Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
The whole removing citizenship thing is super shady... and is just pointless populist nonsense. The safest place for terrorists is (obviously) prison. The whole debate should be flipped around to be... why don't you want terrorists in prison as opposed to free?
There are other cases Moazzam Begg talks about on twitter where you have to wonder whether stripping someone of citizenship is just an easy get-out for the authorities who are embarassed about intelligence operations gone wrong.
Stripping someone of citizenship is easier than putting them in prison; because to do the latter you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime in relation to the laws of your own country.
Begum was born and raised here. She is our problem. Stick her in prison.
Just like we don’t make people that commit terrible crimes stateless. We present proper justice and process to the world and we take the good with the bad.
At Fishmongers Hall, one of the men who saved countless lives was on day release after committing murders. If we had made him stateless it’s likely a lot more people would have died.
I mostly agree apart from ‘stick her in prison’. Needs to be trial first, and I suspect this is where the issue is. Has she committed crimes that the U.K. can try her for? Because if not, she comes home and is free.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the modern British Left
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
= 100,000 white girls raped, abused, tortured and even murdered by racist Muslim grooming gangs
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.
The courts ruled otherwise.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
For those wondering why the Ukrainian advance seems slow, I want to say it’s not. It’s unprecedented. The Ukrainians are trying to advance without air supremacy and tactical air support (the prerequisite for almos all successful offensive campaigns since 1939 or even 1918)
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
It’s about agency. She wasn’t trafficked at the behest of Western intelligence. The Western intelligence asset did not do everything he did under the direction of Western intelligence. It is, thus, wrong to say she was trafficked by Western intelligence.
There is no proof that she was stripped of her citizenship to prevent the intelligence involvement coming out. I can entirely believe she was stripped of her citizenship by a racist government wanting to scapegoat a brown girl while looking Tough on Terrorism.
It is an important case. That is why it is important to get the facts straight.
Western intelligence could have intervened and said hold onto this girl, she's a vulnerable minor and a British citizen, we will come and get her and bring her home. They chose not to and let her be trafficked to Islamic state, where she got raped. Why? We only have a few facts, it is true. I am operating on the principle that the more we find out the worse it will look, which is generally the case with these sorts of situations. I may be wrong of course, but I think that anyone who takes the government's word on any of this is naive beyond belief.
What evidence do you have that she was raped? She chose to get married and was above the age of consent.
Age of consent in Syria is 15.
Well, we have an early winner for today’s worst point made.
Age of consent in this country is 16, in other countries its 18, in Syria its 15.
If 16 years olds from countries with an 18 age of consent move to this country are they "raped" if they engage in consensual sex?
Of course not, but 15 Yr olds are.
FFS, are you on the spectrum or something? You have no check box in your mind about not upsetting people have you.
So 16 year olds aren't raped if they have consensual sex in a country with 16 as age of consent, but 15 year olds are if they have consensual sex in a country with 15 as age of consent?
How do you explain that one?
Because she was groomed and trafficked as a minor.
She wasn't a minor where she had sex. Unless she did in this country, which hasn't ever been reported, she was above the age of consent there.
So by this logic you could kidnap a 10-yr old, groom them continuously for 10 years and then send them out to kill someone and they would bear full criminal responsibility.
That it?
If they killed someone at 20 they'd be an murderer, yes. Their terrible backstory might be taken into account as mitigation at any sentencing, just as if she's charged where she's chosen to live with any crimes then she ought to be able to plead mitigation there.
But you are allowing no mitigation in your opinion of what should happen to Begum?
Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
It’s about agency. She wasn’t trafficked at the behest of Western intelligence. The Western intelligence asset did not do everything he did under the direction of Western intelligence. It is, thus, wrong to say she was trafficked by Western intelligence.
There is no proof that she was stripped of her citizenship to prevent the intelligence involvement coming out. I can entirely believe she was stripped of her citizenship by a racist government wanting to scapegoat a brown girl while looking Tough on Terrorism.
It is an important case. That is why it is important to get the facts straight.
Western intelligence could have intervened and said hold onto this girl, she's a vulnerable minor and a British citizen, we will come and get her and bring her home. They chose not to and let her be trafficked to Islamic state, where she got raped. Why? We only have a few facts, it is true. I am operating on the principle that the more we find out the worse it will look, which is generally the case with these sorts of situations. I may be wrong of course, but I think that anyone who takes the government's word on any of this is naive beyond belief.
What evidence do you have that she was raped? She chose to get married and was above the age of consent.
Age of consent in Syria is 15.
Well, we have an early winner for today’s worst point made.
Age of consent in this country is 16, in other countries its 18, in Syria its 15.
If 16 years olds from countries with an 18 age of consent move to this country are they "raped" if they engage in consensual sex?
Of course not, but 15 Yr olds are.
FFS, are you on the spectrum or something? You have no check box in your mind about not upsetting people have you.
So 16 year olds aren't raped if they have consensual sex in a country with 16 as age of consent, but 15 year olds are if they have consensual sex in a country with 15 as age of consent?
How do you explain that one?
Because she was groomed and trafficked as a minor.
She wasn't a minor where she had sex. Unless she did in this country, which hasn't ever been reported, she was above the age of consent there.
So by this logic you could kidnap a 10-yr old, groom them continuously for 10 years and then send them out to kill someone and they would bear full criminal responsibility.
That it?
If they killed someone at 20 they'd be an murderer, yes. Their terrible backstory might be taken into account as mitigation at any sentencing, just as if she's charged where she's chosen to live with any crimes then she ought to be able to plead mitigation there.
But you are allowing no mitigation in your opinion of what should happen to Begum?
I'm not saying she should be on trial in this country am I?
If the country she lives in want to put her on trial, that's their issue to deal with.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
Whether she has British citizenship is somewhat up in the air. She has been given the right to appeal the removal of her British citizenship in a British court. However, the Government was also found to be within its rights to prevent her entering the UK on security grounds. This leaves her in something of a limbo.
She is an adult now and I have no sympathy for the positions she espouses. However, why should Rojava be lumbered with her? Leaving ISIL brides in camps in Syria is not a sensible long-term solution.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.
The courts ruled otherwise.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
People should have rights irrespective of whether public opinion likes you or not. This is why politicians, who want to be popular, shouldn't have the power to make these kinds of decisions.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
"She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts." Well, the court process has not concluded. A court stripped her of citizenship. She was given the right to appeal. The Govt said she couldn't come to the country to appeal. A court said she could. A higher court said she couldn't, but said she still has the right to appeal (she just can't for practical reasons at this time).
She wasn't a minor where she had sex. Unless she did in this country, which hasn't ever been reported, she was above the age of consent there.
While I broadly agree with you that innocent would-be immigrants should take priority over immigrants with dodgy pasts (leaving aside the fact that she wasn't an immigrant but British), it really is special pleading to say that what would count as rape in this country is OK because the girl was trafficked to a country where the age of consent is lower.
As Leon says, letting her back would be unpopular. Nonetheless, I like to think that Britain will attempt to treat its citizens fairly, even when that's unpopular. If that's not the case, which of us is entirely safe?
Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
It’s about agency. She wasn’t trafficked at the behest of Western intelligence. The Western intelligence asset did not do everything he did under the direction of Western intelligence. It is, thus, wrong to say she was trafficked by Western intelligence.
There is no proof that she was stripped of her citizenship to prevent the intelligence involvement coming out. I can entirely believe she was stripped of her citizenship by a racist government wanting to scapegoat a brown girl while looking Tough on Terrorism.
It is an important case. That is why it is important to get the facts straight.
Western intelligence could have intervened and said hold onto this girl, she's a vulnerable minor and a British citizen, we will come and get her and bring her home. They chose not to and let her be trafficked to Islamic state, where she got raped. Why? We only have a few facts, it is true. I am operating on the principle that the more we find out the worse it will look, which is generally the case with these sorts of situations. I may be wrong of course, but I think that anyone who takes the government's word on any of this is naive beyond belief.
What evidence do you have that she was raped? She chose to get married and was above the age of consent.
Age of consent in Syria is 15.
Well, we have an early winner for today’s worst point made.
Age of consent in this country is 16, in other countries its 18, in Syria its 15.
If 16 years olds from countries with an 18 age of consent move to this country are they "raped" if they engage in consensual sex?
Bart do you really want to go down the usage of "raped" road?
That way I fear lies big trouble.
"A young girl walking down the road in Rotherham out of her mind on crack with a short skirt was "raped"."
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.
The courts ruled otherwise.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.
Put £20 on Democrats holding the house last night. Feels possible, oh and £120 on Putin winning the next Russian election at a smidgen under evens which is surely wrong
Hat tip @Quincel for the Putin bet, there's £69 @ 1.96 for anyone who wants to follow me in. If the bet's a loser then tbh you've probably won more than your stake back on your energy bill anyway.
Alaska gives another illustration of how important candidate selection is in US elections.
A standard GOP candidate would have won comfortably but Palin had a -10% personal vote.
This does not bode well for GOP chances in the Senate with the Trump endorsed candidates.
Final result 51.47% to 48.53% for the dem candidate.
A triumph for AV!
Did not see that coming, thought Palin would have enough transfers to get over the line but she truly was completely toxic.
Would love to dig into what that means for trasnfers vs did not have a trasnfer vote.
Peltola 74,807 Palin 58,328 Begich 52,504 Total 185,639
became final round:
Peltola 91,206 +16,399 Palin 85,987 +27,659 Total 177,193 -8,446
Suggesting approximately 30% of Begich votes went to Peltola and 15% didn't transfer and that about 15% of GOP voters would rather vote for a Dem than Palin.
A more general problem that the GOP has is that their candidates who are extreme enough to win primary elections are going to be too extreme to win general elections.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the modern British Left
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
= 100,000 white girls raped, abused, tortured and even murdered by racist Muslim grooming gangs
I am also very upset about that, I just object to double standards.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
You know that do you?
The polls are pretty clear
I’ve said it multiple times, Begum should be tried in Syria or Iraq, where she committed her crimes against Syrian/Iraqi people (crimes like owning a Yazidi sex slave)
FPT: When I read the BBC article on the attacks in Chorley, I was struck by what wasn't in it: fathers. Of either the attackers or the vicims.
Would the absence of fathers be common in such areas?
(I have long thought that, were some enterprising reporter to investigate, they would find that few of Jeffrey Epstein's victimshad fathers in their lives.)
Yes it would. As you move down the social scale fewer and fewer men marry, and those that do are more likely to divorce. On top of that cohabiting couples are twice as likely to split up.
This social class inequality has worsened in recent years too. Half of children are born out of wedlock, and half of fathers have little or no contact with their children. Rates tend to be worst in post industrial areas as part of a general disintegration of traditional family life.
For all the talk of social conservatism in the working classes, it is actually middle class professionals in urban areas that have the most 1950s like family values, and are more likely to attend religious services etc.
Amongst the richest fifth of UK white households 84% are married. Amongst the poorest fifth though just 19% are married.
Poor Chinese and Indian children though are much more likely to still have married parents and that shows up in their well above average exam results
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
"She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts." Well, the court process has not concluded. A court stripped her of citizenship. She was given the right to appeal. The Govt said she couldn't come to the country to appeal. A court said she could. A higher court said she couldn't, but said she still has the right to appeal (she just can't for practical reasons at this time).
No she wasn't - let's repeat things in simple terms.
The prosecution said she had / had right to citizenship in Bangladesh. Because of that her citizenship was revoked. Bangladesh then pointed out she didn't have any right to citizenship there...
So her citizenship was removed by a court based on a lie (now that lie may have been unintentional but it's still a lie)..
TIME spoke to "Gender Queer" author and illustrator Maia Kobabe on about eir work, the efforts to restrict access to eir writing, and what ey make of the current cultural moment
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.
The courts ruled otherwise.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.
She is British. She is our problem to deal with.
It's a funny one with Bart (probably still furiously googling as we speak).
He is usually logically precise but on this one he is all over the place on his own terms.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.
The courts ruled otherwise.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.
Begum's lawyers had argued for a judgment already at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that there should be a judgment that the removal of citizenship was unlawful and should be overturned. That argument was rejected by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
So no we are not simply "the last ones holding the parcel".
Yes she's allowed further appeals, but they've not happened yet, and the Supreme Court has ruled that public safety is allowed to ensure she's kept out of the country for the time being. Again, rule of law applying.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
"She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts." Well, the court process has not concluded. A court stripped her of citizenship. She was given the right to appeal. The Govt said she couldn't come to the country to appeal. A court said she could. A higher court said she couldn't, but said she still has the right to appeal (she just can't for practical reasons at this time).
No she wasn't - let's repeat things in simple terms.
The prosecution said she had / had right to citizenship in Bangladesh. Because of that her citizenship was revoked. Bangladesh then pointed out she didn't have any right to citizenship there...
So her citizenship was removed by a court based on a lie (now that lie may have been unintentional but it's still a lie)..
Our sovereignty champions are probably going to say that Britain can dictate who Bangladesh should or shouldn't accept as citizens.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
"She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts." Well, the court process has not concluded. A court stripped her of citizenship. She was given the right to appeal. The Govt said she couldn't come to the country to appeal. A court said she could. A higher court said she couldn't, but said she still has the right to appeal (she just can't for practical reasons at this time).
No she wasn't - let's repeat things in simple terms.
The prosecution said she had / had right to citizenship in Bangladesh. Because of that her citizenship was revoked. Bangladesh then pointed out she didn't have any right to citizenship there...
So her citizenship was removed by a court based on a lie (now that lie may have been unintentional but it's still a lie)..
A deliberate lie. Told by ministers wanting to score political brownie points.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.
The courts ruled otherwise.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.
Lovely technicality there - you can appeal if you get into the country - however unless she arrives at Dover via a dinghy she has zero chance of actually getting here.
And if she arrives via a dinghy that action would be used as justification for not listening to her case..
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.
The courts ruled otherwise.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.
Begum's lawyers had argued for a judgment already at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that there should be a judgment that the removal of citizenship was unlawful and should be overturned. That argument was rejected by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
So no we are not simply "the last ones holding the parcel".
Yes she's allowed further appeals, but they've not happened yet, and the Supreme Court has ruled that public safety is allowed to ensure she's kept out of the country for the time being. Again, rule of law applying.
Are there you are. Good google?
Your post, now that you have had a chance to look it up, directly contradicts your earlier ones that the judiciary found she was not a British citizen.
They have simply said that she can't appeal unless she is in this country and (go Priti!) the UK has not allowed her into this country to appeal.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK. Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
She's not an immigrant, she's British. I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone. She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so. I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to? For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship. She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
"She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts." Well, the court process has not concluded. A court stripped her of citizenship. She was given the right to appeal. The Govt said she couldn't come to the country to appeal. A court said she could. A higher court said she couldn't, but said she still has the right to appeal (she just can't for practical reasons at this time).
Indeed, the rule of law is being followed. The courts making decisions often allow for appeals etc and quite right too.
The idea this is just the Home Secretary and nothing else is a complete fallacy. This has been before the Courts repeatedly and if the rule of law wasn't being followed the Supreme Court or other Courts would have been able to rule so. That the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter and the current position is entirely within what the Supreme Court has ruled to be lawful, pending any appeal on the terms laid down by the Supreme Court regarding safety, is again the rule of law in action.
Begum was born and raised here. She is our problem. Stick her in prison.
Just like we don’t make people that commit terrible crimes stateless. We present proper justice and process to the world and we take the good with the bad.
At Fishmongers Hall, one of the men who saved countless lives was on day release after committing murders. If we had made him stateless it’s likely a lot more people would have died.
I mostly agree apart from ‘stick her in prison’. Needs to be trial first, and I suspect this is where the issue is. Has she committed crimes that the U.K. can try her for? Because if not, she comes home and is free.
Isn't active support for IS a crime, so I presume she could be found guilty of that? I doubt treason charges would stick.
Things she did in Syria wouldn't normally constitute crimes that the UK can try her for, unless they counted as war crimes. The vast majority of what's been reported in terms of what she did in Syria wouldn't count. There is one report that she was helping make bomb jackets for suicide bombers (in Syria, for targets in Syria). I doubt that would be sufficient to count under UK war crime legislation.
There is a bigger question here. There was a war. What do you do after the war ends? Was every wife of a Nazi imprisoned after World War II ended? No. There are camps -- sort of refugee camps, sort of prison camps -- in Rojava full of ISIS brides. What should be their fate? Many of them are not Syrian nationals? Should we leave them to the Syrians to deal with, or should they be returned to their nations of origin?
Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.
"Go faster overall" even works as a three word slogan.
It's not intuitive, but it's true. You just need a bit of leadership from the people who aspire to be leaders.
I've been alerted to some 'woke' stuff you may want to look in to. He Pua pua in New Zealand. It is an emerging policy of the progressive government, designed to achieve Maori Equality, in response to the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
- Maori will be exercising exclusive and/or shared authority over claimed land, territories and resources and over matters related with sacred land and culture. - Tribal/clan governance structures will be established, with their authority recognised.
Equity... - There will be equality of outcome between peoples, which means that Maori authority is recognised and respected. - All Maori will enjoy equality of outcome.
"University of Queensland law professor James Allan called He Puapua “radical”. In his report, he said “[He Puapua] is a radical Report. Its recommendations are radical. Were those recommendations to be fulfilled to any considerable degree they would undercut majoritarian democracy; they would impinge upon elements of the Rule of Law; and they would exchange newer, worse, more aristocratic constitutional arrangements for older, better, more democratic ones.”
Even though the thief was caught on CCTV stealing £640 worth of perfume from a top London store and recorded confessing to the crime, the CPS decided it was not in the public interest for TM Eye to prosecute the alleged shoplifter.
Mr. Leon, it's worth remembering that boys were abused too. I believe the Rotherham figure for girls is over 1,000, and for boys over 100.
I genuinely didn’t know that. My god. 10% of the victims are boys? Presumably this pattern is repeated across the UK, as all the other patterns are repeated
Our inability as a nation to address this fucking enormous crime - 100,000+ victims - the biggest crime in modern British history - says something really bad about us. I reckon we just can’t cope with it, the way Catholics, for years, couldn’t begin to address clerical child abuse. Instead people eagerly spend endless hours debating the rights of one stupid girl who willingly joined a Nazi death cult in a war zone
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you I bought from Regents Park created on the web".
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear. To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
Put £20 on Democrats holding the house last night. Feels possible, oh and £120 on Putin winning the next Russian election at a smidgen under evens which is surely wrong
Hat tip @Quincel for the Putin bet, there's £69 @ 1.96 for anyone who wants to follow me in. If the bet's a loser then tbh you've probably won more than your stake back on your energy bill anyway.
Alaska gives another illustration of how important candidate selection is in US elections.
A standard GOP candidate would have won comfortably but Palin had a -10% personal vote.
This does not bode well for GOP chances in the Senate with the Trump endorsed candidates.
Final result 51.47% to 48.53% for the dem candidate.
A triumph for AV!
Did not see that coming, thought Palin would have enough transfers to get over the line but she truly was completely toxic.
Would love to dig into what that means for trasnfers vs did not have a trasnfer vote.
Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.
"Go faster overall" even works as a three word slogan.
It's not intuitive, but it's true. You just need a bit of leadership from the people who aspire to be leaders.
Traffic flow is like water flow. Create a blockage and the back pressure wave can go back a long way. So when there is a lane drop its instructive to see the people who don't merge in turn as recommended by the Highway Code, but instead join a really long queue a long way back from the lane drop. Then inch up and brake hard to keep people out of the queue they themselves are creating by their actions.
Even though the thief was caught on CCTV stealing £640 worth of perfume from a top London store and recorded confessing to the crime, the CPS decided it was not in the public interest for TM Eye to prosecute the alleged shoplifter.
How would the CPS get said shoplifter through the courts? It isn't in the public interest because cuts have buggered our legal system to the point where it is barely functional. Vote Conservative.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you I bought from Regents Park created on the web".
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his life
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
People should have rights irrespective of whether public opinion likes you or not. This is why politicians, who want to be popular, shouldn't have the power to make these kinds of decisions.
This is one reason why this 'removal of citizenship' phenomenon is troubling, it is really all about removing rights.
Mr. Leon, I don't know the precise figures, unfortunately.
During the initial reporting of the Rotherham abuse the rough numbers were mentioned but the male victims hardly ever get a line (the clear majority of victims were female, of course).
I do think it's worth repeating now and then to avoid the assumption that victims can only be female, while bearing in mind they are the majority by a long way.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Surely you're familiar with getting carried away by your own rhetoric to the point where you say something really stupid ?
Put £20 on Democrats holding the house last night. Feels possible, oh and £120 on Putin winning the next Russian election at a smidgen under evens which is surely wrong
Hat tip @Quincel for the Putin bet, there's £69 @ 1.96 for anyone who wants to follow me in. If the bet's a loser then tbh you've probably won more than your stake back on your energy bill anyway.
Alaska gives another illustration of how important candidate selection is in US elections.
A standard GOP candidate would have won comfortably but Palin had a -10% personal vote.
This does not bode well for GOP chances in the Senate with the Trump endorsed candidates.
Final result 51.47% to 48.53% for the dem candidate.
A triumph for AV!
Did not see that coming, thought Palin would have enough transfers to get over the line but she truly was completely toxic.
Would love to dig into what that means for trasnfers vs did not have a trasnfer vote.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
I wonder who is more likely racist - OLB or people (eg you) who don't give 2 shits about girls being raped unless it's by muslims?
FPT: When I read the BBC article on the attacks in Chorley, I was struck by what wasn't in it: fathers. Of either the attackers or the vicims.
Would the absence of fathers be common in such areas?
(I have long thought that, were some enterprising reporter to investigate, they would find that few of Jeffrey Epstein's victimshad fathers in their lives.)
Yes it would. As you move down the social scale fewer and fewer men marry, and those that do are more likely to divorce. On top of that cohabiting couples are twice as likely to split up.
This social class inequality has worsened in recent years too. Half of children are born out of wedlock, and half of fathers have little or no contact with their children. Rates tend to be worst in post industrial areas as part of a general disintegration of traditional family life.
For all the talk of social conservatism in the working classes, it is actually middle class professionals in urban areas that have the most 1950s like family values, and are more likely to attend religious services etc.
Amongst the richest fifth of UK white households 84% are married. Amongst the poorest fifth though just 19% are married.
Poor Chinese and Indian children though are much more likely to still have married parents and that shows up in their well above average exam results
Weddings are quite expensive though - there's going to be a growing portion of unmarried stable two parent families particularly as you go down the income scale.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you I bought from Regents Park created on the web".
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his life
There you go - like a puppy dog coming to heel. As I said, makes you look a bit of a fool tbh.
Plus doesn't particularly add anything to the exchange. "You're stupid" (albeit with added Leon flourish) isn't the most incisive rhetorical device.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear. To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.
"Go faster overall" even works as a three word slogan.
It's not intuitive, but it's true. You just need a bit of leadership from the people who aspire to be leaders.
Traffic flow is like water flow. Create a blockage and the back pressure wave can go back a long way. So when there is a lane drop its instructive to see the people who don't merge in turn as recommended by the Highway Code, but instead join a really long queue a long way back from the lane drop. Then inch up and brake hard to keep people out of the queue they themselves are creating by their actions.
Petty spite is incredibly unproductive on the roads. I always try and get in as late as possible, and if I'm in the lane doing the letting in let that Beemer fly in in front of me. We're helping the traffic flow no matter what people think.
Though hopefully of really compelling interest only to viral evolution nerds at this point... https://twitter.com/LongDesertTrain/status/1565184527428980737 Today I discovered an extraordinary microlineage of BA.2.3. What makes it extraordinary? A colossal genetic saltation (10 spike mutations) combined with striking geographic spread for a very small number of sequences (just 4 so far). 1/25
Two greats, then Blair and Johnson vying for "best of the rest".
Amusingly, on net scores May (-13) is now doing better than Johnson (-16).
The Conservatives have a tricky manoevre to perform here. Embracing enough of the Johnson inheritance to keep the superfans on board, whilst being a fresh enough start to retrieve some of those who have floated away. Not easy at the best of times, and (to stay with the thread of conversation) the party is having to change drivers whilst doing seventy on a foggy motorway with several complex junctions coming up.
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
People should have rights irrespective of whether public opinion likes you or not. This is why politicians, who want to be popular, shouldn't have the power to make these kinds of decisions.
This is one reason why this 'removal of citizenship' phenomenon is troubling, it is really all about removing rights.
Leaving aside Shazza Begum herself (who should be brought home) it was indefensible to leave her kids, two of whom were British citizens, to die in the refugee camp.
The man who married a hologram in Japan can no longer communicate with his virtual wife https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/426715 The software that allowed the interaction is no longer supported...
FPT: When I read the BBC article on the attacks in Chorley, I was struck by what wasn't in it: fathers. Of either the attackers or the vicims.
Would the absence of fathers be common in such areas?
(I have long thought that, were some enterprising reporter to investigate, they would find that few of Jeffrey Epstein's victimshad fathers in their lives.)
Yes it would. As you move down the social scale fewer and fewer men marry, and those that do are more likely to divorce. On top of that cohabiting couples are twice as likely to split up.
This social class inequality has worsened in recent years too. Half of children are born out of wedlock, and half of fathers have little or no contact with their children. Rates tend to be worst in post industrial areas as part of a general disintegration of traditional family life.
For all the talk of social conservatism in the working classes, it is actually middle class professionals in urban areas that have the most 1950s like family values, and are more likely to attend religious services etc.
Amongst the richest fifth of UK white households 84% are married. Amongst the poorest fifth though just 19% are married.
Poor Chinese and Indian children though are much more likely to still have married parents and that shows up in their well above average exam results
Weddings are quite expensive though - there's going to be a growing portion of unmarried stable two parent families particularly as you go down the income scale.
To an extent but you can just have a simple wedding of less than 50 guests and a reception at the local pub, it doesn't need to be a huge affair.
Plus as I said poor British Indian and Chinese couples still manage to afford to get married
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you I bought from Regents Park created on the web".
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his life
There you go - like a puppy dog coming to heel. As I said, makes you look a bit of a fool tbh.
Plus doesn't particularly add anything to the exchange. "You're stupid" (albeit with added Leon flourish) isn't the most incisive rhetorical device.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.
"Go faster overall" even works as a three word slogan.
It's not intuitive, but it's true. You just need a bit of leadership from the people who aspire to be leaders.
Traffic flow is like water flow. Create a blockage and the back pressure wave can go back a long way. So when there is a lane drop its instructive to see the people who don't merge in turn as recommended by the Highway Code, but instead join a really long queue a long way back from the lane drop. Then inch up and brake hard to keep people out of the queue they themselves are creating by their actions.
Petty spite is incredibly unproductive on the roads. I always try and get in as late as possible, and if I'm in the lane doing the letting in let that Beemer fly in in front of me. We're helping the traffic flow no matter what people think.
Indeed. Remember, you aren't "stuck in traffic" - you are traffic.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you I bought from Regents Park created on the web".
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his life
There you go - like a puppy dog coming to heel. As I said, makes you look a bit of a fool tbh.
Plus doesn't particularly add anything to the exchange. "You're stupid" (albeit with added Leon flourish) isn't the most incisive rhetorical device.
Bullseye tho, right?
Yes, Topping hit your capacity to argue in the manner of a playground child quite accurately.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you I bought from Regents Park created on the web".
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his life
Have you got a spreadsheet or something? You're fucking obssessed with everyone's intelligence relative to that of the Mentat of Camden.
FPT: When I read the BBC article on the attacks in Chorley, I was struck by what wasn't in it: fathers. Of either the attackers or the vicims.
Would the absence of fathers be common in such areas?
(I have long thought that, were some enterprising reporter to investigate, they would find that few of Jeffrey Epstein's victimshad fathers in their lives.)
Yes it would. As you move down the social scale fewer and fewer men marry, and those that do are more likely to divorce. On top of that cohabiting couples are twice as likely to split up.
This social class inequality has worsened in recent years too. Half of children are born out of wedlock, and half of fathers have little or no contact with their children. Rates tend to be worst in post industrial areas as part of a general disintegration of traditional family life.
For all the talk of social conservatism in the working classes, it is actually middle class professionals in urban areas that have the most 1950s like family values, and are more likely to attend religious services etc.
Amongst the richest fifth of UK white households 84% are married. Amongst the poorest fifth though just 19% are married.
Poor Chinese and Indian children though are much more likely to still have married parents and that shows up in their well above average exam results
Weddings are quite expensive though - there's going to be a growing portion of unmarried stable two parent families particularly as you go down the income scale.
To an extent but you can just have a simple wedding of less than 50 guests and a reception at the local pub, it doesn't need to be a huge affair.
Plus as I said poor British Indian and Chinese couples still manage to afford to get married
I once dated an eminent professor's daughter (Who was unmarried to his very long term partner) in the most middle class stable guardian two parent household you could possibly imagine.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
No but it does mean that the rule of law is being followed, does it not?
The courts could at any stage have ruled that the rule of law is not being followed. The current situation is in fitting with the decisions of the Supreme Court, is it not?
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear. To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
It upsets me that you seem to care so much more about the lives of white girls than brown ones. It upsets me a lot. Maybe because I have two mixed race daughters. My comment was aimed at your hypocrisy and double standards, but if it conveyed an impression that I don't care about any victim of rape or abuse then I am very sorry. It was a million miles from my intention and I phrased it poorly. And incidentally, the same gangs of abusers also abused brown girls, but I've never heard you express even a tiny shred of sympathy for those victims.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you I bought from Regents Park created on the web".
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his life
Have you got a spreadsheet or something? You're fucking obssessed with everyone's intelligence relative to that of the Mentat of Camden.
I’ve got you down as a pretty impressive IQ136 on the Stanford-Binet/Wechsler Scale, but you’re also on the mental health spreadsheet for manic depression and suicidality, and my actuarial PB spreadsheet says you might not see 2025. On the other hand, I’m not dissimilar
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear. To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
It upsets me that you seem to care so much more about the lives of white girls than brown ones. It upsets me a lot. Maybe because I have two mixed race daughters. My comment was aimed at your hypocrisy and double standards, but if it conveyed an impression that I don't care about any victim of rape or abuse then I am very sorry. It was a million miles from my intention and I phrased it poorly. And incidentally, the same gangs of abusers also abused brown girls, but I've never heard you express even a tiny shred of sympathy for those victims.
“ one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about”
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid because
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
No but it does mean that the rule of law is being followed, does it not?
The courts could at any stage have ruled that the rule of law is not being followed. The current situation is in fitting with the decisions of the Supreme Court, is it not?
How was the Rule of Law followed? "We revoked her citizenship because she is eligible to be Bangladeshi" / "Ok then". But she *wasn't* eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship and never had been.
When the government openly lie to the court and get away with it that is not following the rule of law.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
No but it does mean that the rule of law is being followed, does it not?
The courts could at any stage have ruled that the rule of law is not being followed. The current situation is in fitting with the decisions of the Supreme Court, is it not?
How was the Rule of Law followed? "We revoked her citizenship because she is eligible to be Bangladeshi" / "Ok then". But she *wasn't* eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship and never had been.
When the government openly lie to the court and get away with it that is not following the rule of law.
Again hasn't the claim that she isn't eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship been put before the courts at the time? It was certainly brought up ad nauseum here before the Supreme Court ruling that led to the current legal situation.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear. To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
It upsets me that you seem to care so much more about the lives of white girls than brown ones. It upsets me a lot. Maybe because I have two mixed race daughters. My comment was aimed at your hypocrisy and double standards, but if it conveyed an impression that I don't care about any victim of rape or abuse then I am very sorry. It was a million miles from my intention and I phrased it poorly. And incidentally, the same gangs of abusers also abused brown girls, but I've never heard you express even a tiny shred of sympathy for those victims.
“ one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about”
That will stay with you forever. Sorry
Do you want to express any sympathy for the non white, Muslim victims of these gangs?
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1565267641803186176 Since 5 am, September 1, the Russian occupying forces have not stopped constant mortar shelling of Enerhodar, Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Machine guns can be heard, announces Dmytro Orlov, Mayor of Enerhodar.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
But as @Morris_Dancer has shown us, a non trivial number of the grooming victims are boys
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear. To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
It upsets me that you seem to care so much more about the lives of white girls than brown ones. It upsets me a lot. Maybe because I have two mixed race daughters. My comment was aimed at your hypocrisy and double standards, but if it conveyed an impression that I don't care about any victim of rape or abuse then I am very sorry. It was a million miles from my intention and I phrased it poorly. And incidentally, the same gangs of abusers also abused brown girls, but I've never heard you express even a tiny shred of sympathy for those victims.
“ one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about”
That will stay with you forever. Sorry
Do you want to express any sympathy for the non white, Muslim victims of these gangs?
Absolutely. And I have in fact expressed this many times. The gangs also go after Sikh girls, I believe. Just as appalling
They tend to avoid Muslim girls for obvious reasons
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
The courts reviewed the decision to determine whether it was unlawful as claimed. The fact that they say that there are no grounds for declaring it unlawful means that the challenge fails. The decision by the Home Secretary to remove citizenship stands.
Separately the courts have also reviewed the decision of the HS not to allow her back into the country to pursue her appeal (it being accepted that she cannot pursue an appeal from Syria) and said that there is no basis for challenging that decision either.
So the decisions in this case have all rightly been taken by politicians. Even if the courts had declared those decisions unlawful, that would not necessarily mean that Shamima would get her citizenship back or be allowed to travel here. That would depend on the reasons the court gives. It could well be that the decision would need to be taken again by the HS on the correct grounds and if done so it could well end up being the same decision.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you I bought from Regents Park created on the web".
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his life
There you go - like a puppy dog coming to heel. As I said, makes you look a bit of a fool tbh.
Plus doesn't particularly add anything to the exchange. "You're stupid" (albeit with added Leon flourish) isn't the most incisive rhetorical device.
Bullseye tho, right?
As I said you would be best to not worry about this kind of stuff. It might comfort you but actually you are too smart really to think it's a killing move. Really, if you think about it.
Bloody hell. It's normally low key and urbane in the morning, stuff like anti-muslim ranting coming much later on. God knows where we'll be at 10pm at this rate.
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
But the Rule of Law was followed...!!!!
So you know better than the Supreme Court?
The current legal situation is one determined by the Supreme Court and other courts before it, not simply the Home Secretary unilaterally.
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.
Well, yes, that as well. That would be nice. I know some swordsmen who get a very high number of conquests because they see it purely as a numbers game, the women are only there for their self-gratification. They play women shamelessly, say whatever they want to hear, shift from woman to woman constantly as soon as the women begin to suspect they're a swine. It's unfortunately quite a successful model, if you're amoral enough to go for it. And plenty are.
Comments
Ladies and Gentlemen, the modern British Left
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
= 100,000 white girls raped, abused, tortured and even murdered by racist Muslim grooming gangs
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1565248503630159872
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
If the country she lives in want to put her on trial, that's their issue to deal with.
She is an adult now and I have no sympathy for the positions she espouses. However, why should Rojava be lumbered with her? Leaving ISIL brides in camps in Syria is not a sensible long-term solution.
Mr. Leon, it's worth remembering that boys were abused too. I believe the Rotherham figure for girls is over 1,000, and for boys over 100.
As Leon says, letting her back would be unpopular. Nonetheless, I like to think that Britain will attempt to treat its citizens fairly, even when that's unpopular. If that's not the case, which of us is entirely safe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Alaska's_at-large_congressional_district_special_election
Then first round:
Peltola 74,807
Palin 58,328
Begich 52,504
Total 185,639
became final round:
Peltola 91,206 +16,399
Palin 85,987 +27,659
Total 177,193 -8,446
Suggesting approximately 30% of Begich votes went to Peltola and 15% didn't transfer and that about 15% of GOP voters would rather vote for a Dem than Palin.
A more general problem that the GOP has is that their candidates who are extreme enough to win primary elections are going to be too extreme to win general elections.
I’ve said it multiple times, Begum should be tried in Syria or Iraq, where she committed her crimes against Syrian/Iraqi people (crimes like owning a Yazidi sex slave)
They will execute her
Poor Chinese and Indian children though are much more likely to still have married parents and that shows up in their well above average exam results
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/forget-race-or-class-marriage-is-the-big-social-divide
The prosecution said she had / had right to citizenship in Bangladesh.
Because of that her citizenship was revoked.
Bangladesh then pointed out she didn't have any right to citizenship there...
So her citizenship was removed by a court based on a lie (now that lie may have been unintentional but it's still a lie)..
TIME spoke to "Gender Queer" author and illustrator Maia Kobabe on about eir work, the efforts to restrict access to eir writing, and what ey make of the current cultural moment
https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1565173350237872129
He is usually logically precise but on this one he is all over the place on his own terms.
So no we are not simply "the last ones holding the parcel".
Yes she's allowed further appeals, but they've not happened yet, and the Supreme Court has ruled that public safety is allowed to ensure she's kept out of the country for the time being. Again, rule of law applying.
And if she arrives via a dinghy that action would be used as justification for not listening to her case..
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
Your post, now that you have had a chance to look it up, directly contradicts your earlier ones that the judiciary found she was not a British citizen.
They have simply said that she can't appeal unless she is in this country and (go Priti!) the UK has not allowed her into this country to appeal.
The idea this is just the Home Secretary and nothing else is a complete fallacy. This has been before the Courts repeatedly and if the rule of law wasn't being followed the Supreme Court or other Courts would have been able to rule so. That the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter and the current position is entirely within what the Supreme Court has ruled to be lawful, pending any appeal on the terms laid down by the Supreme Court regarding safety, is again the rule of law in action.
@JohnRentoul
New sweepstake: guess the percentage share of the vote won by Sunak and Truss
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScTwm4TlJihFQTXGb3gVsnEk_dLS-uBnWl0NJqwilI7szsHbw/viewform?usp=sf_link
Things she did in Syria wouldn't normally constitute crimes that the UK can try her for, unless they counted as war crimes. The vast majority of what's been reported in terms of what she did in Syria wouldn't count. There is one report that she was helping make bomb jackets for suicide bombers (in Syria, for targets in Syria). I doubt that would be sufficient to count under UK war crime legislation.
There is a bigger question here. There was a war. What do you do after the war ends? Was every wife of a Nazi imprisoned after World War II ended? No. There are camps -- sort of refugee camps, sort of prison camps -- in Rojava full of ISIS brides. What should be their fate? Many of them are not Syrian nationals? Should we leave them to the Syrians to deal with, or should they be returned to their nations of origin?
It's not intuitive, but it's true. You just need a bit of leadership from the people who aspire to be leaders.
I've been alerted to some 'woke' stuff you may want to look in to.
He Pua pua in New Zealand.
It is an emerging policy of the progressive government, designed to achieve Maori Equality, in response to the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Puapua
The particularly eye raising objectives are...
- Maori will be exercising exclusive and/or shared authority over claimed land, territories and resources and over matters related with sacred land and culture.
- Tribal/clan governance structures will be established, with their authority recognised.
Equity...
- There will be equality of outcome between peoples, which means that Maori authority is recognised and respected.
- All Maori will enjoy equality of outcome.
"University of Queensland law professor James Allan called He Puapua “radical”. In his report, he said “[He Puapua] is a radical Report. Its recommendations are radical. Were those recommendations to be fulfilled to any considerable degree they would undercut majoritarian democracy; they would impinge upon elements of the Rule of Law; and they would exchange newer, worse, more aristocratic constitutional arrangements for older, better, more democratic ones.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/08/liz-truss-economic-crisis-rishi-sunak
Fluffing the Tory gammons to win the leadership will explicitly make it harder to actually govern.
How is that "good" politics?
Though he also tops the list of PMs seen as doing a bad job
https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1565203988324253697?s=20&t=z-S1ssC-6aqMnumvGzuiOw
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/31/shoplifters-let-even-when-caught-cctv-stealing-goods-worth-hundreds/
Even though the thief was caught on CCTV stealing £640 worth of perfume from a top London store and recorded confessing to the crime, the CPS decided it was not in the public interest for TM Eye to prosecute the alleged shoplifter.
Our inability as a nation to address this fucking enormous crime - 100,000+ victims - the biggest crime in modern British history - says something really bad about us. I reckon we just can’t cope with it, the way Catholics, for years, couldn’t begin to address clerical child abuse. Instead people eagerly spend endless hours debating the rights of one stupid girl who willingly joined a Nazi death cult in a war zone
We are beyond decadent
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you I
bought from Regents Parkcreated on the web".To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/08/21/why-the-alternative-vote-system-is-proving-awesome-once-more/
The Canadian involvement is that the trafficker who got her into Syria was also giving intelligence to the Canadian intelligence services.
During the initial reporting of the Rotherham abuse the rough numbers were mentioned but the male victims hardly ever get a line (the clear majority of victims were female, of course).
I do think it's worth repeating now and then to avoid the assumption that victims can only be female, while bearing in mind they are the majority by a long way.
Plus doesn't particularly add anything to the exchange. "You're stupid" (albeit with added Leon flourish) isn't the most incisive rhetorical device.
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
Interestingly no respondents seem to say they've never heard of Boris or Cameron but looks like 1% have never heard of Churchill.
You'd assume it was dodgy results to pollsters but I have met adults who genuinely didn't know who Churchill was. Shocking but true.
Though hopefully of really compelling interest only to viral evolution nerds at this point...
https://twitter.com/LongDesertTrain/status/1565184527428980737
Today I discovered an extraordinary microlineage of BA.2.3. What makes it extraordinary? A colossal genetic saltation (10 spike mutations) combined with striking geographic spread for a very small number of sequences (just 4 so far). 1/25
Amusingly, on net scores May (-13) is now doing better than Johnson (-16).
The Conservatives have a tricky manoevre to perform here. Embracing enough of the Johnson inheritance to keep the superfans on board, whilst being a fresh enough start to retrieve some of those who have floated away. Not easy at the best of times, and (to stay with the thread of conversation) the party is having to change drivers whilst doing seventy on a foggy motorway with several complex junctions coming up.
The man who married a hologram in Japan can no longer communicate with his virtual wife
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/426715
The software that allowed the interaction is no longer supported...
Plus as I said poor British Indian and Chinese couples still manage to afford to get married
The courts could at any stage have ruled that the rule of law is not being followed. The current situation is in fitting with the decisions of the Supreme Court, is it not?
And incidentally, the same gangs of abusers also abused brown girls, but I've never heard you express even a tiny shred of sympathy for those victims.
Ukraine was initially considering a broader counteroffensive in Kherson Oblast, but narrowed it in recent weeks, US and Ukrainian officials said.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1565259414583488518
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
on the mental health spreadsheet for manic depression and suicidality, and my actuarial PB
spreadsheet says you might not see 2025. On the other hand, I’m not dissimilar
That will stay with you forever. Sorry
When the government openly lie to the court and get away with it that is not following the rule of law.
Michael Cohen believes Trump is likely keeping copies of top-secret documents at his children's homes, Bedminster, and Trump Tower
https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-trump-copies-top-secret-files-at-other-homes-2022-9
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1565267641803186176
Since 5 am, September 1, the Russian occupying forces have not stopped constant mortar shelling of Enerhodar, Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Machine guns can be heard, announces Dmytro Orlov, Mayor of Enerhodar.
I had not known that. Bleakness upon bleakness
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
They tend to avoid Muslim girls for obvious reasons
Separately the courts have also reviewed the decision of the HS not to allow her back into the country to pursue her appeal (it being accepted that she cannot pursue an appeal from Syria) and said that there is no basis for challenging that decision either.
So the decisions in this case have all rightly been taken by politicians. Even if the courts had declared those decisions unlawful, that would not necessarily mean that Shamima would get her citizenship back or be allowed to travel here. That would depend on the reasons the court gives. It could well be that the decision would need to be taken again by the HS on the correct grounds and if done so it could well end up being the same decision.
The current legal situation is one determined by the Supreme Court and other courts before it, not simply the Home Secretary unilaterally.