Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
It's a very fair point. The protection is being a member of the ECHR, but it only exists as a protection for as long as Parliament allows it. I guess that all it represents is an extra hoop for a government that sought to curtail human rights to jump through before it could do so. That's not great - but it's better than nothing.
The government is incandescent with rage about those hoops - that shows they have an effect.
OR the hoops are now ridiculous foreign obstacles that prevent the UK government of the day enacting the will of the people
HMG’s Rwanda policy has been passed as lawful by all relevant British courts. It was the ECHR which stopped it
Now you may hate the Rwanda policy but it is an attempt to solve a problem that the British people want solved, and with reason. It might not work but it is surely worth trying. If independent British judges say it does not infringe human rights then that’s good enough for me
Get on with it
My problem with the Rwanda policy is not whether it is lawful or not, I think it is the wrong approach regardless of whether it is lawful. I am happy to concede that things may be lawful even if I think they are shitty. If the UK parliament wants to pursue that policy in non-compliance with the ECHR, if indeed it is, then I would object to the policy regardless, I just wouldn't mention the legality.
Same thing over the prorogation case, albeit that did not touch on ECHR issues - it was the wrong thing to do even if the court had ruled it was acceptable (frankly I was not entirely persuaded by the argument it was not legal).
Which is entirely fair. The Rwanda policy is highly contentious, and I can understand the many objections. I believe, however, we are at a stage when we need pretty radical solutions, because this will only get worse
But these are proper debates we need to have in a democratic country. What we don’t need is some ridiculous foreign court saying No a democratic British government can’t do something that the British people want, even though the British courts have said it is permissible. Enough
There's this many uninhabited Shetland islands (about 100 by eyeball)
Now, if 1 in 10 is buildable on that is Alcatraz x 10. Build them. Anyone from between about the 40th parallels will be pleading to be repatriated after one winter. Put them in a holding centre in Wick while you are running up the Alcatrazes.
I know nothing of her really, but I like the fact she is overweight and apparently a smoker and drinker. Rather like my GP friend who is fond of the booze and food and sports a spectacular gut.
To an extent, she's only 10 years older than me but looks about 80 and I look about 30.
That sort of lifestyle can kill you. I hope she sorts it out.
I am slightly fond of her, if only for the look of suppressed fury she directed at Johnson during that end of days cabinet meeting.
Her public image is not exactly compassionate, though.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
You seem to think the ECHR makes a difference when it demonstrably doesn't.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
If I were a 1930s German jew I think I would rather the Convention applied than that it didn't. and I would continue to have that preference in the face of any number of shouty affirmations that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE YOU REALISE?
You don't need to look back to the 1930s anymore. Look at modern day Russia which was in the ECHR until February.
A non answer, because even as a Russian dissident today I would prefer the country to be party to the convention.
As a Russian dissident I would think the ECHR was an absolute failure. It is the League of Nations of Human Rights.
Really? Still? To you, Brexit is still Britain's #1 issue?
She didn't say #1, she said holding Britain back.
Absofuckinglutely, Brexit is holding Britain back.
Just think how much higher your own productivity would be if you accepted it and moved on.
But hating Brexit and railing uselessly against it IS Scott's whole raison d'etre. If he didn't have that he would be a hollow, empty shell staring listlessly at a flickering screen, bereft of purpose or meaning.
Don't take that way from him please. It would be too cruel.
Very disappointing that you should denigrate in such terms a passionate political belief.
Why not? There are many political beliefs worthy of being denigrated, some of which have very passionate advocates. It doesn't make them right nor worthy of respect.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I like to listen to the political news through nonpartisan, nonpolitical sources like the hourly news bulletin on Magic Radio to hear how it sounds to people who don't read PB. It wasn't great for Truss to be honest - they played that soundbite about putting spades in the ground to lower utility bills, which is literally just random words assembled into a sentence. I am already tired of her voice, too. Obviously I am not an unbiased source on this matter, but I honestly think she is going to be shit. If Labour don't win the next election they should probably just pack up and go home.
Be of good cheer, Labour will in in 2024. My side will be the depressed people
Which, in a way, is only fair. The pendulum must swing, and much as I abhor Wokeness etc the Tories look desperately tired
My big worry is that Truss is going to enact some quite radically conservative policies - some of them much needed - at exactly the wrong time: with only two years to make them work, and in the teeth of a terrible downturn. So they won’t work and voters will recoil, and we will get pathetic Woke socialist declinism for a decade and a half
MEH
Not just that.
We can (but for the love of all that's sacred, let's not) quibble about whether Truss's top team is brilliant Rainbow Nation stuff, or the triumph of a globalised wealthy Private School + Oxbridge elite. But if they stuff up (and their strategy looks risky, to put it mildly), that could have a bad long-term effect on all of this stuff.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
It's a very fair point. The protection is being a member of the ECHR, but it only exists as a protection for as long as Parliament allows it. I guess that all it represents is an extra hoop for a government that sought to curtail human rights to jump through before it could do so. That's not great - but it's better than nothing.
The government is incandescent with rage about those hoops - that shows they have an effect.
OR the hoops are now ridiculous foreign obstacles that prevent the UK government of the day enacting the will of the people
HMG’s Rwanda policy has been passed as lawful by all relevant British courts. It was the ECHR which stopped it
Now you may hate the Rwanda policy but it is an attempt to solve a problem that the British people want solved, and with reason. It might not work but it is surely worth trying. If independent British judges say it does not infringe human rights then that’s good enough for me
Get on with it
My problem with the Rwanda policy is not whether it is lawful or not, I think it is the wrong approach regardless of whether it is lawful. I am happy to concede that things may be lawful even if I think they are shitty. If the UK parliament wants to pursue that policy in non-compliance with the ECHR, if indeed it is, then I would object to the policy regardless, I just wouldn't mention the legality.
Same thing over the prorogation case, albeit that did not touch on ECHR issues - it was the wrong thing to do even if the court had ruled it was acceptable (frankly I was not entirely persuaded by the argument it was not legal).
Which is entirely fair. The Rwanda policy is highly contentious, and I can understand the many objections. I believe, however, we are at a stage when we need pretty radical solutions, because this will only get worse
But these are proper debates we need to have in a democratic country. What we don’t need is some ridiculous foreign court saying No a democratic British government can’t do something that the British people want, even though the British courts have said it is permissible. Enough
There's this many uninhabited Shetland islands (about 100 by eyeball)
Now, if 1 in 10 is buildable on that is Alcatraz x 10. Build them. Anyone from between about the 40th parallels will be pleading to be repatriated after one winter. Put them in a holding centre in Wick while you are running up the Alcatrazes.
Cheap, legal, effective.
Sure, but what about the legitimate asylum seekers?
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
I think for Remainers it is a last shred of European rule over the UK that they are desperate to cling onto. Which is probably reason enough to get rid of it. But more importantly, all the arguments in favour of it seem to melt away when analysed, like snow in spring sun
You'd cut down every law in England to get at the Remainers? Do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Hmm, such familiar phrasing
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
One of my faves, I think I think I've put it through on PB a few times already.
Ah, the Taxpayer’s Alliance, that stalwart association of hardworking burghers.
It's interesting. If she was going to renege on her wild promises, they'd be the first to complain, so I think we have to assume she means them. He will want cuts in personal taxation, though, not just for businesses.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
Well I have now reached that point in life when I am older than the PM.
Youngsters running the country!
I have been drifting in and out of that state since 2010. I was older than Cameron, significantly younger than May, very slightly younger than Johnson and now significantly older than Truss.
I like to listen to the political news through nonpartisan, nonpolitical sources like the hourly news bulletin on Magic Radio to hear how it sounds to people who don't read PB. It wasn't great for Truss to be honest - they played that soundbite about putting spades in the ground to lower utility bills, which is literally just random words assembled into a sentence. I am already tired of her voice, too. Obviously I am not an unbiased source on this matter, but I honestly think she is going to be shit. If Labour don't win the next election they should probably just pack up and go home.
Be of good cheer, Labour will in in 2024. My side will be the depressed people
Which, in a way, is only fair. The pendulum must swing, and much as I abhor Wokeness etc the Tories look desperately tired
My big worry is that Truss is going to enact some quite radically conservative policies - some of them much needed - at exactly the wrong time: with only two years to make them work, and in the teeth of a terrible downturn. So they won’t work and voters will recoil, and we will get pathetic Woke socialist declinism for a decade and a half
MEH
Not just that.
We can (but for the love of all that's sacred, let's not) quibble about whether Truss's top team is brilliant Rainbow Nation stuff, or the triumph of a globalised wealthy Private School + Oxbridge elite. But if they stuff up (and their strategy looks risky, to put it mildly), that could have a bad long-term effect on all of this stuff.
As far as I can see it is not really the latter. Only Kwarteng and Braverman went to private school and Oxbridge of the new Cabinet at present and of those only Kwarteng went to a major public school, Eton
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
It's a very fair point. The protection is being a member of the ECHR, but it only exists as a protection for as long as Parliament allows it. I guess that all it represents is an extra hoop for a government that sought to curtail human rights to jump through before it could do so. That's not great - but it's better than nothing.
The government is incandescent with rage about those hoops - that shows they have an effect.
OR the hoops are now ridiculous foreign obstacles that prevent the UK government of the day enacting the will of the people
HMG’s Rwanda policy has been passed as lawful by all relevant British courts. It was the ECHR which stopped it
Now you may hate the Rwanda policy but it is an attempt to solve a problem that the British people want solved, and with reason. It might not work but it is surely worth trying. If independent British judges say it does not infringe human rights then that’s good enough for me
Get on with it
My problem with the Rwanda policy is not whether it is lawful or not, I think it is the wrong approach regardless of whether it is lawful. I am happy to concede that things may be lawful even if I think they are shitty. If the UK parliament wants to pursue that policy in non-compliance with the ECHR, if indeed it is, then I would object to the policy regardless, I just wouldn't mention the legality.
Same thing over the prorogation case, albeit that did not touch on ECHR issues - it was the wrong thing to do even if the court had ruled it was acceptable (frankly I was not entirely persuaded by the argument it was not legal).
Which is entirely fair. The Rwanda policy is highly contentious, and I can understand the many objections. I believe, however, we are at a stage when we need pretty radical solutions, because this will only get worse
But these are proper debates we need to have in a democratic country. What we don’t need is some ridiculous foreign court saying No a democratic British government can’t do something that the British people want, even though the British courts have said it is permissible. Enough
There's this many uninhabited Shetland islands (about 100 by eyeball)
Now, if 1 in 10 is buildable on that is Alcatraz x 10. Build them. Anyone from between about the 40th parallels will be pleading to be repatriated after one winter. Put them in a holding centre in Wick while you are running up the Alcatrazes.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
Really? Still? To you, Brexit is still Britain's #1 issue?
She didn't say #1, she said holding Britain back.
Absofuckinglutely, Brexit is holding Britain back.
Just think how much higher your own productivity would be if you accepted it and moved on.
But hating Brexit and railing uselessly against it IS Scott's whole raison d'etre. If he didn't have that he would be a hollow, empty shell staring listlessly at a flickering screen, bereft of purpose or meaning.
Don't take that way from him please. It would be too cruel.
Very disappointing that you should denigrate in such terms a passionate political belief.
Why not? There are many political beliefs worthy of being denigrated, some of which have very passionate advocates. It doesn't make them right nor worthy of respect.
Brexit was a deranged act of self harm driven by jingoistic racists. Passionately advocating that belief day after day may be a bit pointless, but that doesn't alter the fundamental truth of the proposition.
Posterity will ne'er survey a nobler grave than this, Here lie the bones of Castlereagh Stop, traveller, and piss
Politician hatred is so Byron 1822
My A level 19th century politics and history was very hazy on exactly why Castlereagh was so detested, only that he was. And that they removed his guns but he did away with himself with scissors. Or perhaps I made that up.
I'm no supporter of, believer in or expert in the Conservative Party or how it works.
As an outsider, Ben Wallace looks in the ideal position to take over if or perhaps when Truss falters - I would expect, were it to happen, a coronation (as with Howard in 2003) and Wallace then rapidly re-structuring the Cabinet to something more substantial in time for the 2024 GE.
IF Truss leads the party to defeat in the GE, Wallace, assuming his majority survives the near 16% swing required to unseat him (and of course another Defence Secretary sitting on what seemed an impregnable majority went down to defeat 25 years ago) would be in a strong position to rebuild the party.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
You seem to think the ECHR makes a difference when it demonstrably doesn't.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
If I were a 1930s German jew I think I would rather the Convention applied than that it didn't. and I would continue to have that preference in the face of any number of shouty affirmations that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE YOU REALISE?
You don't need to look back to the 1930s anymore. Look at modern day Russia which was in the ECHR until February.
A non answer, because even as a Russian dissident today I would prefer the country to be party to the convention.
As a Russian dissident I would think the ECHR was an absolute failure. It is the League of Nations of Human Rights.
But you're not a Russian dissident, are you?
It would certainly explain away his total lack of understanding as to how the British economy works.
"This use of singular they emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error. Its continued use in modern standard English has become more common and formally accepted with the move toward gender-neutral language. Though some early-21st-century style guides described it as colloquial and less appropriate in formal writing, by 2020 most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun."
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
You can sue me if a libel (like "you are RT's bitch") leads to loss of your reputation or income.
That piece of legal advice has just cost you £50.
Of course, to be sure, you perhaps need the expert opinion of one the many extremely busy lawyers who infest pb.com at all hours of the day or night.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
You seem to think the ECHR makes a difference when it demonstrably doesn't.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
If I were a 1930s German jew I think I would rather the Convention applied than that it didn't. and I would continue to have that preference in the face of any number of shouty affirmations that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE YOU REALISE?
You don't need to look back to the 1930s anymore. Look at modern day Russia which was in the ECHR until February.
A non answer, because even as a Russian dissident today I would prefer the country to be party to the convention.
As a Russian dissident I would think the ECHR was an absolute failure. It is the League of Nations of Human Rights.
But you're not a Russian dissident, are you?
Maybe ask Russian dissidents like Navalny or the plethora of poisoning or "falling out of a window" dissidents and journalists how much protection the ECHR gave them?
Ah, the Taxpayer’s Alliance, that stalwart association of hardworking burghers.
It's interesting. If she was going to renege on her wild promises, they'd be the first to complain, so I think we have to assume she means them. He will want cuts in personal taxation, though, not just for businesses.
He's the former head of tax alliance.
I think Lilico in Telegraph lists half a dozen jobs since then.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
Libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation". It does not need to refer to breaking the law.
Remember "She's just dressing bonkers right to win the party election. As soon as that's over, she'll tack to the centre-right to win with the public" thing?
What we saw is what we're going to get.
🙀 . .
A cartoon cat variant of 😩 Weary Face. Its expression more closely resembles 😱 Face Screaming in Fear. Depicted as yellow on major platforms. Weary Cat was approved as part of Unicode 6.0 in 2010 under the name “Weary Cat Face” and added to Emoji 1.0 in 2015.
Posterity will ne'er survey a nobler grave than this, Here lie the bones of Castlereagh Stop, traveller, and piss
Politician hatred is so Byron 1822
My A level 19th century politics and history was very hazy on exactly why Castlereagh was so detested, only that he was. And that they removed his guns but he did away with himself with scissors. Or perhaps I made that up.
It was a paper knife.
He was detested by radicals because they blamed him for Britain's involvement with the Congress system and the Holy Alliance dedicated to suppressing anti-monarchical sentiment in Europe.
Which was unfair, as actually he considered helping the Portuguese liberals (for example) but concluded another war might result with far worse consequences for everyone.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
Libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation". It does not need to refer to breaking the law.
I really cannot believe he has not retracted it yet
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
You can sue me if a libel (like "you are RT's bitch") leads to loss of your reputation or income.
That piece of legal advice has just cost you £50.
Of course, to be sure, you perhaps need the expert opinion of one the many extremely busy lawyers who infest pb.com at all hours of the day or night.
They will charge you £350 for the same advice.
UK libel laws are of course quite repressive.
This site is full to the brim of assertions about Truss’s sexual preferences, but when I note in passing a pretty well known story about the new PM people start clutching pearls.
Posterity will ne'er survey a nobler grave than this, Here lie the bones of Castlereagh Stop, traveller, and piss
Politician hatred is so Byron 1822
My A level 19th century politics and history was very hazy on exactly why Castlereagh was so detested, only that he was. And that they removed his guns but he did away with himself with scissors. Or perhaps I made that up.
Wasn’t that Meriwether Lewis the US explorer who did himself in, thusly?
Went to his death place in the spring, it is a poignant site
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
You can sue me if a libel (like "you are RT's bitch") leads to loss of your reputation or income.
That piece of legal advice has just cost you £50.
Of course, to be sure, you perhaps need the expert opinion of one the many extremely busy lawyers who infest pb.com at all hours of the day or night.
They will charge you £350 for the same advice.
For £500 I will also put you right about the meaning of "allegation."
@MoonRabbit from last thread Thats what im waiting to see. The Truss plan and Starmer plan will probably have similar net effects in freezing but truss AIUI is for 2 years and slightly better protects lower end users whilst punishing higher end a bit more. The key however is businesses - Davey and Starmers freeze does nothing for them, if Truss does then her plan is superior regardless of raising 4% of the cost via a windfall tax or not. No point us all staying warm and there being no businesses left to utilise and work for Edit - no business measures and Truss can do one on day one
Horse Battery can make a fine socialist out of you yet, Woolie if you are selling us a socialist energy price freeze on PB 🤭
I don’t dislike the element of trying some compulsion of everyone saving energy, but is it enough compulsion and no inherent vice?
Labours policy would be the best value for money option for the nation, at shielding billpayers from the imminent 80% rise set for October, and another jump in January. The weakness of it though is the crisis will not be over by March 2023.
My main attack on Truss leaked proposal, and that is all it is, she hasn’t nailed herself to anything, is the need for windfall tax to pay for some it, not just fairness signalling, but the political element of getting much needed buy in from the public.
A windfall tax already exists though. I could see the logic of extending its duration as a signal only, not its scope. Labours policy leaves business to wither on the vine. Economically catastrophic for millions via job losses, services lost etc. It was too rushed, too limited in scope and too focussed on 'getting in the news'
And there lies the problem. Labour doesn't understand business. It never has (even during Blair premiership) and it never will. It sees business, whether large or small as a cash cow to tax as much as possible. It is why I would have struggled to vote Labour even if the Clown was still PM.
Okay boys, talk me through this Tory plan for helping business you are sure Liz has, and sure Lib Dems and labour have nothing.
How will this business energy crisis plan help businesses who have already now signed long deals on contract?
And We will hear about it on Thursday, alongside the details on the domestic users package, you are sure?
👂 I didn’t ask for too much detail you don’t have did I?
You led me to believe there was a plan. What did you hear, what do you know?
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
Libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation". It does not need to refer to breaking the law.
So, the question is does: the suggestion (whether true or not) that Kwasi had an affair with Liz tend to damage either of their reputations.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
You seem to think the ECHR makes a difference when it demonstrably doesn't.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
If I were a 1930s German jew I think I would rather the Convention applied than that it didn't. and I would continue to have that preference in the face of any number of shouty affirmations that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE YOU REALISE?
You don't need to look back to the 1930s anymore. Look at modern day Russia which was in the ECHR until February.
A non answer, because even as a Russian dissident today I would prefer the country to be party to the convention.
As a Russian dissident I would think the ECHR was an absolute failure. It is the League of Nations of Human Rights.
But you're not a Russian dissident, are you?
Maybe ask Russian dissidents like Navalny or the plethora of poisoning or "falling out of a window" dissidents and journalists how much protection the ECHR gave them?
Could you raise your game a notch or two? That argument is equivalent to, there's this ridiculous seat belt law but look at the hundreds who have died horribly while wearing seatbelts since the Act.
The appointment of Matthew Sinclair means it's certain there will be swingeing cuts in public expenditure to try to mask the grotesque borrowing needed to cover the energy price rises.
Sinclair and his group have long vilified Councils and central Government on spending even if most of it is non-discretionary and is about enforcing central Government diktat.
The appointment of Matthew Sinclair means it's certain there will be swingeing cuts in public expenditure to try to mask the grotesque borrowing needed to cover the energy price rises.
Sinclair and his group have long vilified Councils and central Government on spending even if most of it is non-discretionary and is about enforcing central Government diktat.
To be fair, you may have alighted on the most radical appointment of them all
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I'm no supporter of, believer in or expert in the Conservative Party or how it works.
As an outsider, Ben Wallace looks in the ideal position to take over if or perhaps when Truss falters - I would expect, were it to happen, a coronation (as with Howard in 2003) and Wallace then rapidly re-structuring the Cabinet to something more substantial in time for the 2024 GE.
IF Truss leads the party to defeat in the GE, Wallace, assuming his majority survives the near 16% swing required to unseat him (and of course another Defence Secretary sitting on what seemed an impregnable majority went down to defeat 25 years ago) would be in a strong position to rebuild the party.
Wallace doesn't want the job. He wants to be Defence Secretary, particularly now during the Russo-Ukraine War.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
It's a very fair point. The protection is being a member of the ECHR, but it only exists as a protection for as long as Parliament allows it. I guess that all it represents is an extra hoop for a government that sought to curtail human rights to jump through before it could do so. That's not great - but it's better than nothing.
The government is incandescent with rage about those hoops - that shows they have an effect.
OR the hoops are now ridiculous foreign obstacles that prevent the UK government of the day enacting the will of the people
HMG’s Rwanda policy has been passed as lawful by all relevant British courts. It was the ECHR which stopped it
Now you may hate the Rwanda policy but it is an attempt to solve a problem that the British people want solved, and with reason. It might not work but it is surely worth trying. If independent British judges say it does not infringe human rights then that’s good enough for me
Get on with it
My problem with the Rwanda policy is not whether it is lawful or not, I think it is the wrong approach regardless of whether it is lawful. I am happy to concede that things may be lawful even if I think they are shitty. If the UK parliament wants to pursue that policy in non-compliance with the ECHR, if indeed it is, then I would object to the policy regardless, I just wouldn't mention the legality.
Same thing over the prorogation case, albeit that did not touch on ECHR issues - it was the wrong thing to do even if the court had ruled it was acceptable (frankly I was not entirely persuaded by the argument it was not legal).
Which is entirely fair. The Rwanda policy is highly contentious, and I can understand the many objections. I believe, however, we are at a stage when we need pretty radical solutions, because this will only get worse
But these are proper debates we need to have in a democratic country. What we don’t need is some ridiculous foreign court saying No a democratic British government can’t do something that the British people want, even though the British courts have said it is permissible. Enough
There's this many uninhabited Shetland islands (about 100 by eyeball)
Now, if 1 in 10 is buildable on that is Alcatraz x 10. Build them. Anyone from between about the 40th parallels will be pleading to be repatriated after one winter. Put them in a holding centre in Wick while you are running up the Alcatrazes.
Cheap, legal, effective.
Perhaps Northern Ireland, right next to the RoI border? That's basically what the French do to us.
Must be plenty of left over military bases that could be used. The ultimate, final form of Brexit.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
You can sue me if a libel (like "you are RT's bitch") leads to loss of your reputation or income.
That piece of legal advice has just cost you £50.
Of course, to be sure, you perhaps need the expert opinion of one the many extremely busy lawyers who infest pb.com at all hours of the day or night.
They will charge you £350 for the same advice.
Maybe my reputation would be be enhanced if I were. I am not sure Fizzy Lizzy being unfairly accused of all sorts of bedroom shenanigans wouldn't warrant some free advice from Suella.
The £50 is in the post by the way. At a reasonable £350, PB lawyers are underselling themselves.
Ooh, that's a statement - often not even a Cabinet Member position (though may 'attend' it), your job being to organise the business of proper Ministers. Junior stuff.
Posterity will ne'er survey a nobler grave than this, Here lie the bones of Castlereagh Stop, traveller, and piss
Politician hatred is so Byron 1822
My A level 19th century politics and history was very hazy on exactly why Castlereagh was so detested, only that he was. And that they removed his guns but he did away with himself with scissors. Or perhaps I made that up.
He was hounded by the early 19th century equivalent of cancel culture. Byron and Shelley playing the social justice warriors role in particular. He was tbf a bit of a shit at times, and got blamed/associated with Peterloo 'i met murder on the way, he had a mask like Castlereagh' The King sent him a note when he became incapacitated by paranoia and insanity (he was convinced he was being constantly watched and perescuted for a 'homosexual act') it said, in part, 'remember what your good health means to the nation, but in particular to me'. He had killed himself before it arrived
Ah, the Taxpayer’s Alliance, that stalwart association of hardworking burghers.
I am a tax payers, yet they have never asked my opinion. Or are they just an alliance of corporate tax payers?
A consortium of Kochs, you mean?
Trussbot heard that Every Prime Minister Needs A Willie, and misunderstood.
What we should have done is got the PM-AI to spew out 100 potential cabinets/adviser teams and then chosen the good one to show everybody. (Not entirely mocking. That's how art-as-a-product will be now.)
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
Libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation". It does not need to refer to breaking the law.
I really cannot believe he has not retracted it yet
It was a nice thought that at least there’s one Tory in the land who likes the BBC.
From that you’d believe we are basically North Korea. Admitting no one. But in fact the UK handed out 1 MILLION visas last year and we have one of the most liberal migration regimes on earth. Plus the boat people
"This use of singular they emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error. Its continued use in modern standard English has become more common and formally accepted with the move toward gender-neutral language. Though some early-21st-century style guides described it as colloquial and less appropriate in formal writing, by 2020 most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun."
Wikipedia also claims that there is a real possibility Nazareth didn't exist until the 1940s, that there is doubt as to whether Richard III murdered his nephews, and that probability and frequency are the same thing.
Articles depend on the cranks who write them, and most Wikipedia editors especially on controversial subjects are now cranks.
The citation for that paragraph is an OED piece that I noted above makes a very doubtful claim indeed and is stretching the evidence past breaking point.
I must admit, I'm surprised people are so adamant that we support bad grammar rather than trying to resolve the problem. I should have remembered PB loves a pointless discussion
Yes, Mordaunt so far the only Cabinet appointment who was supporting another candidate other than Truss by the final Tory MPs round (as she was another candidate) and she gets the least powerful role so far. Telling.
Still not a single Sunak supporter appointed to Truss' Cabinet despite Rishi getting 38% of Tory MPs votes and 43% of Tory members votes
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
Libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation". It does not need to refer to breaking the law.
I really cannot believe he has not retracted it yet
Johnny Mercer's wife is not happy with her husband's sacking.
He asked her ‘why would you do this, who is going to be better at this role than me, which of your mates gets the job, you promised a meritocracy?’ PM - I can’t answer that Johnny
This system stinks & treats people appallingly
Best person I know sacked by an imbecile @trussliz
Ooh, that's a statement - often not even a Cabinet Member position (though may 'attend' it), your job being to organise the business of proper Ministers. Junior stuff.
It’s amazing how far it’s fallen as a role. But then I guess it was mostly important back when the PM might be in the Lords.
"This use of singular they emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error. Its continued use in modern standard English has become more common and formally accepted with the move toward gender-neutral language. Though some early-21st-century style guides described it as colloquial and less appropriate in formal writing, by 2020 most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun."
Wikipedia also claims that there is a real possibility Nazareth didn't exist until the 1940s, that there is doubt as to whether Richard III murdered his nephews, and that probability and frequency are the same thing.
Articles depend on the cranks who write them, and most Wikipedia editors especially on controversial subjects are now cranks.
The citation for that paragraph is an OED piece that I noted above makes a very doubtful claim indeed and is stretching the evidence past breaking point.
I must admit, I'm surprised people are so adamant that we support bad grammar rather than trying to resolve the problem. I should have remembered PB loves a pointless discussion
It's only bad grammar if you want to impose a rule which is not necessary and delcare non adherence as 'bad'. Examples have been provided of where it even makes more sense than using an alternative.
If a 'rule' is not necessary we don't need to retain it, there isn't a law to keep archaic (or pseudo archaic) rules of expression, language evolves - words change meaning, expressions change, and how we structure things change.
Why some people think grammar 'rules' alone must be fixed in time forever I have not the slightest idea.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
Libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation". It does not need to refer to breaking the law.
So, the question is does: the suggestion (whether true or not) that Kwasi had an affair with Liz tend to damage either of their reputations.
I don't see how it does.
Their partners might take umbrage. More seriously, it would imply that he had only got the job by sleeping his way to it rather than through talent, and that WOULD be damaging. Also, the fact that it's not true makes it pretty unpleasant.
Remember "She's just dressing bonkers right to win the party election. As soon as that's over, she'll tack to the centre-right to win with the public" thing?
What we saw is what we're going to get.
🙀 . .
A cartoon cat variant of 😩 Weary Face. Its expression more closely resembles 😱 Face Screaming in Fear. Depicted as yellow on major platforms. Weary Cat was approved as part of Unicode 6.0 in 2010 under the name “Weary Cat Face” and added to Emoji 1.0 in 2015.
Yes, Mordaunt so far the only Cabinet Appointment who was supporting another candidate other than Truss by the final MPs round (as she was another candidate) and she gets the least powerful role so far. Telling.
Still not a single Sunak supporter appointed to Truss' Cabinet despite Rishi getting 38% of Tory MPs votes and 43% of Tory members votes
And didn't PM-not-PM very visibly put herself in Team Truss for the final stage?
How long did it take Maggie to go this far? You could argue that, even at the end, she had people like Hurd and Clarke in her cabinet.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
Libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation". It does not need to refer to breaking the law.
I really cannot believe he has not retracted it yet
From that you’d believe we are basically North Korea. Admitting no one. But in fact the UK handed out 1 MILLION visas last year and we have one of the most liberal migration regimes on earth. Plus the boat people
It’s farcical
Nothing worse than someone who is the child of immigrants being anti-immigrant and follows on from Patel ! Braverman will be even worse than Patel which is saying something.
"This use of singular they emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error. Its continued use in modern standard English has become more common and formally accepted with the move toward gender-neutral language. Though some early-21st-century style guides described it as colloquial and less appropriate in formal writing, by 2020 most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun."
Wikipedia also claims that there is a real possibility Nazareth didn't exist until the 1940s, that there is doubt as to whether Richard III murdered his nephews, and that probability and frequency are the same thing.
Articles depend on the cranks who write them, and most Wikipedia editors especially on controversial subjects are now cranks.
The citation for that paragraph is an OED piece that I noted above makes a very doubtful claim indeed and is stretching the evidence past breaking point.
I must admit, I'm surprised people are so adamant that we support bad grammar rather than trying to resolve the problem. I should have remembered PB loves a pointless discussion
Still HYUFDing away? Take the rest of the evening off. have a drink. you know as well as I do that "Each of {n where n is the biggest number in the entire world ever} is a singular. And it is awfully meta to be attacking the source because the proposition in the source is bulletproof.
From that you’d believe we are basically North Korea. Admitting no one. But in fact the UK handed out 1 MILLION visas last year and we have one of the most liberal migration regimes on earth. Plus the boat people
It’s farcical
Nothing worse than someone who is the child of immigrants being anti-immigrant...
I don't see what's bad about that. People should not be expected to hold certain opinions due to their background.
Yes, Mordaunt so far the only Cabinet Appointment who was supporting another candidate other than Truss by the final MPs round (as she was another candidate) and she gets the least powerful role so far. Telling.
Still not a single Sunak supporter appointed to Truss' Cabinet despite Rishi getting 38% of Tory MPs votes and 43% of Tory members votes
And didn't PM-not-PM very visibly put herself in Team Truss for the final stage?
How long did it take Maggie to go this far? You could argue that, even at the end, she had people like Hurd and Clarke in her cabinet.
Johnny Mercer's wife is not happy with her husband's sacking.
He asked her ‘why would you do this, who is going to be better at this role than me, which of your mates gets the job, you promised a meritocracy?’ PM - I can’t answer that Johnny
This system stinks & treats people appallingly
Best person I know sacked by an imbecile @trussliz
Johnny Mercer's wife is not happy with her husband's sacking.
He asked her ‘why would you do this, who is going to be better at this role than me, which of your mates gets the job, you promised a meritocracy?’ PM - I can’t answer that Johnny
This system stinks & treats people appallingly
Best person I know sacked by an imbecile @trussliz
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Are you sure about that? Surely at the very least it is potentially a civil offence. What is to stop you accusing me of being Andrew RT Davies's bitch if I can't sue your arse?
Libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation". It does not need to refer to breaking the law.
So, the question is does: the suggestion (whether true or not) that Kwasi had an affair with Liz tend to damage either of their reputations.
I don't see how it does.
Their partners might take umbrage. More seriously, it would imply that he had only got the job by sleeping his way to it rather than through talent, and that WOULD be damaging. Also, the fact that it's not true makes it pretty unpleasant.
Comments
Half of them would make a Cabinet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Uninhabited_islands_of_Shetland
Now, if 1 in 10 is buildable on that is Alcatraz x 10. Build them. Anyone from between about the 40th parallels will be pleading to be repatriated after one winter. Put them in a holding centre in Wick while you are running up the Alcatrazes.
Cheap, legal, effective.
Her public image is not exactly compassionate, though.
Shcools?
We can (but for the love of all that's sacred, let's not) quibble about whether Truss's top team is brilliant Rainbow Nation stuff, or the triumph of a globalised wealthy Private School + Oxbridge elite. But if they stuff up (and their strategy looks risky, to put it mildly), that could have a bad long-term effect on all of this stuff.
Here lie the bones of Castlereagh
Stop, traveller, and piss
Politician hatred is so Byron 1822
He's been far too equivocal on the Ukrainian conflict.
Is it just me?
As an outsider, Ben Wallace looks in the ideal position to take over if or perhaps when Truss falters - I would expect, were it to happen, a coronation (as with Howard in 2003) and Wallace then rapidly re-structuring the Cabinet to something more substantial in time for the 2024 GE.
IF Truss leads the party to defeat in the GE, Wallace, assuming his majority survives the near 16% swing required to unseat him (and of course another Defence Secretary sitting on what seemed an impregnable majority went down to defeat 25 years ago) would be in a strong position to rebuild the party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
"This use of singular they emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error. Its continued use in modern standard English has become more common and formally accepted with the move toward gender-neutral language. Though some early-21st-century style guides described it as colloquial and less appropriate in formal writing, by 2020 most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun."
That piece of legal advice has just cost you £50.
Of course, to be sure, you perhaps need the expert opinion of one the many extremely busy
They will charge you £350 for the same advice.
I think Lilico in Telegraph lists half a dozen jobs since then.
Could you simplify your emojis pls?
He was detested by radicals because they blamed him for Britain's involvement with the Congress system and the Holy Alliance dedicated to suppressing anti-monarchical sentiment in Europe.
Which was unfair, as actually he considered helping the Portuguese liberals (for example) but concluded another war might result with far worse consequences for everyone.
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1567231349173501953?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
This site is full to the brim of assertions about Truss’s sexual preferences, but when I note in passing a pretty well known story about the new PM people start clutching pearls.
Went to his death place in the spring, it is a poignant site
You led me to believe there was a plan. What did you hear, what do you know?
I don't see how it does.
So far this is looking like the weakest cabinet appointed since Lord Shelburne.
Sinclair and his group have long vilified Councils and central Government on spending even if most of it is non-discretionary and is about enforcing central Government diktat.
To be fair, you may have alighted on the most radical appointment of them all
https://www.thehits.co.nz/spy/how-a-british-mp-managed-to-catch-her-husband-with-his-mistress/
“ Rudd's on-off romance with another Old Etonian, Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng, earned them a mention in last year's notorious "Sexminster" dossier of MPs' love lives.”
Must be plenty of left over military bases that could be used. The ultimate, final form of Brexit.
The £50 is in the post by the way. At a reasonable £350, PB lawyers are underselling themselves.
He was tbf a bit of a shit at times, and got blamed/associated with Peterloo 'i met murder on the way, he had a mask like Castlereagh'
The King sent him a note when he became incapacitated by paranoia and insanity (he was convinced he was being constantly watched and perescuted for a 'homosexual act') it said, in part, 'remember what your good health means to the nation, but in particular to me'. He had killed himself before it arrived
What we should have done is got the PM-AI to spew out 100 potential cabinets/adviser teams and then chosen the good one to show everybody.
(Not entirely mocking. That's how art-as-a-product will be now.)
“Suella Braverman: home secretary set to take even harder line on migration”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/06/suella-braverman-home-secretary-set-to-take-even-harder-line-on-migration?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
“Even harder line”.
From that you’d believe we are basically North Korea. Admitting no one. But in fact the UK handed out 1 MILLION visas last year and we have one of the most liberal migration regimes on earth. Plus the boat people
It’s farcical
Articles depend on the cranks who write them, and most Wikipedia editors especially on controversial subjects are now cranks.
The citation for that paragraph is an OED piece that I noted above makes a very doubtful claim indeed and is stretching the evidence past breaking point.
I must admit, I'm surprised people are so adamant that we support bad grammar rather than trying to resolve the problem. I should have remembered PB loves a pointless discussion
Still not a single Sunak supporter appointed to Truss' Cabinet despite Rishi getting 38% of Tory MPs votes and 43% of Tory members votes
16 up from the bottom
I don't believe a word of it, natch, but you asked for a link. This is a link.
He asked her ‘why would you do this, who is going to be better at this role than me, which of your mates gets the job, you promised a meritocracy?’
PM - I can’t answer that Johnny
This system stinks & treats people appallingly
Best person I know sacked by an imbecile @trussliz
https://twitter.com/mercer_felicity/status/1567229997881987078?t=sA8A5hCeJFyLgEoGfMi30Q&s=19
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1567232981852356609?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
If a 'rule' is not necessary we don't need to retain it, there isn't a law to keep archaic (or pseudo archaic) rules of expression, language evolves - words change meaning, expressions change, and how we structure things change.
Why some people think grammar 'rules' alone must be fixed in time forever I have not the slightest idea.
How long did it take Maggie to go this far?
You could argue that, even at the end, she had people like Hurd and Clarke in her cabinet.
What's worse is that she's relying mostly on people who have shown themselves utterly unfit to hold any sort of executive power.
She's making exactly the mistake Corbyn did in 2016, but from the start of her leadership and while in government.
This is going to end both badly and quickly.
I think the one real hope left to avert catastrophe is she's defeated on a budget or the Queen's Speech and calls an election.
Is she messing this up by making too many unnecessary enemies?