Actually, there are the green shoots of Tory recovery here
Yes yes, they are faint, like the first tips of crocuses in February, but they are there. The descent to the low-mid teens has slowed discernibly, and the chances of the Tories being overtaken in MPs by the Hare Krishna Party are now almost negligible
An agreement on Northern Ireland that would reduce some of the burden of Boris's deal and withdrawal of the protocol bill might help the economy and boost ratings a little too. Do the ERG/assorted malcontents want this?
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
It depends what they mean. If they are talking about an actual bar then they don't share my viewpoint. If they are talking about not voting for people they disagree with then that is precisely my viewpoint. The term effective bar is I think an ambiguous one that was probably chosen mostly to wind people up, in which case job done.
Or it may reflect their unspoken true views.
Hard to read into anyone's thoughts.
Or perhaps you just selectively quoted Bart. The full quote gives rather a different impression: My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected, so long as my views prevail democratically
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
Easily.
You seem to be conflating the right to stand, or the right to vote - which everyone has - with the right to be elected - which nobody has.
If you wish to vote, that's your right. If you wish to be elected, you need to convince the public to vote for you, and if you can't do that, then your rights have not been impeded.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
The question is what do you do? The stripping of citizenship seems absurd. Isn't it based on the theoretical idea that she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship? Do we honestly think they would take her? Is this not going to make it more difficult for us to get rid of foreign criminals as countries say we're not interested?
The reading of Bangladeshi law by the UK courts says that she is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. The Bangladeshi courts say no - but this may well be included by their government.
For the future
1) A usable Treason law 2) Part of this is a provision that give aid, comfort and fighting for various countries or entities is being in conflict with the UK government. And hence Treason. 3) Said list of countries and entities is updated regularly in parliament, by vote.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
Did Farron say he'd put his views into practice?
As far as I can tell he made it clear he wouldn't and that still wasn't enough.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
The doctrine of power balance I think. Russia is a useful bulwark against Western dominance of world politics (and raw materials). And an opportunity to tie down the US instead of letting it focus too much on the Far East.
Possibly it is a sign also that China thinks Russia is in danger of a collapse and needs support. It would be interesting to know what the Chinese view is of a Russia that breaks apart.
An opportunity for them to muscle in as they have done in central Asia.
'THE chairman of the "council" that made headlines accusing Humza Yousaf of breaking the ministerial code is also the president of a Scottish Conservative group, The National can reveal.'
If it is the Scottish Tories, or someone acting for the STories, that is plain stupid
The optimal result for the Scottish Tories AND the Union is a Yousaf victory. He's unpleasant and divisive - bad for the Nits, he's left wing, Woke, Transyphile and progressive - won't tempt Scottish Tory voters
They should be doing all they can to make sure Yousaf WINS
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
This actually feels far, far worse for the Tories than 1997. Then it was all about Black Wednesday and a pervading sense of a governing party whose time was up. Now it's because the Tories have soiled so much of the carpet - Brexit, Boris, Truss - that it's hard to imagine the sort of person who would even vote for them at all. The lights might be finally going out for ever.
Why is Starmer going on Brexit? Who gives a f*** about Northern Ireland?
The Conservative Party backbenchers.
I get that he’ll vote with the government to be awkward, but why waste six questions at PMQs on it? It’s not like Sunak wouldn’t know what the situation is.
And, shouldn’t Starmer ask about what the people of Britain care about? All he did today was give Sunak the opportunity to remind the public that Starmer wanted to stop Brexit.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.
I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.
To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.
If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?
Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.
Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Are you seriously comparing Kate Forbes, current Scottish finance minister, being less likely to become leader of the SNP and first minister because of her views on same-sex marriage, with black people getting beaten up in 1950s US for trying to vote?
Jeez, talk about absurd attempts to play the victim.
Bartholomew has already admitted what his intentions are:
"My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected"
The methods by which he aims to do so may be different and less physically brutal but the aim is the same. And I am also surprised that, in a society where mental illness is apparently far more seriously taken, we still the view that piling onto someone publicly for their religious views and ridiculing them is absolutely fine. Seems like a disconnect in the logic there.
I have no interest in her religious views, I disagree with her because she said she would vote against equal marriage given the chance - I would equally disagree with that whatever religion (or none) someone belonged to. And (unlike you?) I think that is a valid reason not to support her as leader of the SNP or Scottish first minister
If you can give me an example of people piling onto her publicly for her religious views I will know what you are talking about, it sounds like the kind of thing I wouldn't be fine with.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
Had the near Marxist Corbyn been up against an evangelical Christian Conservative leader in 2017 rather than the small c Church of England Theresa May then Corbyn may well have won
He didn't do very well against devout Catholic Johnson though, did he?
Johnson was a social liberal, not a member of Opus Dei!
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
Hmmm
Begum joined ISIS. Which stated that it was at war with the West and the UK specifically.
So that's "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere" sorted
Pretty sure we could get "and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition" - AKA a jury presented with the facts.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
May I suggest we try Piers Morgan as a test case?
Interesting idea
{Picks axe from rack, contemplates a number of honing tools}
This actually feels far, far worse for the Tories than 1997. Then it was all about Black Wednesday and a pervading sense of a governing party whose time was up. Now it's because the Tories have soiled so much of the carpet - Brexit, Boris, Truss - that it's hard to imagine the sort of person who would even vote for them at all. The lights might be finally going out for ever.
Yes, I agree, this is potentially far worse than '97
At least back then you could say voters were flocking to a charismatic and dynamic young Labour leader, with a manifesto full of ideas, and the Tories could, at least, point to 18 years of achievement and a booming economy, to reboot their chances down the line
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
Did Farron say he'd put his views into practice?
As far as I can tell he made it clear he wouldn't and that still wasn't enough.
There were three things in Farron's downfall: - He took a long time to admit his views, thus making it a bigger issue (and making himself look dishonest/shifty) - His voting record didn't quite stand up to scrutiny on his claims of voting liberally (neither did it mark him out as a homophobe) - He wasn't in a particularly strong position to start with (I thought he did ok as leader, but there were mutterings before this, too)
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
I think she's devious and manipulative and totally untrustworthy, and the calculated Western clothes, make-up and slightly revealing cleavage is all part of that.
Nevertheless I wouldn't have a problem with trying her in principle - I suspect the reason HMG don't want her anywhere near the UK is the difficulty of securing a robust conviction and then having to pay to imprison her/supervise or monitor her in the community indefinitely, all for zero political benefit.
Yes, but if you stand on your head, hit the poll with a guessing stick then spin round 3 times, there is a clear sign of Sunak romping home with a Con majority.
Why is Starmer going on Brexit? Who gives a f*** about Northern Ireland?
The Conservative Party backbenchers.
I get that he’ll vote with the government to be awkward, but why waste six questions at PMQs on it? It’s not like Sunak wouldn’t know what the situation is.
And, shouldn’t Starmer ask about what the people of Britain care about? All he did today was give Sunak the opportunity to remind the public that Starmer wanted to stop Brexit.
I don't think that reminder is such a bad thing anymore. The more the Tories are tied to Brexit, the more damage that does to the cause of Brexit.
One reason for going on NI today may also be to harvest Sunak quotes that he can throw back in a couple of weeks' time. Starmer has been quite good at that.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
Hmmm
Begum joined ISIS. Which stated that it was at war with the West and the UK specifically.
So that's "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere" sorted
Pretty sure we could get "and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition" - AKA a jury presented with the facts.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
Yes, Marxism tends to be an irrational faith for most of its adherents. Again, if it affects policy, then they won’t get my vote.
The difference is that many of the Gospel teachings are thoroughly laudable, even if you’re an atheist. The Old Testament was reinterpreted by Jesus; Marx got Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. No contest.
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Their continued existence as a Party?
Their continued existence looks to be in question anyway. I genuinely think the British public might finally be through with the Tories. At least with Boris there's the possibility of clawing back some of the apolitical 'Boris is a loveable cad' cohort. The Tories under Rishi don't seem to have any appeal whatsoever.
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Everything.
I suspect Bozo could bring the Tory's back to 27% with Labour on 40% but the LibDems on 13-14%...
And while that would probably win a few more votes up North it's likely to not win them seats. And it would probably shift a few southern former safe Tory seats to the Lib Dems.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
It seems to me China’s main focus is the global south and in that focus it has a real interest in an impression of the US and NATO something less than a hegemonic power. I think it is becoming clear that ‘the West’ has a lot of work to do if it is to retain its legitimacy as a model of development for others to follow. In that sense a stalemate in Ukraine would fit well with China’s political interests in my view.
A stalemate would be better for them than a western victory but the key is to make sure that the price for China getting involved is higher than any gain.
And do you think we still have the strength and cohesion amongst Western partners to make sure the price is sufficiently high? I think the experience of sanctioning Russia has been scarily humbling…
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
The question is what do you do? The stripping of citizenship seems absurd. Isn't it based on the theoretical idea that she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship? Do we honestly think they would take her? Is this not going to make it more difficult for us to get rid of foreign criminals as countries say we're not interested?
The reading of Bangladeshi law by the UK courts says that she is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. The Bangladeshi courts say no - but this may well be included by their government.
For the future
1) A usable Treason law 2) Part of this is a provision that give aid, comfort and fighting for various countries or entities is being in conflict with the UK government. And hence Treason. 3) Said list of countries and entities is updated regularly in parliament, by vote.
Are you saying that the UK position is based on their interpretation of Bangladeshi law rather than what the Bangladeshis are saying? That strikes me as absurd. There cannot be a realistic prospect of her getting Bangladeshi citizenship. Isn't this a fundamental flaw with the law on statelessness. If you have dual citizenship both states can just say that the individual can be deemed a citizen with the other. We can't honestly believe we can pass her over to Bangladesh who understandably would want to run a mile.
Another poll showing the Tories going backwards and Labour into the 50s.
It is end days.
You sound just like a Tory in 2008.
By way of comparison, Labour won 24% in the 2008 local elections, and 21% in 2009. But, they achieved a respectable defeat a year later.
The 2008-10 comparisons fall down though over the relative Lib Dem performance. They were polling in the low 20s at the time. So "LLG" was around 48-52%. By contrast the Tories were nowhere near as popular as Labour is now.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
Hmmm
Begum joined ISIS. Which stated that it was at war with the West and the UK specifically.
So that's "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere" sorted
Pretty sure we could get "and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition" - AKA a jury presented with the facts.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
I think she's devious and manipulative and totally untrustworthy, and the calculated Western clothes, make-up and slightly revealing cleavage is all part of that.
Nevertheless I wouldn't have a problem with trying her in principle - I suspect the reason HMG don't want her anywhere near the UK is the difficulty of securing a robust conviction and then having to pay to imprison her/supervise or monitor her in the community indefinitely, all for zero political benefit.
We don't have robust enough treason laws to deal with these kinds of offences AIUI.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
Yes, Marxism tends to be an irrational faith for most of its adherents. Again, if it affects policy, then they won’t get my vote.
The difference is that many of the Gospel teachings are thoroughly laudable, even if you’re an atheist. The Old Testament was reinterpreted by Jesus; Marx got Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. No contest.
Some of the Gospel teachings are laudable. Some are not. Same as most philosophies really.
Much of what Jesus said is laudable, even as an atheist, but the problem is that it was then reinterpreted further by Paul and those who followed him and that's where even Christianity has problems in my eyes, not just the Old Testament.
Ash Regan it is then. Victory for the blank canvas.
Not quite…..a tale of three tweets:
I will not support an accelerated net zero path which sees us turn off the North Sea taps, throw 10s of 1000s of oil workers out of jobs, hollow out NE & H&I communities whist still using and importing hydrocarbons. I will stand up for our oil workers and their communities.….
The dualling of the A9 must be accelerated & A96 must commence without delay. There are too many accidents and near misses. We need these completed to release the full economic potential of the NE and Highlands and to connect communities. This is my #1 infrastructure priority.
50%+1 of combined votes from pro-independence parties in any WM or HR election is a clear instruction from the electorate that we commence withdrawal negotiations from the U.K. Independence - nothing less
Nothing better sums up the yearning of an occupied country. fighting for its identity that the conversion of the A9 into a dual carriageway. It's going to be the foundational epic of the new nation.
You need to remember that the Stone of Scone on which the unionists get so excited was actually a mediaeval drain manhole cover foisted off on Edward Longshanks.
Could do worse as a reminder of government priorities, I've always thought. It also explains why the Scots were so meh when the Tories got all excited about deigning to return it to Scotland. Never forgotten the Satrap in State trailing behind the hearse up the High Street in Edinburgh with the crowds silent except for the odd sarcastic remark or boo.
That's quite funny. I didn't realise they'd pulled one over on Edward I.
Given that the original Stone was brought from Ireland, and the one at Westminster for KC's botty is sandstone indistinguishable on petrographical analysis from that around the place where it was [edit] not too carefully hidden from Longshanks ...
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
Hmmm
Begum joined ISIS. Which stated that it was at war with the West and the UK specifically.
So that's "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere" sorted
Pretty sure we could get "and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition" - AKA a jury presented with the facts.
Or we could strip her of her nationality, which the courts have ruled is legal, and close the door.
She made her bed.
Call me a Neon Fascist Imperialist, but I have this funny idea that punishment should come after a trial.
Its not a punishment though. She's free to roam the world as she pleases, she's just not free to return to this country. Which is perfectly legal, and has been subjected to judicial scrutiny.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
Had the near Marxist Corbyn been up against an evangelical Christian Conservative leader in 2017 rather than the small c Church of England Theresa May then Corbyn may well have won
He didn't do very well against devout Catholic Johnson though, did he?
Johnson was a social liberal, not a member of Opus Dei!
He was as far as he was concerned. As far as being in power was concerned, he had no beliefs at all which weren’t contingent on staying there.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
The question is what do you do? The stripping of citizenship seems absurd. Isn't it based on the theoretical idea that she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship? Do we honestly think they would take her? Is this not going to make it more difficult for us to get rid of foreign criminals as countries say we're not interested?
The reading of Bangladeshi law by the UK courts says that she is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. The Bangladeshi courts say no - but this may well be included by their government.
For the future
1) A usable Treason law 2) Part of this is a provision that give aid, comfort and fighting for various countries or entities is being in conflict with the UK government. And hence Treason. 3) Said list of countries and entities is updated regularly in parliament, by vote.
Are you saying that the UK position is based on their interpretation of Bangladeshi law rather than what the Bangladeshis are saying? That strikes me as absurd. There cannot be a realistic prospect of her getting Bangladeshi citizenship. Isn't this a fundamental flaw with the law on statelessness. If you have dual citizenship both states can just say that the individual can be deemed a citizen with the other. We can't honestly believe we can pass her over to Bangladesh who understandably would want to run a mile.
Yes, this ruling creates a de facto second tier of citizenship of several million UK citizens and passport holders. Shameful.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
I think she's devious and manipulative and totally untrustworthy, and the calculated Western clothes, make-up and slightly revealing cleavage is all part of that.
Nevertheless I wouldn't have a problem with trying her in principle - I suspect the reason HMG don't want her anywhere near the UK is the difficulty of securing a robust conviction and then having to pay to imprison her/supervise or monitor her in the community indefinitely, all for zero political benefit.
Apparently it's been focus grouped, and letting Begum back in is one of the single most unpopular things any UK government can do. She is absolutely detested (and rightly)
In the spirit of @Dura_Ace we could have two crowdfunds. One to pay human traffickers to get her back "home", run by @Dura_Ace - as that is what he wants - and then another to buy a drone
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
Hmmm
Begum joined ISIS. Which stated that it was at war with the West and the UK specifically.
So that's "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere" sorted
Pretty sure we could get "and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition" - AKA a jury presented with the facts.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
It seems to me China’s main focus is the global south and in that focus it has a real interest in an impression of the US and NATO something less than a hegemonic power. I think it is becoming clear that ‘the West’ has a lot of work to do if it is to retain its legitimacy as a model of development for others to follow. In that sense a stalemate in Ukraine would fit well with China’s political interests in my view.
A stalemate would be better for them than a western victory but the key is to make sure that the price for China getting involved is higher than any gain.
And do you think we still have the strength and cohesion amongst Western partners to make sure the price is sufficiently high? I think the experience of sanctioning Russia has been scarily humbling…
The uncoupling with China has already started and is more subtle. China needs global markets for manufactured goods and construction. It doesn't export much in the way of services or raw materials. It needs access to those raw materials - in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. Hence the global South focus. Some economies are becoming more dependent on it as a market (Germany for example) but not yet to the extent they are dependent on the US and EU.
Russia on the other hand needed global markets for oil and gas and minerals. It has(had) the ability to turn off the taps. But its economic strengths and weaknesses are somewhat more basic.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
I think she's devious and manipulative and totally untrustworthy, and the calculated Western clothes, make-up and slightly revealing cleavage is all part of that.
Nevertheless I wouldn't have a problem with trying her in principle - I suspect the reason HMG don't want her anywhere near the UK is the difficulty of securing a robust conviction and then having to pay to imprison her/supervise or monitor her in the community indefinitely, all for zero political benefit.
Apparently it's been focus grouped, and letting Begum back in is one of the single most unpopular things any UK government can do. She is absolutely detested (and rightly)
In the spirit of @Dura_Ace we could have two crowdfunds. One to pay human traffickers to get her back "home", run by @Dura_Ace - as that is what he wants - and then another to buy a drone
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
The question is what do you do? The stripping of citizenship seems absurd. Isn't it based on the theoretical idea that she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship? Do we honestly think they would take her? Is this not going to make it more difficult for us to get rid of foreign criminals as countries say we're not interested?
The reading of Bangladeshi law by the UK courts says that she is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. The Bangladeshi courts say no - but this may well be included by their government.
For the future
1) A usable Treason law 2) Part of this is a provision that give aid, comfort and fighting for various countries or entities is being in conflict with the UK government. And hence Treason. 3) Said list of countries and entities is updated regularly in parliament, by vote.
Are you saying that the UK position is based on their interpretation of Bangladeshi law rather than what the Bangladeshis are saying? That strikes me as absurd. There cannot be a realistic prospect of her getting Bangladeshi citizenship. Isn't this a fundamental flaw with the law on statelessness. If you have dual citizenship both states can just say that the individual can be deemed a citizen with the other. We can't honestly believe we can pass her over to Bangladesh who understandably would want to run a mile.
The UK Courts correctly make their ruling on their interpretation of the law, based upon the evidence available, rather than taking any party to a dispute's word for it.
If Bangladesh want to run a mile from her, that's a dispute for her and Bangladesh to resolve, and presumably she ought to have considered that before leaving this country and abandoning her citizenship here to take up arms for ISIS. Our courts need to consider, and did consider, the evidence.
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Their continued existence as a Party?
Their continued existence looks to be in question anyway. I genuinely think the British public might finally be through with the Tories. At least with Boris there's the possibility of clawing back some of the apolitical 'Boris is a loveable cad' cohort. The Tories under Rishi don't seem to have any appeal whatsoever.
Which is why the Tory MPs were mad to get rid of Liz Truss.
They’ve replaced someone who, while they may have been wrong, at least had an idea of the way forward; replacing her with someone who appears to believe in little but managing the decline until the election - and have quite royally pissed off loads of members in the process.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
It seems to me China’s main focus is the global south and in that focus it has a real interest in an impression of the US and NATO something less than a hegemonic power. I think it is becoming clear that ‘the West’ has a lot of work to do if it is to retain its legitimacy as a model of development for others to follow. In that sense a stalemate in Ukraine would fit well with China’s political interests in my view.
A stalemate would be better for them than a western victory but the key is to make sure that the price for China getting involved is higher than any gain.
And do you think we still have the strength and cohesion amongst Western partners to make sure the price is sufficiently high? I think the experience of sanctioning Russia has been scarily humbling…
The Russia sanctions have been weathered far better than many expected in part due to the good fortune of a mild winter. I don't recognise what you mean by humbling. China is emerging from zero covid, they have been very cautious so far in not providing military support for fear of sanctioning. I think that can be maintained.
Another poll showing the Tories going backwards and Labour into the 50s.
It is end days.
You sound just like a Tory in 2008.
By way of comparison, Labour won 24% in the 2008 local elections, and 21% in 2009. But, they achieved a respectable defeat a year later.
The 2008-10 comparisons fall down though over the relative Lib Dem performance. They were polling in the low 20s at the time. So "LLG" was around 48-52%. By contrast the Tories were nowhere near as popular as Labour is now.
It was mid-40s vs mid-20s for most of 2008, peaking at 52-24. Lumping Lib Dem and Green in as "Labour but not admitting it" is of dubious validity now- it's totally invalid looking back at then.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
I think she's devious and manipulative and totally untrustworthy, and the calculated Western clothes, make-up and slightly revealing cleavage is all part of that.
Nevertheless I wouldn't have a problem with trying her in principle - I suspect the reason HMG don't want her anywhere near the UK is the difficulty of securing a robust conviction and then having to pay to imprison her/supervise or monitor her in the community indefinitely, all for zero political benefit.
Apparently it's been focus grouped, and letting Begum back in is one of the single most unpopular things any UK government can do. She is absolutely detested (and rightly)
In the spirit of @Dura_Ace we could have two crowdfunds. One to pay human traffickers to get her back "home", run by @Dura_Ace - as that is what he wants - and then another to buy a drone
See who hits their target first
The potential weakness of this approach is that while those who want her back in the UK are in a minority, they are, I suspect, a pretty well-heeled minority.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
The question is what do you do? The stripping of citizenship seems absurd. Isn't it based on the theoretical idea that she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship? Do we honestly think they would take her? Is this not going to make it more difficult for us to get rid of foreign criminals as countries say we're not interested?
The reading of Bangladeshi law by the UK courts says that she is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. The Bangladeshi courts say no - but this may well be included by their government.
For the future
1) A usable Treason law 2) Part of this is a provision that give aid, comfort and fighting for various countries or entities is being in conflict with the UK government. And hence Treason. 3) Said list of countries and entities is updated regularly in parliament, by vote.
Are you saying that the UK position is based on their interpretation of Bangladeshi law rather than what the Bangladeshis are saying? That strikes me as absurd. There cannot be a realistic prospect of her getting Bangladeshi citizenship. Isn't this a fundamental flaw with the law on statelessness. If you have dual citizenship both states can just say that the individual can be deemed a citizen with the other. We can't honestly believe we can pass her over to Bangladesh who understandably would want to run a mile.
Yes, this ruling creates a de facto second tier of citizenship of several million UK citizens and passport holders. Shameful.
This ruling doesn't create that, the law does, a law which incidentally was passed by Tony Blair's Labour Government.
If you dislike the law, then seek to get Parliament to change it.
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Their continued existence as a Party?
Their continued existence looks to be in question anyway. I genuinely think the British public might finally be through with the Tories. At least with Boris there's the possibility of clawing back some of the apolitical 'Boris is a loveable cad' cohort. The Tories under Rishi don't seem to have any appeal whatsoever.
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Everything.
I suspect Bozo could bring the Tory's back to 27% with Labour on 40% but the LibDems on 13-14%...
And while that would probably win a few more votes up North it's likely to not win them seats. And it would probably shift a few southern former safe Tory seats to the Lib Dems.
Yougov polled on this the other day. Bringing back Johnson was more popular in the South than North. It looks like his "Red Wall" appeal is greatly exaggerated.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
The question is what do you do? The stripping of citizenship seems absurd. Isn't it based on the theoretical idea that she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship? Do we honestly think they would take her? Is this not going to make it more difficult for us to get rid of foreign criminals as countries say we're not interested?
The reading of Bangladeshi law by the UK courts says that she is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. The Bangladeshi courts say no - but this may well be included by their government.
For the future
1) A usable Treason law 2) Part of this is a provision that give aid, comfort and fighting for various countries or entities is being in conflict with the UK government. And hence Treason. 3) Said list of countries and entities is updated regularly in parliament, by vote.
Are you saying that the UK position is based on their interpretation of Bangladeshi law rather than what the Bangladeshis are saying? That strikes me as absurd. There cannot be a realistic prospect of her getting Bangladeshi citizenship. Isn't this a fundamental flaw with the law on statelessness. If you have dual citizenship both states can just say that the individual can be deemed a citizen with the other. We can't honestly believe we can pass her over to Bangladesh who understandably would want to run a mile.
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Everything.
I suspect Bozo could bring the Tory's back to 27% with Labour on 40% but the LibDems on 13-14%...
And while that would probably win a few more votes up North it's likely to not win them seats. And it would probably shift a few southern former safe Tory seats to the Lib Dems.
Yougov polled on this the other day. Bringing back Johnson was more popular in the South than North. It looks like his "Red Wall" appeal is greatly exaggerated.
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Everything.
I suspect Bozo could bring the Tory's back to 27% with Labour on 40% but the LibDems on 13-14%...
And while that would probably win a few more votes up North it's likely to not win them seats. And it would probably shift a few southern former safe Tory seats to the Lib Dems.
Yougov polled on this the other day. Bringing back Johnson was more popular in the South than North. It looks like his "Red Wall" appeal is greatly exaggerated.
One of those difficult to parse questions. The Scottish data look slightly odd compared to the "North". I think some indy supporters said they'd be very happy ...
Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.
Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.
Shall I tell you how bad Kate Forbes is?
If I lived in Scotland and she was SNP leader.
I would have to consider voting Labour.
She is that bad.
If your granny had baws she would be your grandpa as well
In that eventuality, would it still hold that ye cannae shove yer granny aff a bus?
Only a Tory would do that in any event
am That would imply a Tory being on a bus. I find that hard to believe.
In most of Wales, a bus is even harder to find than a Tory.
I am OK for a bus. The 303 passes my house. Change at Llantwit Major and I could be in Cardiff in a little over 2 hours, and at my age it would be free. If Drakeford lets me keep my Euro6 car I can be in John Lewis carpark in 45 minutes. Even quicker when Andy raises the speed limits back up to 70. Time is money.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
The question is what do you do? The stripping of citizenship seems absurd. Isn't it based on the theoretical idea that she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship? Do we honestly think they would take her? Is this not going to make it more difficult for us to get rid of foreign criminals as countries say we're not interested?
The reading of Bangladeshi law by the UK courts says that she is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. The Bangladeshi courts say no - but this may well be included by their government.
For the future
1) A usable Treason law 2) Part of this is a provision that give aid, comfort and fighting for various countries or entities is being in conflict with the UK government. And hence Treason. 3) Said list of countries and entities is updated regularly in parliament, by vote.
Are you saying that the UK position is based on their interpretation of Bangladeshi law rather than what the Bangladeshis are saying? That strikes me as absurd. There cannot be a realistic prospect of her getting Bangladeshi citizenship. Isn't this a fundamental flaw with the law on statelessness. If you have dual citizenship both states can just say that the individual can be deemed a citizen with the other. We can't honestly believe we can pass her over to Bangladesh who understandably would want to run a mile.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
Hmmm
Begum joined ISIS. Which stated that it was at war with the West and the UK specifically.
So that's "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere" sorted
Pretty sure we could get "and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition" - AKA a jury presented with the facts.
Another poll showing the Tories going backwards and Labour into the 50s.
It is end days.
You sound just like a Tory in 2008.
By way of comparison, Labour won 24% in the 2008 local elections, and 21% in 2009. But, they achieved a respectable defeat a year later.
The 2008-10 comparisons fall down though over the relative Lib Dem performance. They were polling in the low 20s at the time. So "LLG" was around 48-52%. By contrast the Tories were nowhere near as popular as Labour is now.
It was mid-40s vs mid-20s for most of 2008, peaking at 52-24. Lumping Lib Dem and Green in as "Labour but not admitting it" is of dubious validity now- it's totally invalid looking back at then.
Yes, but the LD/G vote then was an anti-government vote in the context of a Labour government. It is still an anti-government vote, but this time on the same side as Labour. The context for tactical voting is very different.
Reform (such as it is) is also an anti-government party too.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
Hmmm
Begum joined ISIS. Which stated that it was at war with the West and the UK specifically.
So that's "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere" sorted
Pretty sure we could get "and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition" - AKA a jury presented with the facts.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
I think she's devious and manipulative and totally untrustworthy, and the calculated Western clothes, make-up and slightly revealing cleavage is all part of that.
Nevertheless I wouldn't have a problem with trying her in principle - I suspect the reason HMG don't want her anywhere near the UK is the difficulty of securing a robust conviction and then having to pay to imprison her/supervise or monitor her in the community indefinitely, all for zero political benefit.
Apparently it's been focus grouped, and letting Begum back in is one of the single most unpopular things any UK government can do. She is absolutely detested (and rightly)
In the spirit of @Dura_Ace we could have two crowdfunds. One to pay human traffickers to get her back "home", run by @Dura_Ace - as that is what he wants - and then another to buy a drone
See who hits their target first
The potential weakness of this approach is that while those who want her back in the UK are in a minority, they are, I suspect, a pretty well-heeled minority.
I don't want her back and I'm certainly not well heeled but if she isn't going to be tried where she is, what is the alternative?
Why is Starmer going on Brexit? Who gives a f*** about Northern Ireland?
To demonstrate Sunak is a hostage of the loony wing of the Conservative Party. The loony wing being the entire party these days.
Sunak has an presumed deal with the EU on Northern Ireland but can't talk about it because he's terrified of his own party. It's a Tory mess but Sunak can rely on the adults (K Starmer) to help sort out the mess as his own party won't do it.
Grubby but effective I think. Sunak is drowning.
It's also quite clever. Tory MPs don't want to support Sunak on NI but can't defend him from Labour attacks without doing so.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Isn't "treason" as such just incredibly narrowly defined and somewhat archaic in the UK so ultimately other offences are preferred as charges?
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
Hmmm
Begum joined ISIS. Which stated that it was at war with the West and the UK specifically.
So that's "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere" sorted
Pretty sure we could get "and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition" - AKA a jury presented with the facts.
It's not been used since 1945, against William Joyce, and he had aided and comforted a state that the King had declared war against. In shipping insurance law, acts of "King's Enemies" applies only to the acts of public enemies, that is to say hostile acts committed by the forces of a state at war with the United Kingdom (as Germany was), not criminal acts of piracy.
Similarly, I'd paint Daesh as an extreme criminal, private, enterprise, a sort of hyper-Mafia, if I were defending her. If the prosecution, acting for the Government, said otherwise they would be coming perilously close to recognising "Islamic State" as a state rather than a bunch of criminals. You don't get convicted for treason for helping the Mafia.
Why is Starmer going on Brexit? Who gives a f*** about Northern Ireland?
To demonstrate Sunak is a hostage of the loony wing of the Conservative Party. The loony wing being the entire party these days.
Sunak has an presumed deal with the EU on Northern Ireland but can't talk about it because he's terrified of his own party. It's a Tory mess but Sunak can rely on the adults (K Starmer) to help sort out the mess as his own party won't do it.
Grubby but effective I think. Sunak is drowning.
Yes. At least Boris would have the brass neck chutzpah to trumpet it as a victory. And make it a confidence vote. Sunak is weak.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
I think she's devious and manipulative and totally untrustworthy, and the calculated Western clothes, make-up and slightly revealing cleavage is all part of that.
Nevertheless I wouldn't have a problem with trying her in principle - I suspect the reason HMG don't want her anywhere near the UK is the difficulty of securing a robust conviction and then having to pay to imprison her/supervise or monitor her in the community indefinitely, all for zero political benefit.
Apparently it's been focus grouped, and letting Begum back in is one of the single most unpopular things any UK government can do. She is absolutely detested (and rightly)
In the spirit of @Dura_Ace we could have two crowdfunds. One to pay human traffickers to get her back "home", run by @Dura_Ace - as that is what he wants - and then another to buy a drone
See who hits their target first
Imagine what would would happen if she was allowed to come back, and either the jury or the appeal judge found her not guilty, based on the evidence that could actually be put in front of a British court. There’s a lot of single points of failure, between her being on the plane and a life sentence being upheld, before we get onto the costs of all the lawyers and prison.
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Their continued existence as a Party?
Their continued existence looks to be in question anyway. I genuinely think the British public might finally be through with the Tories. At least with Boris there's the possibility of clawing back some of the apolitical 'Boris is a loveable cad' cohort. The Tories under Rishi don't seem to have any appeal whatsoever.
Do you know, there would have been a time when I would have been really low about the prospect of the Tory Party ceasing to exist. A party with a strong tradition, who can lay claim to having nurtured, encouraged and been led by some of the finest British politicians in history. And a party I could count on to respect a number of my core sensibilities.
As it is now though, I wonder if it should just be put out of its misery and allow another brand on the right of the political spectrum to emerge without the baggage. People will be kidding themselves if they think a Labour landslide in 2024 amounts to a destruction of right wing politics in this country. But maybe the Tory brand has gone so far as it can.
The fact I am even thinking this means the party is facing an existential crisis. I have voted Tory at every GE I have been able to vote at. I will vote Labour next time, because I will lend them my vote in the hope of seeing a return to some competent governance and what I hope will be a moderate and sensible rebalancing of priorities.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
Yes, Marxism tends to be an irrational faith for most of its adherents. Again, if it affects policy, then they won’t get my vote.
The difference is that many of the Gospel teachings are thoroughly laudable, even if you’re an atheist. The Old Testament was reinterpreted by Jesus; Marx got Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. No contest.
Some of the Gospel teachings are laudable. Some are not. Same as most philosophies really.
Much of what Jesus said is laudable, even as an atheist, but the problem is that it was then reinterpreted further by Paul and those who followed him and that's where even Christianity has problems in my eyes, not just the Old Testament.
That’s why I referred to the Gospels. Paul was, in modern terms, deeply misogynist.
Another poll showing the Tories going backwards and Labour into the 50s.
It is end days.
You sound just like a Tory in 2008.
By way of comparison, Labour won 24% in the 2008 local elections, and 21% in 2009. But, they achieved a respectable defeat a year later.
The 2008-10 comparisons fall down though over the relative Lib Dem performance. They were polling in the low 20s at the time. So "LLG" was around 48-52%. By contrast the Tories were nowhere near as popular as Labour is now.
It was mid-40s vs mid-20s for most of 2008, peaking at 52-24. Lumping Lib Dem and Green in as "Labour but not admitting it" is of dubious validity now- it's totally invalid looking back at then.
Yes, but the LD/G vote then was an anti-government vote in the context of a Labour government. It is still an anti-government vote, but this time on the same side as Labour. The context for tactical voting is very different.
Indeed. I'm not sure why you're saying "yes, but" - this was exactly my point!
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
I think she's devious and manipulative and totally untrustworthy, and the calculated Western clothes, make-up and slightly revealing cleavage is all part of that.
Nevertheless I wouldn't have a problem with trying her in principle - I suspect the reason HMG don't want her anywhere near the UK is the difficulty of securing a robust conviction and then having to pay to imprison her/supervise or monitor her in the community indefinitely, all for zero political benefit.
Apparently it's been focus grouped, and letting Begum back in is one of the single most unpopular things any UK government can do. She is absolutely detested (and rightly)
In the spirit of @Dura_Ace we could have two crowdfunds. One to pay human traffickers to get her back "home", run by @Dura_Ace - as that is what he wants - and then another to buy a drone
See who hits their target first
The potential weakness of this approach is that while those who want her back in the UK are in a minority, they are, I suspect, a pretty well-heeled minority.
That minority includes that famous raging leftie Peter Hitchens.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
Anyone can stand (usually need to be a member and meet a threshold of backers in the party). People who don't want them getting elected vote against them, people who do want them elected vote for them. Add up the votes and see who wins. The winner will generally represent the memberships views and values.
Hope this helps.
I would add that if a gay politician stood on a platform of banning Christians from marrying each other I would also be against that but would look forward to Kemi Badenoch admiring their honesty.
People on here hav elost the plot completely, she said she personally would not have voted for it not that she would have banned it. How to elasticate the fibs.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
The various groups hostile to ISIS (including the Kurds) have agreed not to try her, or get hold of her to try, at the behest of the UK government.
She should just crowdsource the money to pay people smugglers. She'd be impossible to deport and very difficult to convict once she was here. I'd chip in a hundred quid.
Would be ahoot , get herself down to Calais and onto the next dinghy, and she would get RN/RNLI taxi most of the way to boot.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
It seems to me China’s main focus is the global south and in that focus it has a real interest in an impression of the US and NATO something less than a hegemonic power. I think it is becoming clear that ‘the West’ has a lot of work to do if it is to retain its legitimacy as a model of development for others to follow. In that sense a stalemate in Ukraine would fit well with China’s political interests in my view.
A stalemate would be better for them than a western victory but the key is to make sure that the price for China getting involved is higher than any gain.
And do you think we still have the strength and cohesion amongst Western partners to make sure the price is sufficiently high? I think the experience of sanctioning Russia has been scarily humbling…
Another poll showing the Tories going backwards and Labour into the 50s.
It is end days.
You sound just like a Tory in 2008.
By way of comparison, Labour won 24% in the 2008 local elections, and 21% in 2009. But, they achieved a respectable defeat a year later.
The 2008-10 comparisons fall down though over the relative Lib Dem performance. They were polling in the low 20s at the time. So "LLG" was around 48-52%. By contrast the Tories were nowhere near as popular as Labour is now.
I don't consider that the Labour and Lib Dem vote is a single left wing monolith. In fact, I think that 2010-15 proved it.
The Tories were polling well into the forties, throughout 2008/09. They only began to falter at the start of 2010.
Another poll showing the Tories going backwards and Labour into the 50s.
It is end days.
You sound just like a Tory in 2008.
By way of comparison, Labour won 24% in the 2008 local elections, and 21% in 2009. But, they achieved a respectable defeat a year later.
The 2008-10 comparisons fall down though over the relative Lib Dem performance. They were polling in the low 20s at the time. So "LLG" was around 48-52%. By contrast the Tories were nowhere near as popular as Labour is now.
I don't consider that the Labour and Lib Dem vote is a single left wing monolith. In fact, I think that 2010-15 proved it.
The Tories were polling well into the forties, throughout 2008/09. They only began to falter at the start of 2010.
The LibDem vote tends to be anti-government (hence their difficulty with supporters when they became part of the government), and at the moment it's pretty solidly anti-Conservative. In fact, they're so anonymous that it's the main reason why they're supported - "we are moderate and have the best chance of beating the Tories here" is still an effective formula. If Labour had been in power for 10 years it'd be the reverse.
Comments
Labour: 540
Tories: 20
LDs: 19
SNP: 47
Tories close to 4th place. No need for panic yet
You seem to be conflating the right to stand, or the right to vote - which everyone has - with the right to be elected - which nobody has.
If you wish to vote, that's your right. If you wish to be elected, you need to convince the public to vote for you, and if you can't do that, then your rights have not been impeded.
It is end days.
There are a range of espionage offences and offences relating to preparation for terrorist acts that aren't technically "treason" but do what they need to do and are widely used.
I think "treason" in the UK largely links back to the Treason Act 1351, and its vague and pretty hard to fathom wording: "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition".
For the future
1) A usable Treason law
2) Part of this is a provision that give aid, comfort and fighting for various countries or entities is being in conflict with the UK government. And hence Treason.
3) Said list of countries and entities is updated regularly in parliament, by vote.
As far as I can tell he made it clear he wouldn't and that still wasn't enough.
The optimal result for the Scottish Tories AND the Union is a Yousaf victory. He's unpleasant and divisive - bad for the Nits, he's left wing, Woke, Transyphile and progressive - won't tempt Scottish Tory voters
They should be doing all they can to make sure Yousaf WINS
And, shouldn’t Starmer ask about what the people of Britain care about? All he did today was give Sunak the opportunity to remind the public that Starmer wanted to stop Brexit.
If you can give me an example of people piling onto her publicly for her religious views I will know what you are talking about, it sounds like the kind of thing I wouldn't be fine with.
Begum joined ISIS. Which stated that it was at war with the West and the UK specifically.
So that's "if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere" sorted
Pretty sure we could get "and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition" - AKA a jury presented with the facts.
@PBLawyers?
{Picks axe from rack, contemplates a number of honing tools}
At least back then you could say voters were flocking to a charismatic and dynamic young Labour leader, with a manifesto full of ideas, and the Tories could, at least, point to 18 years of achievement and a booming economy, to reboot their chances down the line
This time? Er.....
- He took a long time to admit his views, thus making it a bigger issue (and making himself look dishonest/shifty)
- His voting record didn't quite stand up to scrutiny on his claims of voting liberally (neither did it mark him out as a homophobe)
- He wasn't in a particularly strong position to start with (I thought he did ok as leader, but there were mutterings before this, too)
Nevertheless I wouldn't have a problem with trying her in principle - I suspect the reason HMG don't want her anywhere near the UK is the difficulty of securing a robust conviction and then having to pay to imprison her/supervise or monitor her in the community indefinitely, all for zero political benefit.
One reason for going on NI today may also be to harvest Sunak quotes that he can throw back in a couple of weeks' time. Starmer has been quite good at that.
Or we could strip her of her nationality, which the courts have ruled is legal, and close the door.
She made her bed.
Again, if it affects policy, then they won’t get my vote.
The difference is that many of the Gospel teachings are thoroughly laudable, even if you’re an atheist.
The Old Testament was reinterpreted by Jesus; Marx got Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. No contest.
And while that would probably win a few more votes up North it's likely to not win them seats. And it would probably shift a few southern former safe Tory seats to the Lib Dems.
and cohesion amongst Western partners to make sure the price is sufficiently high? I think the experience of sanctioning Russia has been scarily humbling…
Much of what Jesus said is laudable, even as an atheist, but the problem is that it was then reinterpreted further by Paul and those who followed him and that's where even Christianity has problems in my eyes, not just the Old Testament.
As far as being in power was concerned, he had no beliefs at all which weren’t contingent on staying there.
In the spirit of @Dura_Ace we could have two crowdfunds. One to pay human traffickers to get her back "home", run by @Dura_Ace - as that is what he wants - and then another to buy a drone
See who hits their target first
Russia on the other hand needed global markets for oil and gas and minerals. It has(had) the ability to turn off the taps. But its economic strengths and weaknesses are somewhat more basic.
If Bangladesh want to run a mile from her, that's a dispute for her and Bangladesh to resolve, and presumably she ought to have considered that before leaving this country and abandoning her citizenship here to take up arms for ISIS. Our courts need to consider, and did consider, the evidence.
They’ve replaced someone who, while they may have been wrong, at least had an idea of the way forward; replacing her with someone who appears to believe in little but managing the decline until the election - and have quite royally pissed off loads of members in the process.
If you dislike the law, then seek to get Parliament to change it.
(I was tempted to make a deliberate typo there.)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/02/21/15a1a/1
That explains a lot actually.
I am OK for a bus. The 303 passes my house. Change at Llantwit Major and I could be in Cardiff in a little over 2 hours, and at my age it would be free. If Drakeford lets me keep my Euro6 car I can be in John Lewis carpark in 45 minutes. Even quicker when Andy raises the speed limits back up to 70. Time is money.
Never thought I'd see a bowling partnership that would rival McGrath and Warne, I still find it hard to believe they do, but they do.
Reform (such as it is) is also an anti-government party too.
Sunak has an presumed deal with the EU on Northern Ireland but can't talk about it because he's terrified of his own party. It's a Tory mess but Sunak can rely on the adults (K Starmer) to help sort out the mess as his own party won't do it.
Grubby but effective I think. Sunak is drowning.
It's also quite clever. Tory MPs don't want to support Sunak on NI but can't defend him from Labour attacks without doing so.
It's not been used since 1945, against William Joyce, and he had aided and comforted a state that the King had declared war against. In shipping insurance law, acts of "King's Enemies" applies only to the acts of public enemies, that is to say hostile acts committed by the forces of a state at war with the United Kingdom (as Germany was), not criminal acts of piracy.
Similarly, I'd paint Daesh as an extreme criminal, private, enterprise, a sort of hyper-Mafia, if I were defending her. If the prosecution, acting for the Government, said otherwise they would be coming perilously close to recognising "Islamic State" as a state rather than a bunch of criminals. You don't get convicted for treason for helping the Mafia.
And make it a confidence vote.
Sunak is weak.
As it is now though, I wonder if it should just be put out of its misery and allow another brand on the right of the political spectrum to emerge without the baggage. People will be kidding themselves if they think a Labour landslide in 2024 amounts to a destruction of right wing politics in this country. But maybe the Tory brand has gone so far as it can.
The fact I am even thinking this means the party is facing an existential crisis. I have voted Tory at every GE I have been able to vote at. I will vote Labour next time, because I will lend them my vote in the hope of seeing a return to some competent governance and what I hope will be a moderate and sensible rebalancing of priorities.
Paul was, in modern terms, deeply misogynist.
If he’d been in the England team throughout, it’s just as possible he’d have picked up an injury which shortened his career.
Lamb biryani: not shown
Let her in and let her stand trial.
The Tories were polling well into the forties, throughout 2008/09. They only began to falter at the start of 2010.