The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
I think China will be very satisfied with the situation. Its making them look like the adults in the room, it's giving them a desperate trading partner to sell them lots of cheap gas, and buy lots of manufactured goods, it's weakening a potential future geopolitical rival.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Russia can't suddenly replace the EU with China as a market for its gas because there's only one (pretty small) pipe in existence today. They're planning a second, but it would still only be half the capacity of the original Nord Stream, and is due to be ready in 2028 (so probably more like 2030).
So, the idea that Russia can turn on a dime, and switch gas exports to China is for the birds.
Yes.
Isn't the capacity of the existing China pipeline about 10% of the European ones?
Unless, I guess, Russia or China has a large fleet of LNG carriers to hand, and relevant terminal.
Russia has two LNG export terminals: Sakhalin-2, which can only export gas from Sakhalin, as that's an island. And Yamal LNG, which can export 16.5m tonnes of LNG (in theory) when trains two and three come on stream (and about 6m tonnes today).
But - in more weird timing fuckups - I don't believe the third train is operational yet. And without the help of their GC, I don't believe the Russians will be able to bring it on stream. So, Russia will be unable to export as much gas from there as they would have been if they had waited two or three months.
Russia also needs Russian tankers and access to ports where they can unload. Increasingly becoming difficult.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
How many non-kleptocrat Russian billionaires are there in the world? But in case there are, you'd outlaw being a kleptocrat.
But anyway the proposed law purely speeds things up. The government is saying: we are going after people on [existing] grounds xyz but it will take weeks or months to ensure we are on strong ground. So the law just says you can confiscate assets on exactly those xyz grounds, but immediately, and if we are wrong you can get them back but without additional compensation because, sorry, there's a war on. No substantive difference.
If ever there was an example of grade inflation it's Gavin Williamson being given a knighthood.
It's quite heartening to live in a country people who have the goods on high ups are rewarded with a knighthood not a pair of concrete clogs and a boat ride.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
I’m a few beers in and maybe being stupid but I’m split on the whole confiscation/quick bill sotuation.
The other day when I was pissed off I was for a “freeze now and ask questions later” on Russian passport holders with assets in the UK.
The other side of I’m over thinking it a bit is the old Jurassic Park conundrum: “we spent so long asking if we could do it we never asked if we should”.
British property laws are very strong and an attraction to bad money and good. It’s not all Oligarchs and friends of Epstein.
Do we want to weaken this for one situation? Does this become a classic case of “hard cases make bad law”.
As a bit of reductio ad absurdum (or maybe not scarily) if by some crazy situation we got a Faragist government who then decided to confiscate assets of EU citizens because they viewed the EU as a higher power (or something stupid like that) and just introduced a bill because they could then we would be outraged I hope.
Again if Trump returns and confiscated assets of registered democrats as they are “trying to damage the glorious land of Trump” then we would be calling him all sorts of names.
Whilst sanctioning oligarchs and stripping them of their gilded lifestyle might help stop the horrors in Ukraine there are potentially huge unintended consequences and frankly the last lot I would like making the law up and making sure it wasn’t abused in the future would be Boris and Priti and Raab etc.
I think the threat of sanctions and asset stripping, the inconvenience and difficulty of moving assets are a big concern to many oligarchs and there is an outside chance that they act before they get buggered rather than wait - it’s too late for Usmanov and co as they have less to lose now but you see the effect on Abramovich when he’s not even sanctioned yet……
I am most likely horribly wrong though and shall put on my tin hat (sent from Germany no less).
What precisely is mean by the 'rule of law' is an interesting question. Lord Bingham's book of that name is a short, good read. As a starter for discussion he sets out a number of principles contributing to it. I find 4 particualrly important.
The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable;
Quetions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion;
The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation;
Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purposes for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably;
The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights;
Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve;
Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair;
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law
I wonder when any society will get close to managing all 8 concurrently.....
I don't wonder - the answer is never.
But not managing to be perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to attain it at least of course.
But what I don't see in that list is anything distinctively UK
I don't know why that would have even come up in this discussion.
Bingham's book has a chapter discussing the debate some have about whether the concepts of rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty, both regarded as key aspects of our constitutional settlement, are in fact in conflict with one another. One of his conclusions I find pretty persuasive
We live in a society dedicated to the rule of law; in which Parliament has power, subject to limited, self-imposed restraints, to legislate as it wishes; in which Parliament may therefore legislate in a way which infringes the rule of law; and in which the judges, consistently with their constitutional duty to administer justice in accordance the laws and usages of the realm, cannot fail to give effect to such legislation if it is clearly and unambiguously expressed
and he goes on to talk about this being so the extent to which this may be considered a vice of the system, or if people argue in practice the system contrains matters and whether the ability to restrain acting in such a way is unbalanced and therefore in need of addressing.
Not being a constituional scholar I thought the general maxim was that there is very little Parliament could not do, if it chose, though a great many things it very much should not.
Looking at the intensity of the bombing of Ukraine, you wonder if it is best to just let Russia have its 'victory'. Then begin an insurgency with western arms; whilst Russia remains completely cut off from the rest of the world. That would presumably skip over the destruction of its cities and the loss of a huge amount of lives.
I must admit, similar thoughts occurred to me. Of course Ukraine would still suffer terribly for some time, as the subjugated colony of a bankrupt state.
A defeat at home to Boreham Wood would put the top hat on this week.
Why does the football team have a space in it while the town does not, I wonder? Wikipedia doesn't say. It does say, however, that the team was formed in 1948 by a merger between Boreham Wood Rovers and Royal Retournez. I can't help feeling they chose the least interesting of the team name options.
History of Snake Island is very interesting, a hundred years ago international Community considered it Rumanian. But its when you get back into the ancient period it has lots of history for such small thing. Because it’s white Romans called it Alba, similar to how they called Britain Albion. Apparently the snakes on it too were white, but Snake Island only recently the popular name for it.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
hmmm, steward's enquiry for knowing what it's called and having the Eszett immediately to hand.
I use the Eszett out of habit when sending papers to German academics - when writing Strasse and so on. Didn't know this was ideologically unsound.
I have 7 keyboards to hand as I use snippets of various languages quite a lot.
Currently: Swedish, English, French, Italian, Norwegian, Castilian and German. Makes it dead easy to russle up an Eszett eller dylikt.
It seems the Iranian leadership have the same version of Tourette's that causes Russian leaders to squeal 'NAZI' about people they don't like. Except for them it's 'SATAN'.
It seems the Iranian leadership have the same version of Tourette's that causes Russian leaders to squeal 'NAZI' about people they don't like. Except for them it's 'SATAN'.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
What are you proposing outside existing law?
Reverse the burden of proof, limit compensation in case the govt gets it wrong to the return of the actual assets. Which menas we can do things now and not in about the 3rd week of May.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
hmmm, steward's enquiry for knowing what it's called and having the Eszett immediately to hand.
I use the Eszett out of habit when sending papers to German academics - when writing Strasse and so on. Didn't know this was ideologically unsound.
I have 7 keyboards to hand as I use snippets of various languages quite a lot.
Currently: Swedish, English, French, Italian, Norwegian, Castilian and German. Makes it dead easy to russle up an Eszett eller dylikt.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
hmmm, steward's enquiry for knowing what it's called and having the Eszett immediately to hand.
I use the Eszett out of habit when sending papers to German academics - when writing Strasse and so on. Didn't know this was ideologically unsound.
I have 7 keyboards to hand as I use snippets of various languages quite a lot.
Currently: Swedish, English, French, Italian, Norwegian, Castilian and German. Makes it dead easy to russle up an Eszett eller dylikt.
I'm actually wondering if there is confusion somewhere (not by you!) with that dinky double lightning rune key that many German typewriters of the NS-Zeit had. Not something to be found on Word today, I assume, though I've never looked.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Even when it isn't there? Would a Labour Government in the UK be Nazi because the BNP existed? Is the Scholz Government in Germany Nazi because there are neo Nazis there? That is effectively the argument being made by Russia towards Ukraine. Some Nazis exist in your country (in a war zone caused by Russia in the first place where Ukrainian rule is difficult if not impossible to impose) and so the whole Government is Nazi.
You are misunderstanding me. Hopefully not wilfully.
No genuinely not. I was simply reacting to your very last sentence and clearly misunderstood what you were driving at. Godwin should not be dumped. It is an important shorthand for the unreasonable smearing of someone simply because we disagree with their point of view or actions. Of course there are Nazis in the world sadly. And they come from both extremes of the modern political spectrum. But they are certainly not in Government in Ukraine. So Putin's attacks are the ultimate Godwin.
Seriously weird now, Russians are driving 250km into Ukraine with weaponry needed for the fight (AA stuff in this case), then just abandoning it (or are they defecting to the west)? Also at $16m a pop when new, that's not a cheap fire.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
It seems the Iranian leadership have the same version of Tourette's that causes Russian leaders to squeal 'NAZI' about people they don't like. Except for them it's 'SATAN'.
Is Ahmadinejad still "the Iranian leadership"?
Not anymore, as far as I'm aware. But my point still stands.
The Russians have had thousands of casualties so far. They will need to take thousands more to succeed. Disillusioned soldiers, grieving mothers, a financial apocalypse and an unpopular war. A potent cocktail for Putin to have to drink.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
hmmm, steward's enquiry for knowing what it's called and having the Eszett immediately to hand.
It may be the only thing I’ll end up getting from Duolingo, but finding out the shortcut for accents etc will have made it worthwhile. Feel a bit dumb not knowing it already tbh.
A defeat at home to Boreham Wood would put the top hat on this week.
Why does the football team have a space in it while the town does not, I wonder? Wikipedia doesn't say. It does say, however, that the team was formed in 1948 by a merger between Boreham Wood Rovers and Royal Retournez. I can't help feeling they chose the least interesting of the team name options.
Looks like historically it was also known as Boreham Wood. I guess it's a bit like Haringey, Harringay and Hornsea.
Seriously weird now, Russians are driving 250km into Ukraine with weaponry needed for the fight (AA stuff in this case), then just abandoning it (or are they defecting to the west)? Also at $16m a pop when new, that's not a cheap fire.
Looking at the intensity of the bombing of Ukraine, you wonder if it is best to just let Russia have its 'victory'. Then begin an insurgency with western arms; whilst Russia remains completely cut off from the rest of the world. That would presumably skip over the destruction of its cities and the loss of a huge amount of lives.
I must admit, similar thoughts occurred to me. Of course Ukraine would still suffer terribly for some time, as the subjugated colony of a bankrupt state.
Not quite. It is a different strategy to giving up. The Russian government would be trying to impose martial law on Ukraine with no consent from the 40 million population; at the same time as they are apparently trying to impose martial law on the rest of Russia, whilst being completely cut off from the rest of the world. Both countries would potentially descend in to chaos and anarchy, which may well hasten the end of Putin's regime.
What precisely is mean by the 'rule of law' is an interesting question. Lord Bingham's book of that name is a short, good read. As a starter for discussion he sets out a number of principles contributing to it. I find 4 particualrly important.
The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable;
Quetions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion;
The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation;
Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purposes for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably;
The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights;
Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve;
Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair;
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law
I wonder when any society will get close to managing all 8 concurrently.....
I don't wonder - the answer is never.
But not managing to be perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to attain it at least of course.
But what I don't see in that list is anything distinctively UK
I don't know why that would have even come up in this discussion.
Bingham's book has a chapter discussing the debate some have about whether the concepts of rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty, both regarded as key aspects of our constitutional settlement, are in fact in conflict with one another. One of his conclusions I find pretty persuasive
We live in a society dedicated to the rule of law; in which Parliament has power, subject to limited, self-imposed restraints, to legislate as it wishes; in which Parliament may therefore legislate in a way which infringes the rule of law; and in which the judges, consistently with their constitutional duty to administer justice in accordance the laws and usages of the realm, cannot fail to give effect to such legislation if it is clearly and unambiguously expressed
and he goes on to talk about this being so the extent to which this may be considered a vice of the system, or if people argue in practice the system contrains matters and whether the ability to restrain acting in such a way is unbalanced and therefore in need of addressing.
Not being a constituional scholar I thought the general maxim was that there is very little Parliament could not do, if it chose, though a great many things it very much should not.
It comes up because Phil is specifically banging on about how the rule of law is why we can't confiscate yachts but foreigners can
Bingham as quoted is quite right, we have one individual who is quite expressly not subject to the civil nor criminal law at all, and literally no restrictions on what parliament can validly pass into law. There is nothing in the constitution to invalidate a law for the extermination of jews. There probably should be.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Even when it isn't there? Would a Labour Government in the UK be Nazi because the BNP existed? Is the Scholz Government in Germany Nazi because there are neo Nazis there? That is effectively the argument being made by Russia towards Ukraine. Some Nazis exist in your country (in a war zone caused by Russia in the first place where Ukrainian rule is difficult if not impossible to impose) and so the whole Government is Nazi.
You are misunderstanding me. Hopefully not wilfully.
No genuinely not. I was simply reacting to your very last sentence and clearly misunderstood what you were driving at. Godwin should not be dumped. It is an important shorthand for the unreasonable smearing of someone simply because we disagree with their point of view or actions. Of course there are Nazis in the world sadly. And they come from both extremes of the modern political spectrum. But they are certainly not in Government in Ukraine. So Putin's attacks are the ultimate Godwin.
They are a feature of the country though. But clearly not in power (especially given that Zelensky is Jewish). Its a bit like someone invading Britain on a crusade to rid us of the Lib Dems.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
Just the very rich ones.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
Lukoil and Gazprom websites both seem to be unavailable. Is that something the West has done, the companies have done, or the Russian government or hackers?
It seems the Iranian leadership have the same version of Tourette's that causes Russian leaders to squeal 'NAZI' about people they don't like. Except for them it's 'SATAN'.
He's not a member of the Iranian leadership and hasn't been for a very long time.
History of Snake Island is very interesting, a hundred years ago international Community considered it Rumanian. But its when you get back into the ancient period it has lots of history for such small thing. Because it’s white Romans called it Alba, similar to how they called Britain Albion. Apparently the snakes on it too were white, but Snake Island only recently the popular name for it.
Does anyone on PB still believe the Ukrainians were martyred there? Do we know what really happened?
I thought the Ukrainians had confirmed they had heard from the Russians that at least some of them were POWs. It was not unreasonable for them to think they had all been killed and they were pretty quick to put out the correction when they heard otherwise.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
It seems the Iranian leadership have the same version of Tourette's that causes Russian leaders to squeal 'NAZI' about people they don't like. Except for them it's 'SATAN'.
He's not a member of the Iranian leadership and hasn't been for a very long time.
I almost miss Ahmadinejead compared to our current problem. Alright, he threatened Israel with being wiped off the map and was a complete loon, but the fact that he was so much weaker in military strength, and scruffy style, and so much less brooding in style ; always reminded me of a cheerful uber driver who suddenly comes up with a toxic opinion while you're chatting, by comparison.
Looking at the intensity of the bombing of Ukraine, you wonder if it is best to just let Russia have its 'victory'. Then begin an insurgency with western arms; whilst Russia remains completely cut off from the rest of the world. That would presumably skip over the destruction of its cities and the loss of a huge amount of lives.
I must admit, similar thoughts occurred to me. Of course Ukraine would still suffer terribly for some time, as the subjugated colony of a bankrupt state.
Not quite. It is a different strategy to giving up. The Russian government would be trying to impose martial law on Ukraine with no consent from the 40 million population; at the same time as they are apparently trying to impose martial law on the rest of Russia, whilst being completely cut off from the rest of the world. Both countries would potentially descend in to chaos and anarchy, which may well hasten the end of Putin's regime.
Yes. Exactly as I said. I never said it was 'giving up'; I said Ukraine would still suffer terribly. Nothwithstanding that I still think it might be the least worst option.
Of course that's easy for me to suggest, sitting 1,500 miles away.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
Just the very rich ones.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
That’s simply not true. I know two Russian billionaires who made all their money from creating software first then invested globally in other software businesses and property. They are in their late 30’s and will not have any investments in Russia because they do not want to come under the influence of the bad actors there.
They live in London - do we take their money because they are “Russian”? There are plenty of others like them.
I see Nick Palmer is calling for appeasement as he so often doesn't. The Minsk agreement was signed by the Ukrainians whilst they had a gun to their heads. I'm fed up with this desperate attempt to always veer towards six of one half a dozen of another. As for this nationalism where do you see that? A suppose it's inevitable in the current situation but the Ukrainians know their only hope is Euro/westernification so that doesn't make a lot of sense.
If it gets a lot worse I think Zelensky should set up a government in exile and save the country from wreckage. Wait for the Russian economy to collapse and then head back get control of Donbass/Crimea. Demand Russia pay some reparations, strip them of their permanent seat on the security council and have a demilitarised zone inside Russia close to the Ukraine border to give the Ukrainians a feeling of safety. All this would be a condition of removing the crippling sanctions. How much of that is plausible? I don't know. But don't underestimate the weakness of Russia's position. Even the enireity of the post-Soviet states have abandoned them with the exception of Belarus, where Lukashenko looks incredibly vulnerable requiring the Russian forces in ukraine to protect him from his own population.
Anyone thinking this a Versailles settlement is talking nonsense. The demands of Russia would be quite modest. Unfreezing their central bank assets on the basis that half of it goes to Ukraine? I would be delighted to reach out to a post-Putin Russia so we can put all this behind us.
Seems it’s quickly forgotten Germany and France stopped off in Ukraine a fortnight ago and told them to implement Minsk II in full. 😒
“Gun to the head” When you say that, you know Russia invaded because they don’t like or trust the Minsk II of the Normandy Format and OSCE?
When Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday that Moscow remains committed to a list of specified weapons that can never be deployed on Ukrainian territory, you insist that is untenable too - Is it not exactly the same already the position of many NATO countries without nearly as much sensitivity attached to it?
A defeat at home to Boreham Wood would put the top hat on this week.
Why does the football team have a space in it while the town does not, I wonder? Wikipedia doesn't say. It does say, however, that the team was formed in 1948 by a merger between Boreham Wood Rovers and Royal Retournez. I can't help feeling they chose the least interesting of the team name options.
Looks like historically it was also known as Boreham Wood. I guess it's a bit like Haringey, Harringay and Hornsea.
You mean Hornsey right? Or is that the point flying over my head...
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Weird how all these existing cheap drugs keep being discovered to help with Covid despite the massive pharmaceutical and government conspiracy to hide the effectiveness of cheap existing drugs.
If only there were established ways of testing drugs to see if they work... Oh, wait that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. No sign of ivermectin having any statistically significant effects still.
History of Snake Island is very interesting, a hundred years ago international Community considered it Rumanian. But its when you get back into the ancient period it has lots of history for such small thing. Because it’s white Romans called it Alba, similar to how they called Britain Albion. Apparently the snakes on it too were white, but Snake Island only recently the popular name for it.
Does anyone on PB still believe the Ukrainians were martyred there? Do we know what really happened?
I thought the Ukrainians had confirmed they had heard from the Russians that at least some of them were POWs. It was not unreasonable for them to think they had all been killed and they were pretty quick to put out the correction when they heard otherwise.
It’s only a small flat piece of rock, why the arguing over it so long? Is it you have the island you have it’s waters? The Straight of Snake?
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
hmmm, steward's enquiry for knowing what it's called and having the Eszett immediately to hand.
I use the Eszett out of habit when sending papers to German academics - when writing Strasse and so on. Didn't know this was ideologically unsound.
I have 7 keyboards to hand as I use snippets of various languages quite a lot.
Currently: Swedish, English, French, Italian, Norwegian, Castilian and German. Makes it dead easy to russle up an Eszett eller dylikt.
I'm actually wondering if there is confusion somewhere (not by you!) with that dinky double lightning rune key that many German typewriters of the NS-Zeit had. Not something to be found on Word today, I assume, though I've never looked.
ϟϟ is copy and pastable from the internet, so I assume it is unicode
A defeat at home to Boreham Wood would put the top hat on this week.
Why does the football team have a space in it while the town does not, I wonder? Wikipedia doesn't say. It does say, however, that the team was formed in 1948 by a merger between Boreham Wood Rovers and Royal Retournez. I can't help feeling they chose the least interesting of the team name options.
Looks like historically it was also known as Boreham Wood. I guess it's a bit like Haringey, Harringay and Hornsea.
In at least some cases of names being jammed together, it was to save space on buses and trains.
I mean its not the most important thing happening right now but Sir Gavin Williamson ???? FGS . For a start he blabbed defence briefings as defence Secretary. Given the importance of having people in defence who can keep their mouth shut in (as illustrated right now) why on earth is he to be a knight?
A defeat at home to Boreham Wood would put the top hat on this week.
Why does the football team have a space in it while the town does not, I wonder? Wikipedia doesn't say. It does say, however, that the team was formed in 1948 by a merger between Boreham Wood Rovers and Royal Retournez. I can't help feeling they chose the least interesting of the team name options.
Looks like historically it was also known as Boreham Wood. I guess it's a bit like Haringey, Harringay and Hornsea.
You mean Hornsey right? Or is that the point flying over my head...
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
Just the very rich ones.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
That’s simply not true. I know two Russian billionaires who made all their money from creating software first then invested globally in other software businesses and property. They are in their late 30’s and will not have any investments in Russia because they do not want to come under the influence of the bad actors there.
They live in London - do we take their money because they are “Russian”? There are plenty of others like them.
Plenty, really?
Forbes estimates 63 billionaires (of all nationalities) living in London, not sure how many are Russian, but there surely can't be plenty without at least past connections to the Kremlin. A handful at most.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not as things stand, subject to where we currently are with the ECHR.
Lukoil and Gazprom websites both seem to be unavailable. Is that something the West has done, the companies have done, or the Russian government or hackers?
Any ideas?
If the West have done it, it would best be plausibly deniable.
Personally, I see no reason why we wouldn't be doing that.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Even when it isn't there? Would a Labour Government in the UK be Nazi because the BNP existed? Is the Scholz Government in Germany Nazi because there are neo Nazis there? That is effectively the argument being made by Russia towards Ukraine. Some Nazis exist in your country (in a war zone caused by Russia in the first place where Ukrainian rule is difficult if not impossible to impose) and so the whole Government is Nazi.
You are misunderstanding me. Hopefully not wilfully.
No genuinely not. I was simply reacting to your very last sentence and clearly misunderstood what you were driving at. Godwin should not be dumped. It is an important shorthand for the unreasonable smearing of someone simply because we disagree with their point of view or actions. Of course there are Nazis in the world sadly. And they come from both extremes of the modern political spectrum. But they are certainly not in Government in Ukraine. So Putin's attacks are the ultimate Godwin.
They are a feature of the country though. But clearly not in power (especially given that Zelensky is Jewish). Its a bit like someone invading Britain on a crusade to rid us of the Lib Dems.
Who will rid us of this tiresome sandal-wearers’ taxi?
Seize Chelsea now and use the proceeds to help the Ukrainians.
Roman Abramovich’s plan to use the sale of Chelsea to donate funds to victims of the war in Ukraine is not solely intended for Ukrainians, raising the prospect of money going to Russian soldiers or to their families.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Even when it isn't there? Would a Labour Government in the UK be Nazi because the BNP existed? Is the Scholz Government in Germany Nazi because there are neo Nazis there? That is effectively the argument being made by Russia towards Ukraine. Some Nazis exist in your country (in a war zone caused by Russia in the first place where Ukrainian rule is difficult if not impossible to impose) and so the whole Government is Nazi.
You are misunderstanding me. Hopefully not wilfully.
No genuinely not. I was simply reacting to your very last sentence and clearly misunderstood what you were driving at. Godwin should not be dumped. It is an important shorthand for the unreasonable smearing of someone simply because we disagree with their point of view or actions. Of course there are Nazis in the world sadly. And they come from both extremes of the modern political spectrum. But they are certainly not in Government in Ukraine. So Putin's attacks are the ultimate Godwin.
They are a feature of the country though. But clearly not in power (especially given that Zelensky is Jewish). Its a bit like someone invading Britain on a crusade to rid us of the Lib Dems.
Let them come. We’ll show them how dirty Nazi Libdems fight back. We’ve got the charts to show we are unbeaten. 🥷
Lukoil and Gazprom websites both seem to be unavailable. Is that something the West has done, the companies have done, or the Russian government or hackers?
Any ideas?
If the West have done it, it would best be plausibly deniable.
Personally, I see no reason why we wouldn't be doing that.
maybe we would not do it (as a government thing) as its a waste of time? I mean how many oil company websites have you ever been on? Probably some hackers having fun
I mean its not the most important thing happening right now but Sir Gavin Williamson ???? FGS . For a start he blabbed defence briefings as defence Secretary. Given the importance of having people in defence who can keep their mouth shut in (as illustrated right now) why on earth is he to be a knight?
I'm am HOPING there is an obscure law that requires a Knight to deliver any declaration of war in person.......
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
Just the very rich ones.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
That’s simply not true. I know two Russian billionaires who made all their money from creating software first then invested globally in other software businesses and property. They are in their late 30’s and will not have any investments in Russia because they do not want to come under the influence of the bad actors there.
They live in London - do we take their money because they are “Russian”? There are plenty of others like them.
Plenty, really?
Forbes estimates 63 billionaires (of all nationalities) living in London, not sure how many are Russian, but there surely can't be plenty without at least past connections to the Kremlin. A handful at most.
"After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google..."
I mean its not the most important thing happening right now but Sir Gavin Williamson ???? FGS . For a start he blabbed defence briefings as defence Secretary. Given the importance of having people in defence who can keep their mouth shut in (as illustrated right now) why on earth is he to be a knight?
Presumably he has something on Boris which has immediate value, he doesn't trust Boris on a you shut up now and I'll give you a k later deal, therefore it is something juicy about Boris and the Russians.
She’s acting tough again. Before the invasion I was neither pro nor anti her but she has been bloody poor during this. Using the crisis for her own political advancement and crass photo ops.
Seize Chelsea now and use the proceeds to help the Ukrainians.
Roman Abramovich’s plan to use the sale of Chelsea to donate funds to victims of the war in Ukraine is not solely intended for Ukrainians, raising the prospect of money going to Russian soldiers or to their families.
I mean its not the most important thing happening right now but Sir Gavin Williamson ???? FGS . For a start he blabbed defence briefings as defence Secretary. Given the importance of having people in defence who can keep their mouth shut in (as illustrated right now) why on earth is he to be a knight?
Look on the bright side - it means he’s never going to the Lords. Same happened to Sir Hunky Dunky after he was pithily disobliging about Johnson.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
We do not have a codified constitution. It can all be changed by parliamentary statute.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
Just the very rich ones.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
That’s simply not true. I know two Russian billionaires who made all their money from creating software first then invested globally in other software businesses and property. They are in their late 30’s and will not have any investments in Russia because they do not want to come under the influence of the bad actors there.
They live in London - do we take their money because they are “Russian”? There are plenty of others like them.
Plenty, really?
Forbes estimates 63 billionaires (of all nationalities) living in London, not sure how many are Russian, but there surely can't be plenty without at least past connections to the Kremlin. A handful at most.
You would be amazed by the amount of people who live in the UK who never appear on the “rich lists” because their wealth is spread around, kept very private and they don’t act like flashy twats. The two guys I know who I referred to have never appeared on any rich list or frankly any newspaper.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
hmmm, steward's enquiry for knowing what it's called and having the Eszett immediately to hand.
I use the Eszett out of habit when sending papers to German academics - when writing Strasse and so on. Didn't know this was ideologically unsound.
I have 7 keyboards to hand as I use snippets of various languages quite a lot.
Currently: Swedish, English, French, Italian, Norwegian, Castilian and German. Makes it dead easy to russle up an Eszett eller dylikt.
I'm actually wondering if there is confusion somewhere (not by you!) with that dinky double lightning rune key that many German typewriters of the NS-Zeit had. Not something to be found on Word today, I assume, though I've never looked.
ϟϟ is copy and pastable from the internet, so I assume it is unicode
We could use ϟϟ instead of typing Putin, Dom Cummings style?
History of Snake Island is very interesting, a hundred years ago international Community considered it Rumanian. But its when you get back into the ancient period it has lots of history for such small thing. Because it’s white Romans called it Alba, similar to how they called Britain Albion. Apparently the snakes on it too were white, but Snake Island only recently the popular name for it.
Does anyone on PB still believe the Ukrainians were martyred there? Do we know what really happened?
I thought the Ukrainians had confirmed they had heard from the Russians that at least some of them were POWs. It was not unreasonable for them to think they had all been killed and they were pretty quick to put out the correction when they heard otherwise.
It’s only a small flat piece of rock, why the arguing over it so long? Is it you have the island you have it’s waters? The Straight of Snake?
I mean its not the most important thing happening right now but Sir Gavin Williamson ???? FGS . For a start he blabbed defence briefings as defence Secretary. Given the importance of having people in defence who can keep their mouth shut in (as illustrated right now) why on earth is he to be a knight?
Presumably he has something on Boris which has immediate value, he doesn't trust Boris on a you shut up now and I'll give you a k later deal, therefore it is something juicy about Boris and the Russians.
I don't think it can be a Boris thing - he was equally inexplicably promoted by May, and there were rumours of indiscreet claims he made that he could bring her down too.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
Just the very rich ones.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
That’s simply not true. I know two Russian billionaires who made all their money from creating software first then invested globally in other software businesses and property. They are in their late 30’s and will not have any investments in Russia because they do not want to come under the influence of the bad actors there.
They live in London - do we take their money because they are “Russian”? There are plenty of others like them.
Plenty, really?
Forbes estimates 63 billionaires (of all nationalities) living in London, not sure how many are Russian, but there surely can't be plenty without at least past connections to the Kremlin. A handful at most.
You would be amazed by the amount of people who live in the UK who never appear on the “rich lists” because their wealth is spread around, kept very private and they don’t act like flashy twats. The two guys I know who I referred to have never appeared on any rich list or frankly any newspaper.
And how do you know they are billionaires and not millionaires?
And even more reason to have a an ultra rich wealth tax, so great.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
The first line would have to repeal the Human Rights Act but we could do it now outside the EU. The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
- Probably a qtwtain thought, what if Ukraine actively tried to turn the Russian soldiers and assets who are currently deserting. OK, offensive weaponry but the appeal to some of a let's weaken Putin for this is no. zero for some.
- Putin being mad. As analysis its useless. Why mad, what is eating him, he was always cynically pragmatic in this stuff. Why now? - legacy, fear of death? Kremlinology, it appears, hasn't got easier since the cold war.
- OK, better analyses. He's surrounded by spooks and public sector kleptocrsts, not really oligarchs any more.
- Is there are red line for the West inside Ukraine? I accept NATO holding out, but what if Kyiv goes the full Stalingrad - there is a point at which we have to act even under credible nuclear threat?
- If we do act under nuclear threat. and Russia malke good on their threat, how many nukes will they actually get away once refusal plays it's part? We ridiculed the idea of winning a nuclear war, with good reason, but could we survive and "win" a somewhat partial Armageddon?
- Western values can hold under lockdown, under martial law - the will to move back is what is needed. Is Boris and his cronyist me morality a good leader for Armageddon?
History of Snake Island is very interesting, a hundred years ago international Community considered it Rumanian. But its when you get back into the ancient period it has lots of history for such small thing. Because it’s white Romans called it Alba, similar to how they called Britain Albion. Apparently the snakes on it too were white, but Snake Island only recently the popular name for it.
Does anyone on PB still believe the Ukrainians were martyred there? Do we know what really happened?
I thought the Ukrainians had confirmed they had heard from the Russians that at least some of them were POWs. It was not unreasonable for them to think they had all been killed and they were pretty quick to put out the correction when they heard otherwise.
It’s only a small flat piece of rock, why the arguing over it so long? Is it you have the island you have it’s waters? The Straight of Snake?
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
No, because Parliament is sovereign, it could repeal the HRA and in that scenario where a government intending to stop girls' education I'd expect that to happen on day one.
Lukoil and Gazprom websites both seem to be unavailable. Is that something the West has done, the companies have done, or the Russian government or hackers?
Any ideas?
If the West have done it, it would best be plausibly deniable.
Personally, I see no reason why we wouldn't be doing that.
The Lukoil website, apparently (I did not see a screen shot so?) called for an end to the war. which would give the Russian government the best incentive to shut it down, but presumably could also have been done by a Pro-Putin employee, a random western hacker is also possible.
History of Snake Island is very interesting, a hundred years ago international Community considered it Rumanian. But its when you get back into the ancient period it has lots of history for such small thing. Because it’s white Romans called it Alba, similar to how they called Britain Albion. Apparently the snakes on it too were white, but Snake Island only recently the popular name for it.
Does anyone on PB still believe the Ukrainians were martyred there? Do we know what really happened?
I thought the Ukrainians had confirmed they had heard from the Russians that at least some of them were POWs. It was not unreasonable for them to think they had all been killed and they were pretty quick to put out the correction when they heard otherwise.
It’s only a small flat piece of rock, why the arguing over it so long? Is it you have the island you have it’s waters? The Straight of Snake?
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
Just the very rich ones.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
All for public consumption. Guilty of being Russian. Why don’t we put all Russians in internment camps while we are at it.
Just the very rich ones.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
That’s simply not true. I know two Russian billionaires who made all their money from creating software first then invested globally in other software businesses and property. They are in their late 30’s and will not have any investments in Russia because they do not want to come under the influence of the bad actors there.
They live in London - do we take their money because they are “Russian”? There are plenty of others like them.
Plenty, really?
Forbes estimates 63 billionaires (of all nationalities) living in London, not sure how many are Russian, but there surely can't be plenty without at least past connections to the Kremlin. A handful at most.
"After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google..."
Lukoil and Gazprom websites both seem to be unavailable. Is that something the West has done, the companies have done, or the Russian government or hackers?
Any ideas?
If the West have done it, it would best be plausibly deniable.
Personally, I see no reason why we wouldn't be doing that.
Lukoil has publicly called for immediate end to hostilities and for peace talks.
Weird how all these existing cheap drugs keep being discovered to help with Covid despite the massive pharmaceutical and government conspiracy to hide the effectiveness of cheap existing drugs.
I think it just demonstrates that the conspiracy was too focused on rubbishing invermectin, and missed that other drugs worked too.
- Probably a qtwtain thought, what if Ukraine actively tried to turn the Russian soldiers and assets who are currently deserting. OK, offensive weaponry but the appeal to some of a let's weaken Putin for this is no. zero for some.
- Putin being mad. As analysis its useless. Why mad, what is eating him, he was always cynically pragmatic in this stuff. Why now? - legacy, fear of death? Kremlinology, it appears, hasn't got easier since the cold war.
- OK, better analyses. He's surrounded by spooks and public sector kleptocrsts, not really oligarchs any more.
- Is there are red line for the West inside Ukraine? I accept NATO holding out, but what if Kyiv goes the full Stalingrad - there is a point at which we have to act even under credible nuclear threat?
- If we do act under nuclear threat. and Russia malke good on their threat, how many nukes will they actually get away once refusal plays it's part? We ridiculed the idea of winning a nuclear war, with good reason, but could we survive and "win" a somewhat partial Armageddon?
- Western values can hold under lockdown, under martial law - the will to move back is what is needed. Is Boris and his cronyist me morality a good leader for Armageddon?
I think we would, rationally, have to act in “pre-emptive self defence”. I.e. If tactical nukes were used in Ukraine and we were certain there was a ticking clock to an invasion of the likes of Estonia. But it would require unanimity I think. So a pretty high bar.
History of Snake Island is very interesting, a hundred years ago international Community considered it Rumanian. But its when you get back into the ancient period it has lots of history for such small thing. Because it’s white Romans called it Alba, similar to how they called Britain Albion. Apparently the snakes on it too were white, but Snake Island only recently the popular name for it.
Does anyone on PB still believe the Ukrainians were martyred there? Do we know what really happened?
I thought the Ukrainians had confirmed they had heard from the Russians that at least some of them were POWs. It was not unreasonable for them to think they had all been killed and they were pretty quick to put out the correction when they heard otherwise.
It’s only a small flat piece of rock, why the arguing over it so long? Is it you have the island you have it’s waters? The Straight of Snake?
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
Giving Gavin Williamson a knighthood does NOT count as "something".....
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
Giving Gavin Williamson a knighthood does NOT count as "something".....
No, but his insertion into Ukraine via parachute along with international brigade privates Bone, Leigh, Baker et al is a win/win.
- Probably a qtwtain thought, what if Ukraine actively tried to turn the Russian soldiers and assets who are currently deserting. OK, offensive weaponry but the appeal to some of a let's weaken Putin for this is no. zero for some.
- Putin being mad. As analysis its useless. Why mad, what is eating him, he was always cynically pragmatic in this stuff. Why now? - legacy, fear of death? Kremlinology, it appears, hasn't got easier since the cold war.
- OK, better analyses. He's surrounded by spooks and public sector kleptocrsts, not really oligarchs any more.
- Is there are red line for the West inside Ukraine? I accept NATO holding out, but what if Kyiv goes the full Stalingrad - there is a point at which we have to act even under credible nuclear threat?
- If we do act under nuclear threat. and Russia malke good on their threat, how many nukes will they actually get away once refusal plays it's part? We ridiculed the idea of winning a nuclear war, with good reason, but could we survive and "win" a somewhat partial Armageddon?
- Western values can hold under lockdown, under martial law - the will to move back is what is needed. Is Boris and his cronyist me morality a good leader for Armageddon?
I think we would, rationally, have to act in “pre-emptive self defence”. I.e. If tactical nukes were used in Ukraine and we were certain there was a ticking clock to an invasion of the likes of Estonia. But it would require unanimity I think. So a pretty high bar.
I'd be very suprised if that was planned for. Nato's articles of its treaty are for a very, clearly, defensive alliance.
Weird how all these existing cheap drugs keep being discovered to help with Covid despite the massive pharmaceutical and government conspiracy to hide the effectiveness of cheap existing drugs.
I think it just demonstrates that the conspiracy was too focused on rubbishing invermectin, and missed that other drugs worked too.
The thing about the Big Conspiracies is that while they consist of the most wealthy, ruthless and powerful people on the planet, they always make mistakes.
Mistakes which can be easily found by neckbeards living in their mom's basement, running YouTube channels, no less.
History of Snake Island is very interesting, a hundred years ago international Community considered it Rumanian. But its when you get back into the ancient period it has lots of history for such small thing. Because it’s white Romans called it Alba, similar to how they called Britain Albion. Apparently the snakes on it too were white, but Snake Island only recently the popular name for it.
Does anyone on PB still believe the Ukrainians were martyred there? Do we know what really happened?
I thought the Ukrainians had confirmed they had heard from the Russians that at least some of them were POWs. It was not unreasonable for them to think they had all been killed and they were pretty quick to put out the correction when they heard otherwise.
It’s only a small flat piece of rock, why the arguing over it so long? Is it you have the island you have it’s waters? The Straight of Snake?
Millions in off shore gas, oil, etc. at stake re: marine boundaries, zones, etc.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Not really. We'd need to vote out the government that did it and have the next one repeal it. Of course there's never going to be a majority for anything as stupid as that in the UK. The point being made is that any legislation which names individuals for asset seizures or comes up with some baloney about arbitrary conditions for such would be a poor way to do it as all of us suddenly become less well protected by the law.
I see. Are you sure? I thought we were signed up to some fundamental human rights that have force over and above an act of parliament. Maybe I'm substituting what I think should be true for what is. Wouldn't be the first time.
We do not have a codified constitution. It can all be changed by parliamentary statute.
I thought there was a way that the judiciary stops parliament from doing certain things. Eg a law is passed whereby girls no longer go to school. Is there no 'higher' protection against that?
Parliament can pass whatever law it likes. If you believe that the law is contrary to the Human Rights Act you can challenge it in court. Some laws have been ruled unlawful on this basis, but generally Parliament can remedy that by passing another law.
Comments
THIS IS SOMETHING!!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!
But anyway the proposed law purely speeds things up. The government is saying: we are going after people on [existing] grounds xyz but it will take weeks or months to ensure we are on strong ground. So the law just says you can confiscate assets on exactly those xyz grounds, but immediately, and if we are wrong you can get them back but without additional compensation because, sorry, there's a war on. No substantive difference.
The other day when I was pissed off I was for a “freeze now and ask questions later” on Russian passport holders with assets in the UK.
The other side of I’m over thinking it a bit is the old Jurassic Park conundrum: “we spent so long asking if we could do it we never asked if we should”.
British property laws are very strong and an attraction to bad money and good. It’s not all Oligarchs and friends of Epstein.
Do we want to weaken this for one situation? Does this become a classic case of “hard cases make bad law”.
As a bit of reductio ad absurdum (or maybe not scarily) if by some crazy situation we got a Faragist government who then decided to confiscate assets of EU citizens because they viewed the EU as a higher power (or something stupid like that) and just introduced a bill because they could then we would be outraged I hope.
Again if Trump returns and confiscated assets of registered democrats as they are “trying to damage the glorious land of Trump” then we would be calling him all sorts of names.
Whilst sanctioning oligarchs and stripping them of their gilded lifestyle might help stop the horrors in Ukraine there are potentially huge unintended consequences and frankly the last lot I would like making the law up and making sure it wasn’t abused in the future would be Boris and Priti and Raab etc.
I think the threat of sanctions and asset stripping, the inconvenience and difficulty of moving assets are a big concern to many oligarchs and there is an outside chance that they act before they get buggered rather than wait - it’s too late for Usmanov and co as they have less to lose now but you see the effect on Abramovich when he’s not even sanctioned yet……
I am most likely horribly wrong though and shall put on my tin hat (sent from Germany no less).
Bingham's book has a chapter discussing the debate some have about whether the concepts of rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty, both regarded as key aspects of our constitutional settlement, are in fact in conflict with one another. One of his conclusions I find pretty persuasive
We live in a society dedicated to the rule of law; in which Parliament has power, subject to limited, self-imposed restraints, to legislate as it wishes; in which Parliament may therefore legislate in a way which infringes the rule of law; and in which the judges, consistently with their constitutional duty to administer justice in accordance the laws and usages of the realm, cannot fail to give effect to such legislation if it is clearly and unambiguously expressed
and he goes on to talk about this being so the extent to which this may be considered a vice of the system, or if people argue in practice the system contrains matters and whether the ability to restrain acting in such a way is unbalanced and therefore in need of addressing.
Not being a constituional scholar I thought the general maxim was that there is very little Parliament could not do, if it chose, though a great many things it very much should not.
Wikipedia doesn't say. It does say, however, that the team was formed in 1948 by a merger between Boreham Wood Rovers and Royal Retournez. I can't help feeling they chose the least interesting of the team name options.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_Island_(Black_Sea)
Does anyone on PB still believe the Ukrainians were martyred there? Do we know what really happened?
Currently: Swedish, English, French, Italian, Norwegian, Castilian and German. Makes it dead easy to russle up an Eszett eller dylikt.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/11/more-tales-of-abuse-from-britains-shameful-history-of-internment
Bingham as quoted is quite right, we have one individual who is quite expressly not subject to the civil nor criminal law at all, and literally no restrictions on what parliament can validly pass into law. There is nothing in the constitution to invalidate a law for the extermination of jews. There probably should be.
After all, there aren’t any Russians who got rich by inventing Google, the IPad, or a cure for cancer, are there? They got their wealth through theft, violence and corruption and are on a par with the worst of the wealthy Africans inside corrupt regimes.
Any ideas?
Of course that's easy for me to suggest, sitting 1,500 miles away.
They live in London - do we take their money because they are “Russian”? There are plenty of others like them.
https://twitter.com/BlewettSam/status/1499454161456439304?t=jvXElgyzKmdmk5kTDILGDg&s=19
“Gun to the head”
When you say that, you know Russia invaded because they don’t like or trust the Minsk II of the Normandy Format and OSCE?
When Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday that Moscow remains committed to a list of specified weapons that can never be deployed on Ukrainian territory, you insist that is untenable too - Is it not exactly the same already the position of many NATO countries without nearly as much sensitivity attached to it?
He is quite good at ferreting out and summarising news, though.
Oh, wait that’s exactly what we’ve been doing.
No sign of ivermectin having any statistically significant effects still.
Forbes estimates 63 billionaires (of all nationalities) living in London, not sure how many are Russian, but there surely can't be plenty without at least past connections to the Kremlin. A handful at most.
Personally, I see no reason why we wouldn't be doing that.
Roman Abramovich’s plan to use the sale of Chelsea to donate funds to victims of the war in Ukraine is not solely intended for Ukrainians, raising the prospect of money going to Russian soldiers or to their families.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/03/roman-abramovich-funds-for-war-victims-not-only-to-ukrainians
Sergey Mikhailovich Brin. Co-Founder of..... Google.
Born on August 21, 1973, in Moscow in the Soviet Union.
Not sure if he a dual national or has renounced Russian citizenship
Can you renounce Russian citizenship?
I mean 🧛🏻♂️ Style.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall_Bank_dispute
And even more reason to have a an ultra rich wealth tax, so great.
The courts can take a view on whether law is compatible with other laws (hence the human rights Act) and whether the Government has followed the process it laid out, but they can’t strike down laws.
- Probably a qtwtain thought, what if Ukraine actively tried to turn the Russian soldiers and assets who are currently deserting. OK, offensive weaponry but the appeal to some of a let's weaken Putin for this is no. zero for some.
- Putin being mad. As analysis its useless. Why mad, what is eating him, he was always cynically pragmatic in this stuff. Why now? - legacy, fear of death? Kremlinology, it appears, hasn't got easier since the cold war.
- OK, better analyses. He's surrounded by spooks and public sector kleptocrsts, not really oligarchs any more.
- Is there are red line for the West inside Ukraine? I accept NATO holding out, but what if Kyiv goes the full Stalingrad - there is a point at which we have to act even under credible nuclear threat?
- If we do act under nuclear threat. and Russia malke good on their threat, how many nukes will they actually get away once refusal plays it's part? We ridiculed the idea of winning a nuclear war, with good reason, but could we survive and "win" a somewhat partial Armageddon?
- Western values can hold under lockdown, under martial law - the will to move back is what is needed. Is Boris and his cronyist me morality a good leader for Armageddon?
So basically could be anyone for any reason.
iPads you say
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract
Something that Putin may not approve of.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1499410431726731271?t=tMgPFOwlSYF-fzfEYAR03A&s=19
Assets confiscated/frozen/expropriated
Or
Banned from travel to the U.K.?
Hint.
One is easy and straightforward, the other not.
Don’t these belong to another department, maybe Justice or the Home Office?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60611683
Your point was?
ETA I like this conversation so much I've saved a copy for future use. Bellyflops like this are a once in a lifetime event.
Mistakes which can be easily found by neckbeards living in their mom's basement, running YouTube channels, no less.