Categories
Is a new law really necessary? – politicalbetting.com
Is a new law really necessary? – politicalbetting.com
Lawyers are very polite people. So polite in fact that it can be hard for the non-lawyer to realise when lawyers are being really quite rude, especially about other lawyers. And even more especially about Dominic Raab, who continues to miss even the low bars set for him. Such was the case recently over his plans to change the Human Rights Act, a perennial bugbear of the Tory right. Despite the endless ill-informed comments about this legislation from successive Tory Home Secretaries (usually at party conferences where accuracy is less important than audience-pleasing soundbites), there have been at least 3 reviews of the Act since 2010, all of which concluded that there was no “compelling evidence of a problem” or “viable proposals for reform“. Never mind. Raab needs to find something to do at the Ministry of Justice. But rather than sorting out the virtual collapse of the criminal justice system, he published his proposals to introduce a bill of rights last December just as Partygate was kicking off. The consultation closed on 8 March. Raab thanked Sir Peter Goss, a retired judge appointed to review the Act, for his work which, he said, had informed his thinking. (The judge had said that the HRA generally worked well but would work even better with his proposed changes. These proposals too were published last December.)Unfortunately, Raab completely ignored the judge’s proposals. This week the judge hit back. “The reaction of government has been to produce the Ministry of Justice consultation paper, which does not respond to ours, is not grounded in anything even approximating the exercise we conducted, but nevertheless asserts that the Human Rights Act is not working well.” Ouch! This is the judicial equivalent of “It’s a load of old rubbish. File in the bin.” Even Robert Buckland, Raab’s predecessor, gave him a kicking saying his proposals were pointless (“very 2015” Ouch again!) and a solution to a problem which no longer existed, if it ever did. This last comment goes to the heart of why so many proposed new laws so often achieve little – and can do great harm.
Comments
'Russian schoolchildren report teacher for anti-war comments - local media
A Russian schoolteacher has been arrested after being reported to police by her pupils for making anti-war comments, according to local media.
The teenagers in the southern city of Penza are said to have recorded a conversation with Irina Gen, their English teacher, on 18 March.
They were apparently upset that a planned sports trip to the Czech Republic was not going ahead and asked Ms Gen for her opinion.
According to an alleged transcript of the conversation published by the Meduza website, she said it was right that the trip had been cancelled and that such things would continue until Russia "started behaving in a civilised way".
The 55-year-old compared the country to North Korea and "expressed a view of the war in Ukraine different from the official one", Meduza said.
It is thought Ms Gen could face a fine of up to $60,000 or a jail term of up to 10 years.'
It's about common humanity and humanitarianism, whatever the personal cost.
Point 2 would have ruled out plenty of new laws passed to show the government was Doing Something when behaviour that was already generally illegal if not often prosecuted was made specifically illegal. Upskirting comes to mind.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-60960123
"Whatever the personal cost" - really? "Whatever"?
The English constitution is broken.
"Labour staff 'gagged' over sexual harassment claims"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60940971
On topic, Cyclefree has described a classic of Politicians' Logic:
We must do something.
This is something.
Therefore, we must do this.
However few societies cope with defeat unchanged, and if the casualties and equipment losses are anywhere close to the Ukrainian figures then Russia will struggle to renew the offensive in the Donbas. After that perhaps the people of Russia will begin to face up to the moral crisis of the country. However it may take much time and considerable pressure from outside. The world is beginning to understand that Pushkin does not make up for Putin, nor Prokofiev for Stalin. "Nigeria with nukes" is a pretty evil place these days and the West will need to remain alert and determined.
Good on them for refusing to sign and going public. But I fear they are now going to see more examples of misogynistic behaviour from some leftist
keyboard warriorsNeanderthal trolls.But… possible knockout draw looks tricky. Senegal, France, Belgium then Brazil.
If I was Scotland or Wales I’d be looking at that draw and thinking there’s a really good chance of making the knockouts for the first time in 64 years for the Welsh and the first time ever for Scotland. With a likely match against the Netherlands who aren’t what they were and beatable with a fair rub. Followed by a glamour match against Messi’s Argentina.
Interesting as well to see that one of the complainants was Laura Murray. I wonder if the stress she was clearly under at the time played a part in her very strange behaviour towards Rachel Riley?
Lab 50%
Con 23%
LD 9%
Grn 7%
Ref 6%
Rest of South
Con 42%
Lab 33%
LD 13%
Grn 5%
Ref 5%
Midlands and Wales
Lab 35%
Con 35%
Grn 7%
LD 7%
Ref 6%
PC 5%
North
Lab 49%
Con 31%
LD 7%
Grn 6%
Ref 5%
Scotland
SNP 56%
Con 17%
Lab 13%
Grn 4%
Ref 3%
LD 3%
Propensity to cast a vote - Absolutely certain to vote (10/10):
Scotland 67%
London 61%
Rest of South 50%
Midlands and Wales 50%
North 50%
Remain voters 67%
Leave voters 55%
Boris Johnson is best prime minister:
Rest of South 32%
Midlands and Wales 31%
London 26%
North 23%
Scotland 12%
(YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 2,006; Fieldwork: 29-30 March 2022)
Incredibly, Russians mostly don't know about the incident or the plant or what the situation is at the moment. So they probably just had no idea what they were getting into.
On paper, both UEFA teams should win both of the first two games leaving the final group game just for seeding.
When people look in to this, two things will become apparent - firstly that the Human Rights Act is a useful curb on the excesses of state power, the necessity of which is quite clear following various recent acts by the government. And secondly, it really just transposes international law, which we are still subject to. So all the government are doing with this is a form of desperate posturing, as a form of distraction from real problems in the justice system that their predecessors caused, and now need solving.
Next you’ll be after telling us that bears don’t defecate in forested habitats.
And give the level of official secrecy on Chernobyl within the Soviet Union, followed by the reluctance of Russia to talk about embarrassing moments from its past, it may be that most of them genuinely did not know what they were getting into.
Which in its own way makes it all the more tragic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1510074832544841732
I hadn't thought of this point.
"The RUs believed they could return to bases in Belarus - to the motor pools they once occupied - and reconsolidate and they would be untouched. No more."
Firstly a billionaire cannot just buy those planes as the US gov has to approve any sale.
Secondly the ones that would be available would be from the 1980s at best as unlikely to be from US or European stock and no guarantee of their upkeep to sufficient standards.
Next by using such old jets they still don’t get air superiority as a lot of the modern Russian jets will pick them off easily.
Following this their is some bizarre fantasy that the Ukrainian pilots for these jets can be trained in one to two weeks. It’s usually months for trained pilots so you either let guys go up in older planes without the training and get blown up so a pointless effort or you do it properly and spend months training them meaning they are not available to fly the existing Ukrainian jets.
Other than that it’s another fool proof plan from Sean Penn. Maybe his time spent with El Chapo has addled his brain somehow.
Is it better to try and break the Russian Federation up so it can no longer threaten its neighbours as it has for the last 21 years?
Or is it better to try and contain it under a moderate democratic government (if one can be found, which given Russia's political climate might be rather difficult) so Siberia with its mineral and fuel wealth does not become easy prey for Chinese influence?
They took option B for Germany at Versailles and it has to be said it ended rather badly, but Option A is hardly unproblematic. Many post-Soviet republics are chronically unstable and badly run, and there is little reason to think that 80-odd statelets inside the RF itself would be noticeably better.
Or do we just accept that all options are a bit shit and keep our fingers crossed they won't be unbearably shit, like we usually do? Hint - this is the option I'd put money on.
I've lost count of the times I see smutty schoolboy jokes and gross innuendo, and that's just the start of it.
Sadly it exists everywhere, yes including the nasty Left as well.
Very grim if true
I didn't know about the about the abuse allegations which are very grim, if true. As a victim (oh I'm supposed to call myself a survivor), I'm acutely aware of the terrible damage it can cause for years and even a lifetime.
Thank you Cyclefree for once again drawing attention to this best of questions about government action. Its a universal solvent applying to everything from the decision to invade Ukraine to whether to dredge Little Snoring's duck pond. It is staggering how often the answer is either non existent or expressed only in abstractions.
I'd seriously consider any party that had the courage to run on "it'll be a bit shit, but we'll do our best not to make it worse"
(Asking because I am not a physicist and genuinely don't know.)
But the media would portray it as a technicality because she is Obviously A Wrong Un.
The key question now being debated is whether the US can be persuaded to permit and facilitate the provision of S-300 SAMs, Migs and tanks from Eastern European stocks. If they can it would be a big boost for the ability of Ukraine's armed forces to win this war without direct NATO involvement, and to win it more quickly.
Also, to call for a No-Fly Zone is such weasel words. It gives the appearance of advocating for something more robust, but simultaneously has the air of being naively peaceful. It would be more honest to advocate for providing air support to Ukraine, and hitting Russian armoured columns on the ground. Or why not send a NATO fleet into the Black Sea to relieve the siege of Mariupol?
It's a viable stance to take with considerable consequences but not one to be dismissed by armchair generals pontificating from their comfortable middle class armchairs in the currently safe west. That's not facetious. On the ground in Ukraine is clearly hell and we should, at least, listen to them and pause for consideration.
For example, a 2014 Yougov poll found 78% of Conservative voters and 71% of UKIP voters wanted to replace the Human Rights Act. However only 22% of LD voters and 20% of Labour voters wanted to replace it
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/10/08/support-tory-human-rights-plans-falls-along-party-
It's also laughable to say that we have not listened to Zelensky and Ukraine's requests. Just because some (most?) of us believe it would be a bad move, does not mean that we haven't listened.
On the other hand, *you* appear to be the one who is not listening. The argument against an NFZ is fairly compelling. So, please tell me (presumably a a not-an-armchair-general - how would you implement a workable NFZ that did not risk a much greater escalation of the war?
What we need is for the Russian people themselves to collectively decide that they will have a better future as a democracy, with close ties to the West. There's not much we can do to make that happen, but we do need to make sure that when a people do make that decision - as they have in Ukraine - that we defend them, and support them, so that they don't come to regret choosing democracy.
We need to decide whether the convention itself is still fit for purpose or whether it has become outdated. The HRA has no bearing on this discussion. It's the same as legal advice saying that the Treaty of Rome was just fine and then using it as an argument against Brexit. The two aren't necessarily related despite being adjacent.
All this has to be factored in to the calculation of whether the west really wants Russia to lose or if that simply opens up a bigger can of worms? A fractured Russia would certainly be in less of a position to attack Ukraine but does the west and in particular the US want China getting its hands on Siberia as they are increasingly already doing in central Asia. I suppose the dream scenario would be a Ukrainian style government in Moscow facing westwards with the current state borders largely intact. I doubt Beijing would be too happy but you reap what you sow.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/01/china-accused-of-launching-cyber-attacks-on-ukraine-before-russian-invasion
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/pensioners-raiding-inheritance-funds-stay-afloat/
So whilst I think they'd have to be unlucky to get acute radiation sickness, I doubt it's as 'good' as just having an increased risk of cancer.
I also think there's a big difference between Ukrainians asking for a no-fly zone, and naive Westerners doing so.
When the Ukrainians request a no-fly zone it is with a knowledge of the limitations, the practicalities, the difficulties and the consequences. I think they do it almost as much for propaganda purposes as anything else.
When the naive Westerners do so it is with some vague simplistic memory of painlessly imposing a no-fly zone over northern and southern Iraq, with no awareness of the difficulties of doing so over Ukraine were Russia to contest it, or of the fact that so many air-launched munitions that Russia has used have been fired from Russian or Belorussian airspace.
I wonder why one group of society is so disproportionately affected. Could it be unconscious bias ?
More a case of inheritances arriving early for some
The call for NATO to provide full air support for the Ukraine Armed Forces is a much more logical and reasonable position, and it's an end-state that imposing a no-fly zone leads to (particularly as a no-fly zone wouldn't stop the bombardment of cities like Kharkiv).
Of course, a no-fly zone sounds so much less dangerous, much more like a neutral intervention, and so obviously for propaganda and public relations purposes the Ukrainians will call for a no-fly zone, and if we were to provide one they would equally obviously then call for a no Russian artillery zone, and a no ballistic missile zone, etc.
I'm very tempted by the option of NATO riding gloriously to the assistance of the Ukrainians in this war. If you discount the threat of nuclear war, it would do much to bring the war and the suffering of civilians to an earlier end.
But a no-fly zone does not exist as a viable, significantly less dangerous, middle-way alternative between supplying weapons and full involvement. It's muddled thinking.
It is tragic how people can be so partisan. Get a life FFS.
The assumption behind the change is that British human rights somehow are better than other generally accepted human rights. But as human rights are necessarily principles-based, and the Act is drafted accordingly, we are in "I don't like these principles but we can have others" territory.
1) Can you expect reason and balance from someone called Pubman after closing on a Friday night?
2). Labour actually have a problem here. Whilst people have always been tribal, there does seem to be a particularly pernicious and persistent bubble of opinion against Labour. No doubt fuelled by social media, there are people that really, really hate Labour.whilst this minority would have never voted Labour, it does poison debate. Labour need to counter this group somehow.
It looks like Orban will be re-elected the main question is the margin and whether he has a super majority . The latter looks unlikely as the previous election had a splintered opposition .
The latest polling is quite varied and has Fidesz and United for Hungary on 47% , the day before a poll put Fidesz well ahead on 50 to 40.
The opposition would need to be around 5% ahead to gain a majority of seats.
Of much more interest in terms of impact is across the Channel , Macron took the risky move of putting pension reform on the table and has said he will increase the retirement age for a full pension from 62 to 65.
Not the greatest of messages to go into an election on ! This together with the cost of living crisis has made him much more vulnerable to Le Pen .
The Presidential debate will be much more important than in 2017 , Le Pen didn’t do well then .
There is ironically much more pressure on her and Macron given the closer polling this time . Last time she had no chance to win the second round this time there is that chance albeit still small .
2. Fair point!