Howdy, Stranger!

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

This is the “spin”. Now for some questions. – politicalbetting.com

245678

Comments

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    Good for them. Needs more violence.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.

    Only if that is the evidence that the law and evidence before the court shows.
    "the court"

    LOL. Aside from the fact that evidence is notoriously unobjective, what about the North Korean court telling you you are North Korean. You are giving any country's courts the right to determine the citizenship of anyone else.

    Amazing. You are in a hole here. But please do continue posting.

    I said yesterday this is an untypical logical misstep from you.
    Yes if you're in North Korea then a North Korean court has the right to make decisions according to the law and evidence before it. That it doesn't work that way in NK is part of the problem.

    Having a free judicial system that makes decisions based upon law and evidence, not the statements of governments (even if those statements go against the law) is not a logical misstep.
    The government makes the law does it not? The government could tomorrow make a law that says PB is illegal and the courts would have to enforce that. The government makes the laws. The laws say who is or who is not a citizen of that country and voila you have your assertion: "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi" in tatters.

    But as I know you have more stamina than me on PB and seem to be able to post endlessly I will, sadly or happily for you, not be able to respond to your further bonkers assertions on this matter.

    Enjoy!
  • Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    Extinction Rebellion ought to disown these groups. Animal Rights activists have resorted to acts of violent terrorism in the past - car bombs and the like against laboratory use of animals - and ER don't want to risk being tarred with the same brush if it goes that way again.

    Also, carbon dioxide (and halogens) are much more important gases to reduce emissions to zero, because they persist in the atmosphere much longer. Methane emissions from agriculture only need to be stabilized to stop further warming. If we actually manage to cut methane emissions by a proportion then we'd be able to create a modest amount of cooling.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
    Indeed, because that is evidence.

    If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
    You're having a shocker here. And (apols) I like your line so much I'm going to repeat it again. Because it is a classic. Don't bet on it being the last time I post it, either.

    "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi"

    Love it.
    You'll need to take it up with Lord Reed and Priti Patel
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    If I understand correctly what I have read, the argument is that the Bangladeshi government really, really doesn't want her. And that they are simply saying things about her eligibility for citizenship, which may not be true.

    The real problem goes back to the effective abolition of treason and other laws. She took up arms against the UK. In times past this would have been a simple matter and the trial would have been fairly short - the evidence is pretty clear.

    The terrible idea of the deprivation of citizenship at the fiat of the HS is a legal hack to try and get round some of the resulting problems.

    If it were up to me -

    1) Create a simple and effective treason statute. Penalty up to life imprisonment.
    2) Abolish the deprivation of citizenship at the behest of the HS.

    I actually conversed with some lawyers on this one.

    Apparently, in the Human Rights world, the idea of prosecuting Begum (and other non state actors) for War Crimes is nasty and evil. Despite the fact that she is quite clearly guilty, in her own words, of literal War Crimes under the various conventions.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.

    Only if that is the evidence that the law and evidence before the court shows.
    "the court"

    LOL. Aside from the fact that evidence is notoriously unobjective, what about the North Korean court telling you you are North Korean. You are giving any country's courts the right to determine the citizenship of anyone else.

    Amazing. You are in a hole here. But please do continue posting.

    I said yesterday this is an untypical logical misstep from you.
    Yes if you're in North Korea then a North Korean court has the right to make decisions according to the law and evidence before it. That it doesn't work that way in NK is part of the problem.

    Having a free judicial system that makes decisions based upon law and evidence, not the statements of governments (even if those statements go against the law) is not a logical misstep.
    The government makes the law does it not? The government could tomorrow make a law that says PB is illegal and the courts would have to enforce that. The government makes the laws. The laws say who is or who is not a citizen of that country and voila you have your assertion: "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi" in tatters.

    But as I know you have more stamina than me on PB and seem to be able to post endlessly I will, sadly or happily for you, not be able to respond to your further bonkers assertions on this matter.

    Enjoy!
    No the government doesn't make the law. Parliament does.

    Happy to help.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341

    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.

    In a more of an off topic way, I have something to add that supports my previous post.

    From the BBC.
    David Bannerman, a 62-year-old from East Anglia said he was supporting Ms Truss because of her policies, accusing Mr Sunak of having "no new ideas".
    “If you are going to dispose of a prime minister, you have to have different policies, not more of the same."

    For me, this touches on what I was posting the other day - it’s Continuity Truss simply because of personality politics and backstabbing - Boris and Rishi instinctively closer on economics than Truss and Kwarzy, talk of Continuity Truss completely misses key realisation - this change is a big step to the right for the Tory party, and a lot of the Tory membership are excited about making that step and achieving it with Truss.

    Yet there are a lot more who realise now they preferred Boris government approach to handling crisis like this one, but also where Truss is “shrill” for example on is Macron a friend, pressing nuclear launch etc, Boris calm and composed charismatic and often clever answers are now missing.

    Let’s not say Truss is “just continuity” again because this is a big change in tone and economic approach. Anyone disagree with this?
    If it is such a big change in economic approach, surely Truss should call a GE to get a mandate from voters? But she's ruled that out. She was elected on a manifesto in 2019. She has no right to tear that up and implement a completely different one just because less than 200,000 people say so.
  • Can I have the case for Truss surprising on the upside and winning another majority
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
    Indeed, because that is evidence.

    If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
    You're having a shocker here. And (apols) I like your line so much I'm going to repeat it again. Because it is a classic. Don't bet on it being the last time I post it, either.

    "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi"

    Love it.
    It doesn't. Bangladeshi law does.
    The question here is whether the Bangladeshi government has the power to deny citizenship, at will. Bit like the UK HS, really.

    Any idea where to find a Bangladeshi constituional lawyer?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,028

    https://twitter.com/peoplepolling/status/1565639045568516098

    What word or phrase first comes to mind when you think about Keir Starmer?

    Get the London look haircut.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.

    Only if that is the evidence that the law and evidence before the court shows.
    "the court"

    LOL. Aside from the fact that evidence is notoriously unobjective, what about the North Korean court telling you you are North Korean. You are giving any country's courts the right to determine the citizenship of anyone else.

    Amazing. You are in a hole here. But please do continue posting.

    I said yesterday this is an untypical logical misstep from you.
    Yes if you're in North Korea then a North Korean court has the right to make decisions according to the law and evidence before it. That it doesn't work that way in NK is part of the problem.

    Having a free judicial system that makes decisions based upon law and evidence, not the statements of governments (even if those statements go against the law) is not a logical misstep.
    The government makes the law does it not? The government could tomorrow make a law that says PB is illegal and the courts would have to enforce that. The government makes the laws. The laws say who is or who is not a citizen of that country and voila you have your assertion: "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi" in tatters.

    But as I know you have more stamina than me on PB and seem to be able to post endlessly I will, sadly or happily for you, not be able to respond to your further bonkers assertions on this matter.

    Enjoy!
    No the government doesn't make the law. Parliament does.

    Happy to help.
    Ah I see your point. You are going tricksy on me. The government is "the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state". The Conservative Government can today make any law it wants (yes for sure passed through parliament but so what it is the government that effectively makes the law).

    Last refuge, Bart and now I really must go so enjoy your last respone.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    edited September 2022
    The other aspect of what Boris and friends are doing worth noting is the utter selfishness.

    At a time when business is pleading for help similar to that needed in Covid, when businesses are already closing because of the impact of energy bills, when no-one seems to be preparing for a winter with the possibility of rationing, blackouts, a complete cut-off of gas from Russia etc, the outgoing PM is making his personal position a political headache for the new PM.



  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    Taz said:

    dixiedean said:

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    GB News again.
    I would treat People Polling with great caution.
    That's their second poll.
    Both monstrous outliers.
    A 17 point lead is a monstrous outlier but labour clearly are enjoying a large lead and the two local by elections last night showed large swings in previously Tory held seats to labour who gained both comfortably.
    Indeed.
    Labour have a substantial lead.
    This poll and 2 by-elections are tentative, preliminary evidence that it may, possibly be larger.
    But no more than that. Need confirmatory.
    Besides. It is my view that the fate of the new government will be settled by September 22 when Parliament rises.
    They'll either have a fighting chance, or be utterly finished with no prospect of recovery.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.

    In a more of an off topic way, I have something to add that supports my previous post.

    From the BBC.
    David Bannerman, a 62-year-old from East Anglia said he was supporting Ms Truss because of her policies, accusing Mr Sunak of having "no new ideas".
    “If you are going to dispose of a prime minister, you have to have different policies, not more of the same."

    For me, this touches on what I was posting the other day - it’s Continuity Truss simply because of personality politics and backstabbing - Boris and Rishi instinctively closer on economics than Truss and Kwarzy, talk of Continuity Truss completely misses key realisation - this change is a big step to the right for the Tory party, and a lot of the Tory membership are excited about making that step and achieving it with Truss.

    Yet there are a lot more who realise now they preferred Boris government approach to handling crisis like this one, but also where Truss is “shrill” for example on is Macron a friend, pressing nuclear launch etc, Boris calm and composed charismatic and often clever answers are now missing.

    Let’s not say Truss is “just continuity” again because this is a big change in tone and economic approach. Anyone disagree with this?
    If it is such a big change in economic approach, surely Truss should call a GE to get a mandate from voters? But she's ruled that out. She was elected on a manifesto in 2019. She has no right to tear that up and implement a completely different one just because less than 200,000 people say so.
    What seems bizarre is her readiness to commit the UK to spending 3% of GDP on defence, while maintaining the wait and see until I'm in No10 line on the energy crisis.
    Which is slightly more of an immediate problem ?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,028

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    Why can’t GB News do anything that’s not plain weird? Why hire a pollster that says everything your news channel pushes is hated and stupid?

    Do we really have to enter these into the wiki page so the graph goes into such wild misleading gap 🙁
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    edited September 2022

    Can I have the case for Truss surprising on the upside and winning another majority

    Certainly not if every household not on universal credit has 5+ grand energy bills.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.

    Only if that is the evidence that the law and evidence before the court shows.
    "the court"

    LOL. Aside from the fact that evidence is notoriously unobjective, what about the North Korean court telling you you are North Korean. You are giving any country's courts the right to determine the citizenship of anyone else.

    Amazing. You are in a hole here. But please do continue posting.

    I said yesterday this is an untypical logical misstep from you.
    Yes if you're in North Korea then a North Korean court has the right to make decisions according to the law and evidence before it. That it doesn't work that way in NK is part of the problem.

    Having a free judicial system that makes decisions based upon law and evidence, not the statements of governments (even if those statements go against the law) is not a logical misstep.
    The government makes the law does it not? The government could tomorrow make a law that says PB is illegal and the courts would have to enforce that. The government makes the laws. The laws say who is or who is not a citizen of that country and voila you have your assertion: "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi" in tatters.

    But as I know you have more stamina than me on PB and seem to be able to post endlessly I will, sadly or happily for you, not be able to respond to your further bonkers assertions on this matter.

    Enjoy!
    No the government doesn't make the law. Parliament does.

    Happy to help.
    Ah I see your point. You are going tricksy on me. The government is "the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state". The Conservative Government can today make any law it wants (yes for sure passed through parliament but so what it is the government that effectively makes the law).

    Last refuge, Bart and now I really must go so enjoy your last respone.
    Good it doesn't seem any more responses are required as it seems you've come around to accepting I am right.

    Subject to any legislature and Constitutional Frameworks etc the government of a country absolutely can seek to change the law.

    But press statements by a government don't change the law and what is put before the courts is the law and evidence as is, not as the government wishes it to be.

    If the government wanted Begum executed then Patel could say that she should be executed, but the courts should absolutely say that executions are against the law.

    Unless or until the law is changed, the law is what it actually is, not what any government domestic or foreign wants it to be.

    And now we're agreed and you've accepted I was correct, I'll move on with my day too. Have a good day.
  • dixiedean said:

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    GB News again.
    I would treat People Polling with great caution.
    That's their second poll.
    Both monstrous outliers.
    They're finding very large numbers of young male Leave voters who say they will vote for "some other party" at the next GE. I wonder whether there might be a surprisingly high vote for fascists next time, or else these voters will not vote or end up voting Tory despite currently insisting that they won't.

    Is it a complete coincidence that a GB News commissioned poll seems to find a lot of voters to the right of the Tories? Spooky.
  • Sadig Khan has problems over Cressida Dick leaving the MET

    BBC News - Cressida Dick: Sadiq Khan wrongly ousted Met chief - report
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62766240
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Cyclefree said:

    The other aspect of what Boris and friends are doing worth noting is the utter selfishness.

    At a time when business is pleading for help similar to that needed in Covid, when businesses are already closing because of the impact of energy bills, when no-one seems to be preparing for a winter with the possibility of rationing, blackouts, a complete cut-off of gas from Russia etc, the outgoing PM is making his personal position a political headache for the new PM.

    Bear in mind that she said in terms at a hustings that her personal preference would be for the Privileges Committee hearing not to go ahead

    So she has bought in 100% to the Owen Paterson, Chris Pincher ignore the rules, break the system to protect your mates philosophy, before she even gets the gig. This is a headache of her own choosing, and I would be unamazed if she is party to the planning behind the Pannick nonsense
  • People’s Polling is run my Matt Goodwin, the world’s most pathetic academic
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,460
    Nigelb said:

    https://twitter.com/peoplepolling/status/1565639045568516098

    What word or phrase first comes to mind when you think about Keir Starmer?

    @bigjohnowls nemesis.
    Took me a minute to work out what k******d was.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.

    In a more of an off topic way, I have something to add that supports my previous post.

    From the BBC.
    David Bannerman, a 62-year-old from East Anglia said he was supporting Ms Truss because of her policies, accusing Mr Sunak of having "no new ideas".
    “If you are going to dispose of a prime minister, you have to have different policies, not more of the same."

    For me, this touches on what I was posting the other day - it’s Continuity Truss simply because of personality politics and backstabbing - Boris and Rishi instinctively closer on economics than Truss and Kwarzy, talk of Continuity Truss completely misses key realisation - this change is a big step to the right for the Tory party, and a lot of the Tory membership are excited about making that step and achieving it with Truss.

    Yet there are a lot more who realise now they preferred Boris government approach to handling crisis like this one, but also where Truss is “shrill” for example on is Macron a friend, pressing nuclear launch etc, Boris calm and composed charismatic and often clever answers are now missing.

    Let’s not say Truss is “just continuity” again because this is a big change in tone and economic approach. Anyone disagree with this?
    If it is such a big change in economic approach, surely Truss should call a GE to get a mandate from voters? But she's ruled that out. She was elected on a manifesto in 2019. She has no right to tear that up and implement a completely different one just because less than 200,000 people say so.
    The Tory manifesto didn't say much about energy and ruled out tax rises I think ?
    So reversing Sunak's tax rise whilst not doing enough on energy would be in keeping with the manifesto if not what's needed..
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
  • Can I have the case for Truss surprising on the upside and winning another majority

    Events, dear boy, events.

    Fruitier Ministers are sent to the Lords in Boris's resignation honours list so Truss can appoint competent, or at least sane, ministers without splitting the party when she drops Big Dog's support group.

    England wins the World Cup so a feel good factor south of the border and targeted triumphalism in Scotland winds voters up so they choose SNP over Labour.

    Ukraine & Russia stop fighting so Russian gas is back on the menu so energy prices drop (and other commodities including food). China stops locking down millions of people and their factories whenever someone sneezes, so supply chains return to normal. Inflation falls. Cost of Living Crisis ends.

    Liz Truss is hailed our greatest Prime Minister since Gordon Brown and wins an 81-seat majority.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    At least there means there will be plenty of plant life in the aforesaid aisles.

    50% of job done.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/SIAC/2020/SC_163_2019.html

    is the SIAC judgment on Begum and Bangladesh.

    Spoiler: Barty is in principle correct, citizenship is determined on the existing law of the third party country, irrespective of executive acts of that country which seem to be incompatible with that law (the Pham principle).
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,662

    Can I have the case for Truss surprising on the upside and winning another majority

    The British public are naturally conservative and normally vote for Conservative governments. The boundary review probably helps the Tories. Keir Starmer's ratings are okay, but hardly stellar. Possible that the Tories also benefit from inefficient non-tactical voting in the South, with Labour and Lib Dems failing to coordinate targets.

    Liz Truss will offer tax cuts before the election (and probably also u-turn to make sure the energy bills get paid). This might be very popular if she times it well.

    The right-leaning elements of the media will rally behind Truss 100%, whilst the left-leaning bits will be more ambivalent about Starmer. The BBC's impartiality may also be under question -> remember that they have appointed a former Tory Councillor as Director General & a Tory donor as Chairman.

  • Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.

    In a more of an off topic way, I have something to add that supports my previous post.

    From the BBC.
    David Bannerman, a 62-year-old from East Anglia said he was supporting Ms Truss because of her policies, accusing Mr Sunak of having "no new ideas".
    “If you are going to dispose of a prime minister, you have to have different policies, not more of the same."

    For me, this touches on what I was posting the other day - it’s Continuity Truss simply because of personality politics and backstabbing - Boris and Rishi instinctively closer on economics than Truss and Kwarzy, talk of Continuity Truss completely misses key realisation - this change is a big step to the right for the Tory party, and a lot of the Tory membership are excited about making that step and achieving it with Truss.

    Yet there are a lot more who realise now they preferred Boris government approach to handling crisis like this one, but also where Truss is “shrill” for example on is Macron a friend, pressing nuclear launch etc, Boris calm and composed charismatic and often clever answers are now missing.

    Let’s not say Truss is “just continuity” again because this is a big change in tone and economic approach. Anyone disagree with this?
    If it is such a big change in economic approach, surely Truss should call a GE to get a mandate from voters? But she's ruled that out. She was elected on a manifesto in 2019. She has no right to tear that up and implement a completely different one just because less than 200,000 people say so.
    What seems bizarre is her readiness to commit the UK to spending 3% of GDP on defence, while maintaining the wait and see until I'm in No10 line on the energy crisis.
    Which is slightly more of an immediate problem ?
    Defence at 3% got kicked into the long grass, aka by the end of a/the decade.
  • NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    Why can’t GB News do anything that’s not plain weird? Why hire a pollster that says everything your news channel pushes is hated and stupid?

    Do we really have to enter these into the wiki page so the graph goes into such wild misleading gap 🙁
    The Labour 42 looks about right. Without knowing how their large others break down (oooer missus), not sure what to make of Conservatives 25, but that does look odd.

    What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    https://twitter.com/peoplepolling/status/1565639045568516098

    What word or phrase first comes to mind when you think about Keir Starmer?

    @bigjohnowls nemesis.
    Took me a minute to work out what k******d was.
    knighthood, of course.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    edited September 2022

    Sadig Khan has problems over Cressida Dick leaving the MET

    BBC News - Cressida Dick: Sadiq Khan wrongly ousted Met chief - report
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62766240

    Ed Balls and Sharon Shoesmith spring to mind. The right decision, possibly the wrong process.

    But this is clearly political. Johnson intimidated Blair into leaving - and let's face it Blair was about a hundred times better than Dick - and nobody called him out for it.

    Edit - incidentally for Patel, a notorious bully who should have herself have resigned over the way she treated her staff, to criticise this is the height of nauseating hypocrisy.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    IANAL but surely Parliamentary sovereignty and privilege means Parliament has the right to investigate whatever it please?

    Absolubtely

    We disagree on plenty, but on the supremacy of Parliament and specifically the Commons over an individual Cross bench Peer who happens to be a QC you're spot on.
    Absolutely only has one b

    I wouldn’t normally point this out but I noticed you did it twice today, then from a Vanilla search of absolubtely that this is the 361st time you’ve made this spelling mistake

    I can’t believe that I haven’t noticed it before
    Hah, you're right.

    I can't spell neccesary half the time either, @Slackbladder struggles with believe.
    Achieve, Apparently trip up plenty of pbers and @KJH couldn't find the calendar on August 22nd.

    I pronounce in my head with the second erroneous "b" in there though, which is the source of the error.
    Here I am enjoying a wedding in Spain, minding my own business and finding my name being taken in vain. No idea what I did on 22 August but if you are trying to find a spelling mistake by me you only have to look at the last post by me and every one before it.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568

    Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    Extinction Rebellion ought to disown these groups. Animal Rights activists have resorted to acts of violent terrorism in the past - car bombs and the like against laboratory use of animals - and ER don't want to risk being tarred with the same brush if it goes that way again.

    Also, carbon dioxide (and halogens) are much more important gases to reduce emissions to zero, because they persist in the atmosphere much longer. Methane emissions from agriculture only need to be stabilized to stop further warming. If we actually manage to cut methane emissions by a proportion then we'd be able to create a modest amount of cooling.
    Plenty of single interest groups simply use the climate as a demand to stop an activity they don’t like same with covid.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    edited September 2022
    Dura_Ace said:

    Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    Good for them. Needs more violence.
    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    And happy to fight these daft vegans if necessary.
    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The other aspect of what Boris and friends are doing worth noting is the utter selfishness.

    At a time when business is pleading for help similar to that needed in Covid, when businesses are already closing because of the impact of energy bills, when no-one seems to be preparing for a winter with the possibility of rationing, blackouts, a complete cut-off of gas from Russia etc, the outgoing PM is making his personal position a political headache for the new PM.

    Bear in mind that she said in terms at a hustings that her personal preference would be for the Privileges Committee hearing not to go ahead

    So she has bought in 100% to the Owen Paterson, Chris Pincher ignore the rules, break the system to protect your mates philosophy, before she even gets the gig. This is a headache of her own choosing, and I would be unamazed if she is party to the planning behind the Pannick nonsense
    And that fact alone makes her unfit to be PM. Add in the ludicrously self-important - and demonstrably untrue - statement about not needing an ethics advisor because she knows the difference between right and wrong, and she is as bad as Boris on the one thing that matters in every job: integrity.

    May as well stick with Boris: he is at least more entertaining than her. She has all the charisma of the deputy head of HR in a council department.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    OT Did we do this Biden speech?

    It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSmRoVo5AA&t=1061s

    Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,662

    Sadig Khan has problems over Cressida Dick leaving the MET

    BBC News - Cressida Dick: Sadiq Khan wrongly ousted Met chief - report
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62766240

    Come off it... she clearly was doing a very bad job.
    She was personally criticized for obstructing an independent inquiry.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568
    Dura_Ace said:

    Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    Good for them. Needs more violence.
    Violence is never a solution. A few strongly opinion pieces in Comment is Free is a better option.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    IshmaelZ said:

    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/SIAC/2020/SC_163_2019.html

    is the SIAC judgment on Begum and Bangladesh.

    Spoiler: Barty is in principle correct, citizenship is determined on the existing law of the third party country, irrespective of executive acts of that country which seem to be incompatible with that law (the Pham principle).

    Does seem ironic though given Begum was stripped of her citizenship by executive action overriding the law in a way that seemed to be incompatible with it...
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,712
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    What, specifically, is the lie though? It only became clear after an unprecedented retrospective police investigation and ruling that the behaviour was against the law - and that ruling is still contestable, some think. I wanted Johnson gone too but let's be honest and admit that a narrative was developed regardless of its substance to turn the masses against him and it worked a treat. Bit by bit - drip-drip - CP MPs withdrew support following constituent pressure until the point was reached that Johnson couldn't fill cabinet positions and that was the end.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    edited September 2022
    kinabalu said:

    OT Did we do this Biden speech?

    It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSmRoVo5AA&t=1061s

    Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
    He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    Of course it's a yes. He was lying about whether he and his staff were complying with the law. What could be more important than that?
  • Two local by-elections last night, both in Redditch, 1 county and 1 district.
    Both Labour gains from Conservative

    Good Week/Bad Week Index

    Lab +108
    LDm +14
    Grn -4
    Con -129

    Adjusted Seat Value, based on nominal two seats

    Lab +1.8
    LDm +0.2
    Grn -0.1
    Con -2.2
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,712
    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    Of course it's a yes. He was lying about whether he and his staff were complying with the law. What could be more important than that?
    Was he lying if he thought that it came under a workplace exemption?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    What, specifically, is the lie though? It only became clear after an unprecedented retrospective police investigation and ruling that the behaviour was against the law - and that ruling is still contestable, some think. I wanted Johnson gone too but let's be honest and admit that a narrative was developed regardless of its substance to turn the masses against him and it worked a treat. Bit by bit - drip-drip - CP MPs withdrew support following constituent pressure until the point was reached that Johnson couldn't fill cabinet positions and that was the end.
    I hate to break it to you, but almost all police investigations are retrospective. They don't usually investigate crimes before they occur.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,028
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.

    In a more of an off topic way, I have something to add that supports my previous post.

    From the BBC.
    David Bannerman, a 62-year-old from East Anglia said he was supporting Ms Truss because of her policies, accusing Mr Sunak of having "no new ideas".
    “If you are going to dispose of a prime minister, you have to have different policies, not more of the same."

    For me, this touches on what I was posting the other day - it’s Continuity Truss simply because of personality politics and backstabbing - Boris and Rishi instinctively closer on economics than Truss and Kwarzy, talk of Continuity Truss completely misses key realisation - this change is a big step to the right for the Tory party, and a lot of the Tory membership are excited about making that step and achieving it with Truss.

    Yet there are a lot more who realise now they preferred Boris government approach to handling crisis like this one, but also where Truss is “shrill” for example on is Macron a friend, pressing nuclear launch etc, Boris calm and composed charismatic and often clever answers are now missing.

    Let’s not say Truss is “just continuity” again because this is a big change in tone and economic approach. Anyone disagree with this?
    If it is such a big change in economic approach, surely Truss should call a GE to get a mandate from voters? But she's ruled that out. She was elected on a manifesto in 2019. She has no right to tear that up and implement a completely different one just because less than 200,000 people say so.
    You have a fair argument I suppose, but that isn’t how politics works, or we expect it to work is it?

    Apply what you said to the fall of Thatcher and Majors government. Key bits of manifesto was ripped up. Arch Thatcher enemies like Hestletine and other wets with a different approach to government intervention were promoted in - that one was a huge change. The change from Blair to Brown Dave to Tess maybe not so.

    Next Monday’s change is more profound than any of these mentioned - you have to go back to 1990 or 1989 to have a Thatcherite PM and Thatcherite CoE running the UK government.

    All through Major, New Labour, Coalition, Dave, Tess, Boris years we have never had Thatcherite economic policy in charge like we will be getting next week.

    It’s quite a sea change for Tory Leadership, but also for the UK and UK treasury. You can sense the tension there between the treasury, Sunak and his supporters on one side - Truss, Kwarzy and their supporters on the other side already, can’t you?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    rkrkrk said:

    Sadig Khan has problems over Cressida Dick leaving the MET

    BBC News - Cressida Dick: Sadiq Khan wrongly ousted Met chief - report
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62766240

    Come off it... she clearly was doing a very bad job.
    She was personally criticized for obstructing an independent inquiry.
    Also he did not oust her. She resigned. Long past the time when she should have done. All this special pleading by her and her friends show that the police hierarchy still do not get how effing useless they are.

    And are therefore likely doing the square root of fuck all to change matters for the better.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Stocky said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    Of course it's a yes. He was lying about whether he and his staff were complying with the law. What could be more important than that?
    Was he lying if he thought that it came under a workplace exemption?
    Since there were none for boozy parties - yes.
  • Sadig Khan has problems over Cressida Dick leaving the MET

    BBC News - Cressida Dick: Sadiq Khan wrongly ousted Met chief - report
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62766240

    More like the country has a problem where we have employment rules where bosses are so unaccountable that they feel intimidated by being held to account for once, so get awarded a six or seven figure public settlement as a matter of course.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    OT Did we do this Biden speech?

    It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSmRoVo5AA&t=1061s

    Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
    He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
    Filing is pretty routine, FWIW.
    While he's repeated recently that he intends to run again, it isn't for certain.

    On the other hand, it's not entirely impossible that someone we all wrote off as "just about good enough" might turn out to be one of the very best postwar presidents the US has had.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,712
    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    It is healthy and delicious though.
  • ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    What, specifically, is the lie though? It only became clear after an unprecedented retrospective police investigation and ruling that the behaviour was against the law - and that ruling is still contestable, some think. I wanted Johnson gone too but let's be honest and admit that a narrative was developed regardless of its substance to turn the masses against him and it worked a treat. Bit by bit - drip-drip - CP MPs withdrew support following constituent pressure until the point was reached that Johnson couldn't fill cabinet positions and that was the end.
    I hate to break it to you, but almost all police investigations are retrospective. They don't usually investigate crimes before they occur.
    Dominic Raab says hello.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    What, specifically, is the lie though? It only became clear after an unprecedented retrospective police investigation and ruling that the behaviour was against the law - and that ruling is still contestable, some think. I wanted Johnson gone too but let's be honest and admit that a narrative was developed regardless of its substance to turn the masses against him and it worked a treat. Bit by bit - drip-drip - CP MPs withdrew support following constituent pressure until the point was reached that Johnson couldn't fill cabinet positions and that was the end.
    I hate to break it to you, but almost all police investigations are retrospective. They don't usually investigate crimes before they occur.
    Dominic Raab says hello.
    what crime is he being investigated for that he hasn't committed yet?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Stocky said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    It is healthy and delicious though.
    And it isn't mucus.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    They are both colloids containing lactoferrin, but otherwise the resemblance is not immediately apparent.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    What, specifically, is the lie though? It only became clear after an unprecedented retrospective police investigation and ruling that the behaviour was against the law - and that ruling is still contestable, some think. I wanted Johnson gone too but let's be honest and admit that a narrative was developed regardless of its substance to turn the masses against him and it worked a treat. Bit by bit - drip-drip - CP MPs withdrew support following constituent pressure until the point was reached that Johnson couldn't fill cabinet positions and that was the end.
    I hate to break it to you, but almost all police investigations are retrospective. They don't usually investigate crimes before they occur.
    Dominic Raab says hello.
    what crime is he being investigated for that he hasn't committed yet?
    "The police don't normally look back and investigate things that have taken place a year ago"

    https://twitter.com/RobDunsmore/status/1467434061610512387
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited September 2022
    Cyclefree said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    Good for them. Needs more violence.
    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    And happy to fight these daft vegans if necessary.
    You consume a substance that was naturally designed to feed baby cows despite not being either a baby or a cow, and you call other people "daft"? Would you suck it straight from the udder?

    Extinction Rebellion are a fake group, but opposition to the exploitation of animals is good.

  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,712
    Dynamo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    Good for them. Needs more violence.
    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    And happy to fight these daft vegans if necessary.
    You consume a food naturally designed for baby cows despite not being either a baby or a cow, and you call other people "daft"? Would you suck it straight from the udder?

    I probably would but let's not go there.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    Would you describe your mother's milk as mucus?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    edited September 2022

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    What, specifically, is the lie though? It only became clear after an unprecedented retrospective police investigation and ruling that the behaviour was against the law - and that ruling is still contestable, some think. I wanted Johnson gone too but let's be honest and admit that a narrative was developed regardless of its substance to turn the masses against him and it worked a treat. Bit by bit - drip-drip - CP MPs withdrew support following constituent pressure until the point was reached that Johnson couldn't fill cabinet positions and that was the end.
    I hate to break it to you, but almost all police investigations are retrospective. They don't usually investigate crimes before they occur.
    Dominic Raab says hello.
    what crime is he being investigated for that he hasn't committed yet?
    "The police don't normally look back and investigate things that have taken place a year ago"

    https://twitter.com/RobDunsmore/status/1467434061610512387
    Oh yes they do.

    The issue more often is takes about a year to prod them into action.

    So Raab, as usual, was talking complete nonsense.

    What's disturbing is not how stupid he comes across, but that from his career before politics you'd swear blind he was actually pretty bright.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    What, specifically, is the lie though? It only became clear after an unprecedented retrospective police investigation and ruling that the behaviour was against the law - and that ruling is still contestable, some think. I wanted Johnson gone too but let's be honest and admit that a narrative was developed regardless of its substance to turn the masses against him and it worked a treat. Bit by bit - drip-drip - CP MPs withdrew support following constituent pressure until the point was reached that Johnson couldn't fill cabinet positions and that was the end.
    I hate to break it to you, but almost all police investigations are retrospective. They don't usually investigate crimes before they occur.
    Dominic Raab says hello.
    what crime is he being investigated for that he hasn't committed yet?
    Intent to commit stupidities ?
  • F1: Verstappen's gearbox wonky in FP1. Mercedes looking more competitive.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    What, specifically, is the lie though? It only became clear after an unprecedented retrospective police investigation and ruling that the behaviour was against the law - and that ruling is still contestable, some think. I wanted Johnson gone too but let's be honest and admit that a narrative was developed regardless of its substance to turn the masses against him and it worked a treat. Bit by bit - drip-drip - CP MPs withdrew support following constituent pressure until the point was reached that Johnson couldn't fill cabinet positions and that was the end.
    I hate to break it to you, but almost all police investigations are retrospective. They don't usually investigate crimes before they occur.
    Dominic Raab says hello.
    what crime is he being investigated for that he hasn't committed yet?
    Intent to commit stupidities ?
    You could have a retrospective investigation on that any day of the week!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    Would you describe your mother's milk as mucus?
    Let snot go there.
  • Dynamo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    Good for them. Needs more violence.
    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    And happy to fight these daft vegans if necessary.
    You consume a food naturally designed for baby cows despite not being either a baby or a cow, and you call other people "daft"? Would you suck it straight from the udder?

    Extinction Rebellion are a fake group, but opposition to the exploitation of animals is good.

    What food has been "naturally designed" for consumption by adult humans, and can you construct a balanced diet from those foods alone, or is that designation irrelevant bollocks?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    OT Did we do this Biden speech?

    It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSmRoVo5AA&t=1061s

    Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
    He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
    Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.

    My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.

    But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
  • Nigel Farage: I despise what the Conservatives have done to Britain

    One lesson I have learned from my political career is never to trust the Conservative Party.

    From mass migration to the energy crisis their weak leaders have left the country facing disaster.

    Nigel Farage joins Steven Edginton in the latest Off Script podcast discussing the challenges facing the next prime minister.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4AAnzclTsk

    Nigel Farage talks to the Daily Telegraph in its Off Script series.
  • Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    They don't seem to be edge cases in Ireland. I'd be perfectly happy with a compromise of grass-fed dairy cattle only.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    Nigel Farage: I despise what the Conservatives have done to Britain

    One lesson I have learned from my political career is never to trust the Conservative Party.

    From mass migration to the energy crisis their weak leaders have left the country facing disaster.

    Nigel Farage joins Steven Edginton in the latest Off Script podcast discussing the challenges facing the next prime minister.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4AAnzclTsk

    Nigel Farage talks to the Daily Telegraph in its Off Script series.

    And still the bastard has no self awareness.

    Would be entertaining to see his reaction if he does have a flash of it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Dynamo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    Good for them. Needs more violence.
    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    And happy to fight these daft vegans if necessary.
    You consume a substance that was naturally designed to feed baby cows despite not being either a baby or a cow, and you call other people "daft"? Would you suck it straight from the udder?

    Extinction Rebellion are a fake group, but opposition to the exploitation of animals is good.

    Most of what I eat has a long history of being designed not to be eaten by anything else at all, so milk is a better fit than almost any other source of nutrition
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    Stocky said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    It is healthy and delicious though.
    Calf food has gotta lotta bottle, you should all drink a pinta day, it's ideal for humans of all ages, and it hasn't been advertised at all.

    Similarly diamonds are forever, they're a girl's best friend, and these are facts of nature.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Well, I've got to say, this beats Brexit discussions.

    Back in a few hours.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    I do. I will also enjoy not getting osteoporosis, something I am risk of because of the medication I have had to take to deal with a blood condition I have.

    I am not stopping you drinking juice derived from plants. Whereas these ignorant twits want to stop me drinking what I enjoy and what is good for me. That is the difference between us and why they deserve to have their arses kicked.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,028

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    Why can’t GB News do anything that’s not plain weird? Why hire a pollster that says everything your news channel pushes is hated and stupid?

    Do we really have to enter these into the wiki page so the graph goes into such wild misleading gap 🙁
    The Labour 42 looks about right. Without knowing how their large others break down (oooer missus), not sure what to make of Conservatives 25, but that does look odd.

    What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.
    “What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.”

    Yes I like that line. It’s not so much moments of blue on blue, that mostly came from Truss bluntness, it’s how we have gleaned from what we are hearing to form an opinion.

    Some posters push the idea we haven’t a clue what Truss and Kwarzy are going to do yet, it might well be gorgeous one nation response, we have to wait and see. That sort of insults me a bit. The whole flipping point of two months of campaigning is to sell yourself and your approach to things - I should be able to draw on this, and also a fair idea about politicians strengths weaknesses etc from before campaign even started - it’s a bit insulting to tell me I currently can have no idea and need to wait and see. I diplomatically wont mention the posters who push this.

    But it does point to ordinary everyday voters liking the idea of a frozen cap, and not liking the Thatcherite response to the idea having made a quite sudden change in the polling.
  • Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Dynamo said:

    Stocky said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    It is healthy and delicious though.
    Calf food has gotta lotta bottle, you should all drink a pinta day, it's ideal for humans of all ages, and it hasn't been advertised at all.

    Similarly diamonds are forever, they're a girl's best friend, and these are facts of nature.

    https://nationalpost.com/life/food/the-new-worlds-oldest-cheese-is-more-than-7000-years-old

    Cheese consumption 7200 years ago, prolly pre advertising.

    Diamonds are good too.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,028

    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
    Udderly delicious post. 👍🏻
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    I question whether the Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. I presume Bangladeshi courts decide. If Begum applied for Bangladeshi citizenship, it’s possible that the courts there would support her and overturn the politicised statements of their government, as courts here can and have overturned politicised statements by our government. Or maybe not — we don’t know. But I think it’s more complicated than presented above.

    That said, I think the judgement of the SIAC was wrong and that Begum has been effectively left stateless. And that said, given all the unfinished business surrounding Islamic State, this is perhaps not the most important issue.

  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited September 2022
    Cyclefree said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    I do. I will also enjoy not getting osteoporosis, something I am risk of because of the medication I have had to take to deal with a blood condition I have.

    I am not stopping you drinking juice derived from plants. Whereas these ignorant twits want to stop me drinking what I enjoy and what is good for me. That is the difference between us and why they deserve to have their arses kicked.
    No human adult (or child for that matter) needs to consume cow milk.

    Some "people" enjoy watching dog fights, bullfighting, badger baiting.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Yep that also matters. You don't want to waste time on trivia.

    So, the PM lying to save his skin in response to revelations about Downing St behaviour under lockdown - does this clear the 'importance' bar?

    Has to be a Yes, I think.
    What, specifically, is the lie though? It only became clear after an unprecedented retrospective police investigation and ruling that the behaviour was against the law - and that ruling is still contestable, some think. I wanted Johnson gone too but let's be honest and admit that a narrative was developed regardless of its substance to turn the masses against him and it worked a treat. Bit by bit - drip-drip - CP MPs withdrew support following constituent pressure until the point was reached that Johnson couldn't fill cabinet positions and that was the end.
    He said he wasn't aware of any rule breaking in Downing St. That was one of them. Probably lying, I'd have thought, but let's see what the Inquiry says.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    OT Did we do this Biden speech?

    It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSmRoVo5AA&t=1061s

    Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
    He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
    Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.

    My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.

    But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
    Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back

    Trump +202
    Desantis -777
    Biden +796
    Harris +574
    Newsom -804
    Pence -899
    Obama -418
    Clinton -394
    The Rock -893
    Tucker -214
    Liz Cheney -885
    Manchin -781
    O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)

    Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Dynamo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    I do. I will also enjoy not getting osteoporosis, something I am risk of because of the medication I have had to take to deal with a blood condition I have.

    I am not stopping you drinking juice derived from plants. Whereas these ignorant twits want to stop me drinking what I enjoy and what is good for me. That is the difference between us and why they deserve to have their arses kicked.
    No human adult (or child for that matter) needs to consume cow milk.

    Some "people" enjoy watching dog fights, bullfighting, badger baiting.
    You need to have a word with lots of species of ant
  • Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    OT Did we do this Biden speech?

    It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSmRoVo5AA&t=1061s

    Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
    He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
    Filing is pretty routine, FWIW.
    While he's repeated recently that he intends to run again, it isn't for certain.

    On the other hand, it's not entirely impossible that someone we all wrote off as "just about good enough" might turn out to be one of the very best postwar presidents the US has had.
    Tell that to those hiding for their lives in Afghanistan.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568
    Dynamo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    I do. I will also enjoy not getting osteoporosis, something I am risk of because of the medication I have had to take to deal with a blood condition I have.

    I am not stopping you drinking juice derived from plants. Whereas these ignorant twits want to stop me drinking what I enjoy and what is good for me. That is the difference between us and why they deserve to have their arses kicked.
    No human adult (or child for that matter) needs to consume cow milk.

    Some "people" enjoy watching dog fights, bullfighting, badger baiting.
    People don't need to do many things. They do not need to go on holiday, eat meat, eat processed foods, have a house with a garden etc etc.

    just because they do not need to do it doesn't mean they should not do it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    If repeated at a general election, Labour would be projected to win a 176-seat majority.

    Conservative MPs losing their seats would include Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dominic Raab, Grant Shapps and Douglas Ross.

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1565642850259419137
  • Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
    Keep 'em coming. I'll tell you when it's one I've not heard before.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    Pulpstar said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
    I'm sure crack is fucking awesome but that doesn't mean that regular consumption of it is a worthy idea.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
    Indeed, because that is evidence.

    If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
    You're having a shocker here. And (apols) I like your line so much I'm going to repeat it again. Because it is a classic. Don't bet on it being the last time I post it, either.

    "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi"

    Love it.
    It doesn't. Bangladeshi law does.
    As you are so quick to point out, who makes Bangladeshi law? Assuming it is the same as over here, then it is the effing Bangladeshi government.

    JHC.
    Law is made by the Bangladeshi legislature, not the executive, as here. The executive and the legislature may clash. The executive and the law may clash. I don’t know that they do in this case, but a statement by a Bangladeshi government spokesperson is not necessarily determinative.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.

    In a more of an off topic way, I have something to add that supports my previous post.

    From the BBC.
    David Bannerman, a 62-year-old from East Anglia said he was supporting Ms Truss because of her policies, accusing Mr Sunak of having "no new ideas".
    “If you are going to dispose of a prime minister, you have to have different policies, not more of the same."

    For me, this touches on what I was posting the other day - it’s Continuity Truss simply because of personality politics and backstabbing - Boris and Rishi instinctively closer on economics than Truss and Kwarzy, talk of Continuity Truss completely misses key realisation - this change is a big step to the right for the Tory party, and a lot of the Tory membership are excited about making that step and achieving it with Truss.

    Yet there are a lot more who realise now they preferred Boris government approach to handling crisis like this one, but also where Truss is “shrill” for example on is Macron a friend, pressing nuclear launch etc, Boris calm and composed charismatic and often clever answers are now missing.

    Let’s not say Truss is “just continuity” again because this is a big change in tone and economic approach. Anyone disagree with this?
    If it is such a big change in economic approach, surely Truss should call a GE to get a mandate from voters? But she's ruled that out. She was elected on a manifesto in 2019. She has no right to tear that up and implement a completely different one just because less than 200,000 people say so.
    Yes indeed. I was pretty excited, post Brexit, to have "taken back control" but now I don't feel I really have.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
    Because of yeasts and moulds.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446

    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
    I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    Dynamo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Taz said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:

    Good for them. Needs more violence.
    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    And happy to fight these daft vegans if necessary.
    You consume a substance that was naturally designed to feed baby cows despite not being either a baby or a cow, and you call other people "daft"? Would you suck it straight from the udder?

    Extinction Rebellion are a fake group, but opposition to the exploitation of animals is good.

    I drink milk which comes out of the udder yes. Into a jug. Then into a glass. I don't drink stuff straight from the bottle. Do you? When I eat apples from my trees I pick them and cut them up. I don't stand under the tree trying to snatch at them using my teeth.

    And I know the farmer from whom I get this milk and can see how the animals are treated. Every single day, as it happens.

    My father came from an Irish dairy farming family - they had chicken and geese too and their own homemade whisky too. So I have been doing this since I was a child.

    A lot of the local milk gets sold to Cypriot producers of feta and halloumi cheese, which then gets imported back into the U.K. God knows what the environmental impact of that and the production of the plastic it is wrapped in is.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    By that logic a court could find you eligible to be Venezuelan or Zambian.
    If that is the evidence before the court they could, yes. Why shouldn't they, if that's the evidence before the court?

    If that is not the evidence before the court, but they find it anyway, then that's a bigger problem.
    So what is to stop a government passing a law to say anyone convicted of a crime is eligible to be Mongolian?
    Parliament. Ultimately, the voters.

    But if Parliament passed that law, then that would be the law. We’d probably be in breach of international conventions and piss off the Mongolian government, but the UK constitution is pretty clear that Parliament is sovereign.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Ghedebrav said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
    Because of yeasts and moulds.
    If you are vegan you are probably living on stuff which is nothing but yeast and mould. Check out what Quorn is made of.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568

    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
    Udderly delicious post. 👍🏻
    The Udders can be boiled or roasted.

    I think I'll pass

    https://www.food.com/recipe/roasted-cow-udder-300277
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Dura_Ace said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.

    Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
    The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.

    While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.

    Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
    But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
    I'm sure crack is fucking awesome but that doesn't mean that regular consumption of it is a worthy idea.
    Though we didn't evolve enzymes to metabolise crack tens of thousands of years ago.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    TOPPING said:

    According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.

    UK courts have to use logic and evidence, so no, they can’t do that as there is no logic or evidence to support that.

    A court, in the Begum case, decided that she has Bangladeshi citizenship. You and I may feel they got that wrong, but it was their decision and it stands until it is overturned.
This discussion has been closed.