen has her powers in name only. She will not use them for fear of the consequences. She is a hand puppet head of state.
Rubbish, the Monarch is guardian against dictatorship as much as Higgins is.
If the PM refused to dissolve Parliament and call a general election then the monarch would do so themselves. The Queen most likely, King Charles IIIrd absolutely as he knows the powers he has as monarch and will use them if needed. King Charles will be a more interventionist monarch than his mother when required.
As for Higgins, he himself was originally a Labour member of the Dail. The fact the Irish President tends to have been a party politician means if the Taoiseach is a politician from the same party as the President, no guarantee the President would not refuse to dissolve the Dail to keep their party in power
No system can defend against enough people acting to overthrow it. Law is a created thing, rather than a thing itself.
The difference is that the Taoiseach and the President would both have to agree to set aside democracy. In Britain you would require one person less, because the Monarch is a hand puppet. The bar to the end of democracy is set lower.
FPTP also reduces the independence that MPs have from their leadership - it also acts to lower the bar to ending democracy.
Perfectly possible if the Taoiseach and President were of the same party they agree to refuse a general election. In the US too in 2024 if the GOP control the House and Senate they could legally object to and overturn the EC results to make Trump President.
The Monarch however being a non party politician will always stand firm against any PM who tries to keep power indefinitely without facing a general election or who refuses to leave office having lost an election.
That is why the only dictator we have ever had in the UK is Cromwell, who was also our only head of state in a republic. Since the English civil war constitutional monarchy has worked very well here
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
It seems Barra is an Irish boy's name, but you'd have thought they might have ruled it out on the Xi principle
There are a mix of Irish, British and Dutch names on the list of storm names because it's a collaboration of the Irish, Dutch and British meteorological agencies.
Sure, but everyone but the Dutch should surely have said Can't have that, it's an island.
They're names. Of course there will be other things with the same name, so nobody is being picked on by the coincidence of having a name that happens to sound like a letter in a differing alphabet.
The WHO should have simply made a list of the names of the heads of government of all its members and then drawn them at random. All fair and no harm done.
Doctor, doctor, i've got a sort of raab thingy on my johnson. Really not very priti. Don't think you should handle it without goves.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Not since 1920s Chicago, at least?
Indeed. A salutary lesson from a century ago, about the futility of prohibition.
Just been reading an account of forensic scientists, especially chemists, in NYC during that era. Adulteration of illicit alcohol was a massive public health issue.
Though the number of users of alcohol fell in the US during the prohibition era, those who still consumed it would have found it less safe and controlled by criminals
Adulteration was often due to enforcement action iirc.
Police seize alcohol Police adulterate alcohol as matter of policy Corrupt police resell adulterated alcohol back into supply chain.
My favourite example of such abuse was the Prevention of Terrorism Act - which, if the arrests under it are an indication, that the Provisional IRA was 99% black.
The Dangerous Dogs Act was also special, I have heard of occasions where Jack Russells were considered dangerous dogs.
But anything involving the RSPCA is also special, they are the Max Verstappens of the charity/animal care world.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
I was not proposing a strong Executive President. I had more in mind a President who was a figurehead, as in Ireland.
In which case the Irish President has the same powers as the UK monarch to dissolve Parliament but without the ceremony and name recognition we enjoy in our head of state
Yes. The difference is that President Higgins has democratic legitimacy, so it would be easier for him to use his powers.
The Queen has her powers in name only. She will not use them for fear of the consequences. She is a hand puppet head of state.
Rubbish, the Monarch is guardian against dictatorship as much as Higgins is.
If the PM refused to dissolve Parliament and call a general election then the monarch would do so themselves. The Queen most likely, King Charles IIIrd absolutely as he knows the powers he has as monarch and will use them if needed. King Charles will be a more interventionist monarch than his mother when required.
As for Higgins, he himself was originally a Labour member of the Dail. The fact the Irish President tends to have been a party politician means if the Taoiseach is a politician from the same party as the President, no guarantee the President would not refuse to dissolve the Dail to keep their party in power
No system can defend against enough people acting to overthrow it. Law is a created thing, rather than a thing itself.
The difference is that the Taoiseach and the President would both have to agree to set aside democracy. In Britain you would require one person less, because the Monarch is a hand puppet. The bar to the end of democracy is set lower.
FPTP also reduces the independence that MPs have from their leadership - it also acts to lower the bar to ending democracy.
Perfectly possible if the Taoiseach and President were of the same party they agree to refuse a general election. In the US too in 2024 if the GOP control the House and Senate they could legally object to and overturn the EC results to make Trump President.
The Monarch however being a non party politician will always stand firm against any PM who tries to keep power indefinitely without facing a general election or who refuses to leave office having lost an election.
That is why the only dictator we have ever had in the UK is Cromwell, who was also our only head of state in a republic
Ah hahahahahahaha. Oh god that's an all-time classic.
My favourite example of such abuse was the Prevention of Terrorism Act - which, if the arrests under it are an indication, that the Provisional IRA was 99% black.
The Dangerous Dogs Act was also special, I have heard of occasions where Jack Russells were considered dangerous dogs.
But anything involving the RSPCA is also special, they are the Max Verstappens of the charity/animal care world.
My favourite example of such abuse was the Prevention of Terrorism Act - which, if the arrests under it are an indication, that the Provisional IRA was 99% black.
The Dangerous Dogs Act was also special, I have heard of occasions where Jack Russells were considered dangerous dogs.
But anything involving the RSPCA is also special, they are the Max Verstappens of the charity/animal care world.
Jack Russells *are* dangerous dogs.
They are ankle biters but they aren't dangerous as per the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
It seems Barra is an Irish boy's name, but you'd have thought they might have ruled it out on the Xi principle
There are a mix of Irish, British and Dutch names on the list of storm names because it's a collaboration of the Irish, Dutch and British meteorological agencies.
Sure, but everyone but the Dutch should surely have said Can't have that, it's an island.
They're names. Of course there will be other things with the same name, so nobody is being picked on by the coincidence of having a name that happens to sound like a letter in a differing alphabet.
The WHO should have simply made a list of the names of the heads of government of all its members and then drawn them at random. All fair and no harm done.
Doctor, doctor, i've got a sort of raab thingy on my johnson. Really not very priti. Don't think you should handle it without goves.
What is Gove? Oh, Brady don't hurt me Don't hurt me No more
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
I failed my driving theory test first time around by 1 question. I got part way through the Highway Code, thought this is stupid and obvious, and tried to 'wing it' at the Test without bothering. One question different and I'd have gotten away with that.
But there were no questions on emissions, they were all driving related. That seems like a ludicrous question to ask.
Well you are an intelligent bloke and after a once-over of the syllabus winging it will get you there or thereabouts.
But if you are 17 and of no higher than average intelligence the theory test is a formidable challenge - it's an additional load of study on top the A Level study that he/she is already committed to.
The test has two components: theory test and hazard perception test.
The theory component has a pass mark of 43 out of 50 (86%).
The hazard perception test is 14 video clips where the candidate has to click to identify developing hazards. It is very tricky and somewhat arbitrary.
My daughter failed the theory part four times. Twice within 1 mark! On the fifth time she aced it at 94% but failed the test overall because she narrowly failed the hazard perception test (despite passing it on her four previous attempts). You have to pass BOTH components at the SAME TIME to pass the overall test.
It's a nightmare and every time she failed we would pick her up in tears with yet another dent in her self-esteem.
The pass mark is too high; and how on earth, say, a recent immigrant with perhaps imperfect English or anyone of low IQ would pass this test I simply don't know. They have turned a practical into a cerebral test. It is of course privatised and costs £23 a pop. And you cannot even apply for the proper driving test until you have passed the theory.
The bizarre fantasies of the PB authoritarians are terrifying.
With such ignorance around, no wonder this futile 'war on drugs' has endured.
Boris is the one I feel most sorry for. We all know he's a natural libertarian - you cut him and he bleeds small government and freedom from pettifogging officialdom - yet he's having to do all this stuff to appeal to his voters. It must be tearing him apart inside.
I think you've mistaken him for someone who has any principles. Anyway, this is the man who banned boozing on the tube, so I would take his libertarian instincts with a pinch of salt, or your white powder of choice.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
I failed my driving theory test first time around by 1 question. I got part way through the Highway Code, thought this is stupid and obvious, and tried to 'wing it' at the Test without bothering. One question different and I'd have gotten away with that.
But there were no questions on emissions, they were all driving related. That seems like a ludicrous question to ask.
Well you are an intelligent bloke and after a once-over of the syllabus winging it will get you there or thereabouts.
But if you are 17 and of no higher than average intelligence the theory test is a formidable challenge - it's an additional load of study on top the A Level study that he/she is already committed to.
The test has two components: theory test and hazard perception test.
The theory component has a pass mark of 43 out of 50 (86%).
The hazard perception test is 14 video clips where the candidate has to click to identify developing hazards. It is very tricky and somewhat arbitrary.
My daughter failed the theory part four times. Twice within 1 mark! On the fifth time she aced it at 94% but failed the test overall because she narrowly failed the hazard perception test (despite passing it on her four previous attempts). You have to pass BOTH components at the SAME TIME to pass the overall test.
It's a nightmare and every time she failed we would pick her up in tears with yet another dent in her self-esteem.
The pass mark is too high; and how on earth, say, a recent immigrant with perhaps imperfect English or anyone of low IQ would pass this test I simply don't know. They have turned a practical into a cerebral test. It is of course privatised and costs £23 a pop. And you cannot even apply for the proper driving test until you have passed the theory.
I just took a practice theory test. Scored a narrow pass. No question about emissions in there.
My favourite example of such abuse was the Prevention of Terrorism Act - which, if the arrests under it are an indication, that the Provisional IRA was 99% black.
The Dangerous Dogs Act was also special, I have heard of occasions where Jack Russells were considered dangerous dogs.
But anything involving the RSPCA is also special, they are the Max Verstappens of the charity/animal care world.
Jack Russells *are* dangerous dogs.
They are ankle biters but they aren't dangerous as per the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
Not since 1920s Chicago, at least?
Indeed. A salutary lesson from a century ago, about the futility of prohibition.
Just been reading an account of forensic scientists, especially chemists, in NYC during that era. Adulteration of illicit alcohol was a massive public health issue.
Though the number of users of alcohol fell in the US during the prohibition era, those who still consumed it would have found it less safe and controlled by criminals
Any actual evidence that the number of users actually fell that significantly?
At the beginning of the Prohibition era alcohol consumption in the US was just 30% what it had been before.
Fraudsters of the world, come to London. And bring your dirty money https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/04/murky-deals-with-corruptistan-fast-becoming-quintessentially-british ...Last week, a handful of MPs asked why the Conservatives were so peculiarly soft on this particular crime. In 2017, they promised a law that would compel the foreign owners of UK property to reveal their identities. (The willingness to allow private and state criminals to launder their wealth anonymously through the prime London property market was Radda’s main charge against Boris Johnson.) Nothing has been heard of this bold “anti-corruption strategy” since.
Likewise, the government has said it wants to stop Companies House being a crime scene where anyone can set up a firm without proof of identity or the most cursory checks. Even the Conservative party appeared to agree that it should not be harder to apply for a passport than to set up a shell company. But once again nothing happened.As for the recommendations in the Russia report on money laundering, they vanished as soon as they were made...
And while I’m at it, the Sunday Times had a piece on the grotesque display of the Prime Minister and his coterie paying mega bucks for them and their spouses to look good.
How on Earth is this legal? Boris Johnson isn’t the first PM to try this, but he is the first to get away with it. In 2010, David Cameron hired Andrew Parsons as No 10’s house photographer — and, after a storm of criticism for spending public money on a vanity project, was forced to get rid of him. Parsons was reputedly on a salary of about £40,000.
In January last year, Johnson rehired the very same photographer. There was no outcry, despite the fact that Parsons is now believed to be earning the equivalent of about £100,000. Emboldened, Johnson went on to recruit two more house snappers. Not to be outdone, Rishi Sunak has his own team, headed by the respected veteran Simon Walker.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
I failed my driving theory test first time around by 1 question. I got part way through the Highway Code, thought this is stupid and obvious, and tried to 'wing it' at the Test without bothering. One question different and I'd have gotten away with that.
But there were no questions on emissions, they were all driving related. That seems like a ludicrous question to ask.
Well you are an intelligent bloke and after a once-over of the syllabus winging it will get you there or thereabouts.
But if you are 17 and of no higher than average intelligence the theory test is a formidable challenge - it's an additional load of study on top the A Level study that he/she is already committed to.
The test has two components: theory test and hazard perception test.
The theory component has a pass mark of 43 out of 50 (86%).
The hazard perception test is 14 video clips where the candidate has to click to identify developing hazards. It is very tricky and somewhat arbitrary.
My daughter failed the theory part four times. Twice within 1 mark! On the fifth time she aced it at 94% but failed the test overall because she narrowly failed the hazard perception test (despite passing it on her four previous attempts). You have to pass BOTH components at the SAME TIME to pass the overall test.
It's a nightmare and every time she failed we would pick her up in tears with yet another dent in her self-esteem.
The pass mark is too high; and how on earth, say, a recent immigrant with perhaps imperfect English or anyone of low IQ would pass this test I simply don't know. They have turned a practical into a cerebral test. It is of course privatised and costs £23 a pop. And you cannot even apply for the proper driving test until you have passed the theory.
I just took a practice theory test. Scored a narrow pass. No question about emissions in there.
There is a question bank of, I think, 900 questions. The 50 questions that come up on the day are computer generated, randomly.
Below is the emissions question. this was just an example i gave there are other obscure questions as well.
R5L still on about "young people" and "peer pressure" regarding drugs. They've been endemic since the late eighties, and the young tend to abuse them less. They'll be rife in care homes in ten years. The media swallows this unthinkingly.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
I failed my driving theory test first time around by 1 question. I got part way through the Highway Code, thought this is stupid and obvious, and tried to 'wing it' at the Test without bothering. One question different and I'd have gotten away with that.
But there were no questions on emissions, they were all driving related. That seems like a ludicrous question to ask.
Well you are an intelligent bloke and after a once-over of the syllabus winging it will get you there or thereabouts.
But if you are 17 and of no higher than average intelligence the theory test is a formidable challenge - it's an additional load of study on top the A Level study that he/she is already committed to.
The test has two components: theory test and hazard perception test.
The theory component has a pass mark of 43 out of 50 (86%).
The hazard perception test is 14 video clips where the candidate has to click to identify developing hazards. It is very tricky and somewhat arbitrary.
My daughter failed the theory part four times. Twice within 1 mark! On the fifth time she aced it at 94% but failed the test overall because she narrowly failed the hazard perception test (despite passing it on her four previous attempts). You have to pass BOTH components at the SAME TIME to pass the overall test.
It's a nightmare and every time she failed we would pick her up in tears with yet another dent in her self-esteem.
The pass mark is too high; and how on earth, say, a recent immigrant with perhaps imperfect English or anyone of low IQ would pass this test I simply don't know. They have turned a practical into a cerebral test. It is of course privatised and costs £23 a pop. And you cannot even apply for the proper driving test until you have passed the theory.
I just took a practice theory test. Scored a narrow pass. No question about emissions in there.
There is a question bank of, I think, 900 questions. The 50 questions that come up on the day are computer generated, randomly.
Below is the emissions question. this was just an example i gave there are other obscure questions as well.
And while I’m at it, the Sunday Times had a piece on the grotesque display of the Prime Minister and his coterie paying mega bucks for them and their spouses to look good.
How on Earth is this legal? Boris Johnson isn’t the first PM to try this, but he is the first to get away with it. In 2010, David Cameron hired Andrew Parsons as No 10’s house photographer — and, after a storm of criticism for spending public money on a vanity project, was forced to get rid of him. Parsons was reputedly on a salary of about £40,000.
In January last year, Johnson rehired the very same photographer. There was no outcry, despite the fact that Parsons is now believed to be earning the equivalent of about £100,000. Emboldened, Johnson went on to recruit two more house snappers. Not to be outdone, Rishi Sunak has his own team, headed by the respected veteran Simon Walker.
There's no reason to think there is an actual law against it, apart from the law of conscience. It ought to be blooming obvious that you don't spend taxpayer money like this, it shouldn't have taken a storm of public criticism for Dave C to realise that.
(There's also the risk that the public might vote him out... snort... in three years time.)
But Johnson's attitude has always been that, unless there is an explicit law that will definitely explicitly punish him, he can do what he likes.
And if a law does explicitly restrain his actions... well, he's got an answer for that as well.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
No druggies, no demand, no supply chain.
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
That's because it's legal. Prohibition era US has got plenty of examples of violence in the bootlegging industry to protect territory and violence against police etc...
R5L still on about "young people" and "peer pressure" regarding drugs. They've been endemic since the late eighties, and the young tend to abuse them less. They'll be rife in care homes in ten years. The media swallows this unthinkingly.
Should I be proud of the fact that I've never drunk alcohol or taken drugs?
R5L still on about "young people" and "peer pressure" regarding drugs. They've been endemic since the late eighties, and the young tend to abuse them less. They'll be rife in care homes in ten years. The media swallows this unthinkingly.
Care homes can be a strange one. I heard recently about someone in a care home who insists upon smoking, because their dementia means they've forgotten that they'd quit smoking.
Facebook contributed to the 2017 genocide of Rohingya Muslims by allowing hate speech against the persecuted minority to be propagated in Myanmar, according to a legal action launched this morning in Britain and the United States.
Lawyers for victims of the genocide are demanding more than £150 billion in compensation in one the largest group claims for victims of a crime against humanity brought before a domestic court anywhere in the world.
They allege that Facebook’s algorithms promoted and amplified hate speech against the Rohingya, who live in the far west of Myanmar and are regarded with racist contempt by many among the majority Buddhist population.
They say that, despite admitting to shortcomings in its monitoring of anti-Rohingya content, Facebook failed to employ moderators capable of reading the Burmese or Rohingya languages or of understanding Myanmar’s fraught political landscape.
They accuse the company of failing to remove posts inciting violence or to shut down pages that propagated hate speech, despite repeated warnings since 2013 from human rights groups and media reports that such content was adding to the explosive situation in Rakhine state.
And while I’m at it, the Sunday Times had a piece on the grotesque display of the Prime Minister and his coterie paying mega bucks for them and their spouses to look good.
How on Earth is this legal? Boris Johnson isn’t the first PM to try this, but he is the first to get away with it. In 2010, David Cameron hired Andrew Parsons as No 10’s house photographer — and, after a storm of criticism for spending public money on a vanity project, was forced to get rid of him. Parsons was reputedly on a salary of about £40,000.
In January last year, Johnson rehired the very same photographer. There was no outcry, despite the fact that Parsons is now believed to be earning the equivalent of about £100,000. Emboldened, Johnson went on to recruit two more house snappers. Not to be outdone, Rishi Sunak has his own team, headed by the respected veteran Simon Walker.
There's no reason to think there is an actual law against it, apart from the law of conscience. It ought to be blooming obvious that you don't spend taxpayer money like this, it shouldn't have taken a storm of public criticism for Dave C to realise that.
(There's also the risk that the public might vote him out... snort... in three years time.)
But Johnson's attitude has always been that, unless there is an explicit law that will definitely explicitly punish him, he can do what he likes.
And if a law does explicitly restrain his actions... well, he's got an answer for that as well.
I didn’t think and don’t want a law against it per se, but I thought there were rules about who can and can’t get employed by the civil service.
The other thing about this story is that Cameron, rightly, was pilloried for it back in 2010.
Fast forward ten years and nobody cares.
Something happened to this country and/or it’s media in that time. Something not good for democratic propriety.
R5L still on about "young people" and "peer pressure" regarding drugs. They've been endemic since the late eighties, and the young tend to abuse them less. They'll be rife in care homes in ten years. The media swallows this unthinkingly.
Should I be proud of the fact that I've never drunk alcohol or taken drugs?
Or is it the result of me being a good Muslim?
IMHO no. I don't view anything good about it, and I don't respect any 'belief' system that is so proscriptive.
People who choose not to drink etc because of personal choice is fair enough, but trying to spread that belief onto others is in my view a bad thing.
And while I’m at it, the Sunday Times had a piece on the grotesque display of the Prime Minister and his coterie paying mega bucks for them and their spouses to look good.
How on Earth is this legal? Boris Johnson isn’t the first PM to try this, but he is the first to get away with it. In 2010, David Cameron hired Andrew Parsons as No 10’s house photographer — and, after a storm of criticism for spending public money on a vanity project, was forced to get rid of him. Parsons was reputedly on a salary of about £40,000.
In January last year, Johnson rehired the very same photographer. There was no outcry, despite the fact that Parsons is now believed to be earning the equivalent of about £100,000. Emboldened, Johnson went on to recruit two more house snappers. Not to be outdone, Rishi Sunak has his own team, headed by the respected veteran Simon Walker.
There's no reason to think there is an actual law against it, apart from the law of conscience. It ought to be blooming obvious that you don't spend taxpayer money like this, it shouldn't have taken a storm of public criticism for Dave C to realise that.
(There's also the risk that the public might vote him out... snort... in three years time.)
But Johnson's attitude has always been that, unless there is an explicit law that will definitely explicitly punish him, he can do what he likes.
And if a law does explicitly restrain his actions... well, he's got an answer for that as well.
I didn’t think and don’t want a law against it per se, but I thought there were rules about who can and can’t get employed by the civil service.
The other thing about this story is that Cameron, rightly, was pilloried for it back in 2010.
Fast forward ten years and nobody cares.
Something happened to this country and/or it’s media in that time. Something not good for democratic propriety.
Alternatively people look at pictures like this
And find it hard to believe that a photographer is being paid to make the PM look good in photos.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
I failed my driving theory test first time around by 1 question. I got part way through the Highway Code, thought this is stupid and obvious, and tried to 'wing it' at the Test without bothering. One question different and I'd have gotten away with that.
But there were no questions on emissions, they were all driving related. That seems like a ludicrous question to ask.
Well you are an intelligent bloke and after a once-over of the syllabus winging it will get you there or thereabouts.
But if you are 17 and of no higher than average intelligence the theory test is a formidable challenge - it's an additional load of study on top the A Level study that he/she is already committed to.
The test has two components: theory test and hazard perception test.
The theory component has a pass mark of 43 out of 50 (86%).
The hazard perception test is 14 video clips where the candidate has to click to identify developing hazards. It is very tricky and somewhat arbitrary.
My daughter failed the theory part four times. Twice within 1 mark! On the fifth time she aced it at 94% but failed the test overall because she narrowly failed the hazard perception test (despite passing it on her four previous attempts). You have to pass BOTH components at the SAME TIME to pass the overall test.
It's a nightmare and every time she failed we would pick her up in tears with yet another dent in her self-esteem.
The pass mark is too high; and how on earth, say, a recent immigrant with perhaps imperfect English or anyone of low IQ would pass this test I simply don't know. They have turned a practical into a cerebral test. It is of course privatised and costs £23 a pop. And you cannot even apply for the proper driving test until you have passed the theory.
I just took a practice theory test. Scored a narrow pass. No question about emissions in there.
There is a question bank of, I think, 900 questions. The 50 questions that come up on the day are computer generated, randomly.
Below is the emissions question. this was just an example i gave there are other obscure questions as well.
And while I’m at it, the Sunday Times had a piece on the grotesque display of the Prime Minister and his coterie paying mega bucks for them and their spouses to look good.
How on Earth is this legal? Boris Johnson isn’t the first PM to try this, but he is the first to get away with it. In 2010, David Cameron hired Andrew Parsons as No 10’s house photographer — and, after a storm of criticism for spending public money on a vanity project, was forced to get rid of him. Parsons was reputedly on a salary of about £40,000.
In January last year, Johnson rehired the very same photographer. There was no outcry, despite the fact that Parsons is now believed to be earning the equivalent of about £100,000. Emboldened, Johnson went on to recruit two more house snappers. Not to be outdone, Rishi Sunak has his own team, headed by the respected veteran Simon Walker.
There's no reason to think there is an actual law against it, apart from the law of conscience. It ought to be blooming obvious that you don't spend taxpayer money like this, it shouldn't have taken a storm of public criticism for Dave C to realise that.
(There's also the risk that the public might vote him out... snort... in three years time.)
But Johnson's attitude has always been that, unless there is an explicit law that will definitely explicitly punish him, he can do what he likes.
And if a law does explicitly restrain his actions... well, he's got an answer for that as well.
I didn’t think and don’t want a law against it per se, but I thought there were rules about who can and can’t get employed by the civil service.
The other thing about this story is that Cameron, rightly, was pilloried for it back in 2010.
Fast forward ten years and nobody cares.
Something happened to this country and/or it’s media in that time. Something not good for democratic propriety.
Alternatively people look at pictures like this
And find it hard to believe that a photographer is being paid to make the PM look good in photos.
Maybe that is Bozza after he's had the "look good" makeover.
And while I’m at it, the Sunday Times had a piece on the grotesque display of the Prime Minister and his coterie paying mega bucks for them and their spouses to look good.
How on Earth is this legal? Boris Johnson isn’t the first PM to try this, but he is the first to get away with it. In 2010, David Cameron hired Andrew Parsons as No 10’s house photographer — and, after a storm of criticism for spending public money on a vanity project, was forced to get rid of him. Parsons was reputedly on a salary of about £40,000.
In January last year, Johnson rehired the very same photographer. There was no outcry, despite the fact that Parsons is now believed to be earning the equivalent of about £100,000. Emboldened, Johnson went on to recruit two more house snappers. Not to be outdone, Rishi Sunak has his own team, headed by the respected veteran Simon Walker.
There's no reason to think there is an actual law against it, apart from the law of conscience. It ought to be blooming obvious that you don't spend taxpayer money like this, it shouldn't have taken a storm of public criticism for Dave C to realise that.
(There's also the risk that the public might vote him out... snort... in three years time.)
But Johnson's attitude has always been that, unless there is an explicit law that will definitely explicitly punish him, he can do what he likes.
And if a law does explicitly restrain his actions... well, he's got an answer for that as well.
I didn’t think and don’t want a law against it per se, but I thought there were rules about who can and can’t get employed by the civil service.
The other thing about this story is that Cameron, rightly, was pilloried for it back in 2010.
Fast forward ten years and nobody cares.
Something happened to this country and/or it’s media in that time. Something not good for democratic propriety.
Alternatively people look at pictures like this
And find it hard to believe that a photographer is being paid to make the PM look good in photos.
The photographers are being used to present the picture the PM etc want you to see. Boris has never minded looking like a fat, disheveled clown. Indeed he seems to get off on it.
This is happening at the same time that press photographers are being excluded from various “public” appearances.
R5L still on about "young people" and "peer pressure" regarding drugs. They've been endemic since the late eighties, and the young tend to abuse them less. They'll be rife in care homes in ten years. The media swallows this unthinkingly.
Should I be proud of the fact that I've never drunk alcohol or taken drugs?
Or is it the result of me being a good Muslim?
IMHO no. I don't view anything good about it, and I don't respect any 'belief' system that is so proscriptive.
People who choose not to drink etc because of personal choice is fair enough, but trying to spread that belief onto others is in my view a bad thing.
Religion really didn't have anything to do with it.
I arrived at university a good Muslim but choosing not to drink at university was more to do with my pathological obsession with getting the best grades.
Straight out of university I jumped into a job where 100 hour weeks weren't mandatory but not far off, I didn't have time for alcohol.
Five years later, I took a job in Leeds, bought a place in North Yorkshire that made it 125 daily commute, and ended up with a girlfriend who lived in Liverpool, so I didn't want to risk a drink driving convictions.
As for drugs, you can thank Trainspotting and the death of the likes of Leah Betts for putting me off drugs. About the first month at university there was a report that 60% of the drugs sold were actually things like horse tranquilisers.
As a proud Yorkshireman, I wasn't going to pay lots of money for fake stuff.
R5L still on about "young people" and "peer pressure" regarding drugs. They've been endemic since the late eighties, and the young tend to abuse them less. They'll be rife in care homes in ten years. The media swallows this unthinkingly.
Should I be proud of the fact that I've never drunk alcohol or taken drugs?
Or is it the result of me being a good Muslim?
You have never eaten chocolate, drunk tea or coffee or taken headache pills?
R5L still on about "young people" and "peer pressure" regarding drugs. They've been endemic since the late eighties, and the young tend to abuse them less. They'll be rife in care homes in ten years. The media swallows this unthinkingly.
Should I be proud of the fact that I've never drunk alcohol or taken drugs?
Or is it the result of me being a good Muslim?
You have never eaten chocolate, drunk tea or coffee or taken headache pills?
What an extraordinary life you must have led.
I've drunk maybe half a cup of tea when I was 5 and didn't like it. Tried one cup of coffee when I was 19, same result.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59545490
I do hope he hasn't ever said anything racist..
Not sure whether you'll agree with me being as how you're a fan of Franco an all.
The lawyers for Mr Hooky (remember him) made it quite clear that they were trying to prevent deportation in any way possible. Indeed, a number of them were campaigners on that issue. Instead of the politicians sitting and staring at the majesty of the rulings, they set to work legislating. The laws under which Begum was deprived of citizenship came from that.
I actually pointed out at the time to some friends that this was the likely result - they took the view that somehow The Law would remain more powerful than politics.
If the PM refused to dissolve Parliament and call a general election then the monarch would do so themselves. The Queen most likely, King Charles IIIrd absolutely as he knows the powers he has as monarch and will use them if needed. King Charles will be a more interventionist monarch than his mother when required.
As for Higgins, he himself was originally a Labour member of the Dail. The fact the Irish President tends to have been a party politician means if the Taoiseach is a politician from the same party as the President, no guarantee the President would not refuse to dissolve the Dail to keep their party in power
I don't hear about too many mass shootings in the brewing industry.
About a cat with several households. No connection to the current PM, of course.
Running the central heating pump off it might be tricky without doing something electrically dodgy but I doubt the power company could complain that much if you pulled their fuse given the circumstances.
The death toll from people running their own generators after US hurricanes is often quite high though.
Drug manufactures and dealers have to protect their property themselves because what they do is proscribed by the state.
The difference between the two is... well, you tell me.
It is the supply chain being illegal that leads to mass shootings. It did when brewing was illegal, it does when drugs are illegal.
The consistent element is prohibition, not the consumers.
The WHO should have simply made a list of the names of the heads of government of all its members and then drawn them at random. All fair and no harm done.
The Secret Barrister
@BarristerSecret
·
4m
County lines cases often take 3-4 years to come to trial - if not longer - because
@BorisJohnson
has supported the defunding of the criminal justice system and still refuses to give it the resources it needs to function.
Smoke and mirrors.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-50655693
And probably some indeed are.
With such ignorance around, no wonder this futile 'war on drugs' has endured.
Crime is up.
Knife crime is up, significantly.
Successful prosecution is well down.
Tory criminal justice policy is a crook’s charter.
But, hey, you can now be sentenced to five years for dog-napping.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2021/12/103_320030.html
The difference is that the Taoiseach and the President would both have to agree to set aside democracy. In Britain you would require one person less, because the Monarch is a hand puppet. The bar to the end of democracy is set lower.
FPTP also reduces the independence that MPs have from their leadership - it also acts to lower the bar to ending democracy.
Re-education sessions for you.
The Monarch however being a non party politician will always stand firm against any PM who tries to keep power indefinitely without facing a general election or who refuses to leave office having lost an election.
That is why the only dictator we have ever had in the UK is Cromwell, who was also our only head of state in a republic. Since the English civil war constitutional monarchy has worked very well here
Police seize alcohol
Police adulterate alcohol as matter of policy
Corrupt police resell adulterated alcohol back into supply chain.
But anything involving the RSPCA is also special, they are the Max Verstappens of the charity/animal care world.
Oh, Brady don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
But if you are 17 and of no higher than average intelligence the theory test is a formidable challenge - it's an additional load of study on top the A Level study that he/she is already committed to.
The test has two components: theory test and hazard perception test.
The theory component has a pass mark of 43 out of 50 (86%).
The hazard perception test is 14 video clips where the candidate has to click to identify developing hazards. It is very tricky and somewhat arbitrary.
My daughter failed the theory part four times. Twice within 1 mark! On the fifth time she aced it at 94% but failed the test overall because she narrowly failed the hazard perception test (despite passing it on her four previous attempts). You have to pass BOTH components at the SAME TIME to pass the overall test.
It's a nightmare and every time she failed we would pick her up in tears with yet another dent in her self-esteem.
The pass mark is too high; and how on earth, say, a recent immigrant with perhaps imperfect English or anyone of low IQ would pass this test I simply don't know. They have turned a practical into a cerebral test. It is of course privatised and costs £23 a pop. And you cannot even apply for the proper driving test until you have passed the theory.
Anyway, this is the man who banned boozing on the tube, so I would take his libertarian instincts with a pinch of salt, or your white powder of choice.
No question about emissions in there.
Bred to kill foxes twice their size, underground.
and
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/09/baby-died-bitten-jack-russell
Even though over time it increased to 60-70% of what it had been before, when Prohibition ended more people consumed alcohol again than had done so when alcohol was illegal
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf
Fraudsters of the world, come to London. And bring your dirty money
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/04/murky-deals-with-corruptistan-fast-becoming-quintessentially-british
...Last week, a handful of MPs asked why the Conservatives were so peculiarly soft on this particular crime. In 2017, they promised a law that would compel the foreign owners of UK property to reveal their identities. (The willingness to allow private and state criminals to launder their wealth anonymously through the prime London property market was Radda’s main charge against Boris Johnson.) Nothing has been heard of this bold “anti-corruption strategy” since.
Likewise, the government has said it wants to stop Companies House being a crime scene where anyone can set up a firm without proof of identity or the most cursory checks. Even the Conservative party appeared to agree that it should not be harder to apply for a passport than to set up a shell company. But once again nothing happened.As for the recommendations in the Russia report on money laundering, they vanished as soon as they were made...
Meanwhile, it's just possible that the US is actually doing something.
https://twitter.com/JoshRudes/status/1467256886634463237
The Prime Minister attended a drugs raid with @MerseyPolice today, where he saw first-hand the work going on to stop the scourge of drugs.
We're putting £300 million into tackling the ruthless gangs that are behind this trade and who target the most vulnerable
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1467820194571722754?s=20
How on Earth is this legal?
Boris Johnson isn’t the first PM to try this, but he is the first to get away with it. In 2010, David Cameron hired Andrew Parsons as No 10’s house photographer — and, after a storm of criticism for spending public money on a vanity project, was forced to get rid of him. Parsons was reputedly on a salary of about £40,000.
In January last year, Johnson rehired the very same photographer. There was no outcry, despite the fact that Parsons is now believed to be earning the equivalent of about £100,000. Emboldened, Johnson went on to recruit two more house snappers. Not to be outdone, Rishi Sunak has his own team, headed by the respected veteran Simon Walker.
Below is the emissions question. this was just an example i gave there are other obscure questions as well.
https://theorytest.org.uk/what-percentage-of-all-emissions-does-road-transport-account-for/
There is no human judgement in play. get 43/50 and you pass. Get 42/50 ten times and you fail. Pass theory but fail hazard perception - still fail.
They've been endemic since the late eighties, and the young tend to abuse them less.
They'll be rife in care homes in ten years.
The media swallows this unthinkingly.
I got 42/50 first time around when I hadn't bothered to read the Highway Code before the Test. There was no hazard perception then (21 years ago).
(There's also the risk that the public might vote him out... snort... in three years time.)
But Johnson's attitude has always been that, unless there is an explicit law that will definitely explicitly punish him, he can do what he likes.
And if a law does explicitly restrain his actions... well, he's got an answer for that as well.
Or is it the result of me being a good Muslim?
Facebook contributed to the 2017 genocide of Rohingya Muslims by allowing hate speech against the persecuted minority to be propagated in Myanmar, according to a legal action launched this morning in Britain and the United States.
Lawyers for victims of the genocide are demanding more than £150 billion in compensation in one the largest group claims for victims of a crime against humanity brought before a domestic court anywhere in the world.
They allege that Facebook’s algorithms promoted and amplified hate speech against the Rohingya, who live in the far west of Myanmar and are regarded with racist contempt by many among the majority Buddhist population.
They say that, despite admitting to shortcomings in its monitoring of anti-Rohingya content, Facebook failed to employ moderators capable of reading the Burmese or Rohingya languages or of understanding Myanmar’s fraught political landscape.
They accuse the company of failing to remove posts inciting violence or to shut down pages that propagated hate speech, despite repeated warnings since 2013 from human rights groups and media reports that such content was adding to the explosive situation in Rakhine state.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/your-profit-fuelled-genocide-rohingya-sue-facebook-for-150bn-qdnm9j223
The other thing about this story is that Cameron, rightly, was pilloried for it back in 2010.
Fast forward ten years and nobody cares.
Something happened to this country and/or it’s media in that time. Something not good for democratic propriety.
People who choose not to drink etc because of personal choice is fair enough, but trying to spread that belief onto others is in my view a bad thing.
And find it hard to believe that a photographer is being paid to make the PM look good in photos.
Until significant numbers of people can't pass, it will get harder and harder.
This is happening at the same time that press photographers are being excluded from various “public” appearances.
I arrived at university a good Muslim but choosing not to drink at university was more to do with my pathological obsession with getting the best grades.
Straight out of university I jumped into a job where 100 hour weeks weren't mandatory but not far off, I didn't have time for alcohol.
Five years later, I took a job in Leeds, bought a place in North Yorkshire that made it 125 daily commute, and ended up with a girlfriend who lived in Liverpool, so I didn't want to risk a drink driving convictions.
As for drugs, you can thank Trainspotting and the death of the likes of Leah Betts for putting me off drugs. About the first month at university there was a report that 60% of the drugs sold were actually things like horse tranquilisers.
As a proud Yorkshireman, I wasn't going to pay lots of money for fake stuff.
What an extraordinary life you must have led.