Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
John Amery was white, male, upper class. William Joyce was white, male, middle class.
That did not save them from being executed, in the aftermath of WWII, for acting similarly to Shamima Begum.
Similar yes, but I think objectively, Begum was groomed. She was under 16 when she left to join ISIS, and by her admission, did not believe what she thought was Western propaganda about ISIS.
I'd rather see her tried for crimes that she has committed, but I don't think thats easy. How much evidence is there? Where should a trial be? Its not as if we have a Nuremberg style trial system going for ISIS.
Just drone her
Stop being an attention-seeking twat just for the sake of it
We drone our Islamist enemies all the time. She is one of them. What’s the difference with her?
The alternative - which I prefer - is that we pay the Syrians or Iraqis or Yazidis - her victims, remember - to try her. I imagine they will execute her. Being an ISIS bride is a capital offence. Oh well
You don't think that she was 15 years of age at the inception of her crimes might count for just a teensy weensy little something?
Age and “grooming” are mitigations for an offence. Not a shield against being prosecuted.
My grandfather fought in WWI
In his Glasgow pub, they would have lock-ins were the old soldiers would drink with the men on leave in WWII. Think decompression from the horror. Quite a few stories about encountering Hitler Youth, apparently.
Yes, she should be prosecuted. In the UK.
I agree - the problem is that the law has apparently been “improved” to the point where prosecution isn’t possible.
Mind you, my grandfather caused a moment, according to his diary. He was a bit of a spotter type - read everything he could find on the war. So when someone mentioned they shot out of hand people in black uniforms (SS), he pointed out they were probably tank crew.
The point presumably being that they were Wehrmacht tank crew too, not just Waffen-SS.
Yup. The forgotten bit of WWII and WWI were the… conventions the soldiers added on as their version of the laws of war.
“Too late, chum”
Etc
Also anyone wearting a spotty camouflage smock. As a few more Wehrmacht found. I do wonder about anyone in a British Para Denison smock, too.
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
John Amery was white, male, upper class. William Joyce was white, male, middle class.
That did not save them from being executed, in the aftermath of WWII, for acting similarly to Shamima Begum.
Similar yes, but I think objectively, Begum was groomed. She was under 16 when she left to join ISIS, and by her admission, did not believe what she thought was Western propaganda about ISIS.
I'd rather see her tried for crimes that she has committed, but I don't think thats easy. How much evidence is there? Where should a trial be? Its not as if we have a Nuremberg style trial system going for ISIS.
Just drone her
Stop being an attention-seeking twat just for the sake of it
We drone our Islamist enemies all the time. She is one of them. What’s the difference with her?
The alternative - which I prefer - is that we pay the Syrians or Iraqis or Yazidis - her victims, remember - to try her. I imagine they will execute her. Being an ISIS bride is a capital offence. Oh well
You don't think that she was 15 years of age at the inception of her crimes might count for just a teensy weensy little something?
Age and “grooming” are mitigations for an offence. Not a shield against being prosecuted.
My grandfather fought in WWI
In his Glasgow pub, they would have lock-ins were the old soldiers would drink with the men on leave in WWII. Think decompression from the horror. Quite a few stories about encountering Hitler Youth, apparently.
Yes, she should be prosecuted. In the UK.
I agree - the problem is that the law has apparently been “improved” to the point where prosecution isn’t possible.
Mind you, my grandfather caused a moment, according to his diary. He was a bit of a spotter type - read everything he could find on the war. So when someone mentioned they shot out of hand people in black uniforms (SS), he pointed out they were probably tank crew.
Jus\t reading a book by a Chieftain loader in the Royal Tank Regiment. Very proud of their black uniforms for formal dress. 1980s garrison in Germany in an old SS barracks. Discovered the locals really, really did not care for their walking-out dress of an evening.
What I don't understand is though a black uniform is entirely understandable in context of a mucky old thing like a tank, why the Nazis insisted on a version of the Totenkopf for Wermacht crews.
As others have said: no Twelve Monkeys? no Groundhog Day? no Donnie Darko? And they have Timecop and The Tomorrow War in there - pfft. Flight of the Navigator should be way higher, Avengers Endgame and Interstellar lower. Not sure how good the film is, but if it's anywhere near the book, then Time Traveller's Wife should be in the top 10. And the best on-screen time travel is the German series Dark, from Netflix: sumptuous
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
John Amery was white, male, upper class. William Joyce was white, male, middle class.
That did not save them from being executed, in the aftermath of WWII, for acting similarly to Shamima Begum.
Similar yes, but I think objectively, Begum was groomed. She was under 16 when she left to join ISIS, and by her admission, did not believe what she thought was Western propaganda about ISIS.
I'd rather see her tried for crimes that she has committed, but I don't think thats easy. How much evidence is there? Where should a trial be? Its not as if we have a Nuremberg style trial system going for ISIS.
Just drone her
Stop being an attention-seeking twat just for the sake of it
We drone our Islamist enemies all the time. She is one of them. What’s the difference with her?
The alternative - which I prefer - is that we pay the Syrians or Iraqis or Yazidis - her victims, remember - to try her. I imagine they will execute her. Being an ISIS bride is a capital offence. Oh well
You don't think that she was 15 years of age at the inception of her crimes might count for just a teensy weensy little something?
Age and “grooming” are mitigations for an offence. Not a shield against being prosecuted.
My grandfather fought in WWI
In his Glasgow pub, they would have lock-ins were the old soldiers would drink with the men on leave in WWII. Think decompression from the horror. Quite a few stories about encountering Hitler Youth, apparently.
Yes, she should be prosecuted. In the UK.
I agree - the problem is that the law has apparently been “improved” to the point where prosecution isn’t possible.
Mind you, my grandfather caused a moment, according to his diary. He was a bit of a spotter type - read everything he could find on the war. So when someone mentioned they shot out of hand people in black uniforms (SS), he pointed out they were probably tank crew.
Jus\t reading a book by a Chieftain loader in the Royal Tank Regiment. Very proud of their black uniforms for formal dress. 1980s garrison in Germany in an old SS barracks. Discovered the locals really, really did not care for their walking-out dress of an evening.
What I don't understand is though a black uniform is entirely understandable in the context of a mucky old thing like a tank, why the Nazis insisted on a version of the Totenkopf for Wermacht crews.
Standard elite cavalry badge of many units in Gt War and long before, also the Stosstruppe. Even the Reichswehr in Weimar times had a cav unit with the Totenkopf. Possibly that's where the Panzer Division one comes from rather than through the Freikorps and the NSDAP [edit] which last was the source for the WAffen ss. But not a great idea when you get captured, for sure. "Achtung, this is a badge of the 19th Brunswick Hussars, bitte!"
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
John Amery was white, male, upper class. William Joyce was white, male, middle class.
That did not save them from being executed, in the aftermath of WWII, for acting similarly to Shamima Begum.
Similar yes, but I think objectively, Begum was groomed. She was under 16 when she left to join ISIS, and by her admission, did not believe what she thought was Western propaganda about ISIS.
I'd rather see her tried for crimes that she has committed, but I don't think thats easy. How much evidence is there? Where should a trial be? Its not as if we have a Nuremberg style trial system going for ISIS.
Just drone her
Stop being an attention-seeking twat just for the sake of it
We drone our Islamist enemies all the time. She is one of them. What’s the difference with her?
The alternative - which I prefer - is that we pay the Syrians or Iraqis or Yazidis - her victims, remember - to try her. I imagine they will execute her. Being an ISIS bride is a capital offence. Oh well
You don't think that she was 15 years of age at the inception of her crimes might count for just a teensy weensy little something?
Age and “grooming” are mitigations for an offence. Not a shield against being prosecuted.
My grandfather fought in WWI
In his Glasgow pub, they would have lock-ins were the old soldiers would drink with the men on leave in WWII. Think decompression from the horror. Quite a few stories about encountering Hitler Youth, apparently.
Yes, she should be prosecuted. In the UK.
I agree - the problem is that the law has apparently been “improved” to the point where prosecution isn’t possible.
Mind you, my grandfather caused a moment, according to his diary. He was a bit of a spotter type - read everything he could find on the war. So when someone mentioned they shot out of hand people in black uniforms (SS), he pointed out they were probably tank crew.
Jus\t reading a book by a Chieftain loader in the Royal Tank Regiment. Very proud of their black uniforms for formal dress. 1980s garrison in Germany in an old SS barracks. Discovered the locals really, really did not care for their walking-out dress of an evening.
What I don't understand is though a black uniform is entirely understandable in the context of a mucky old thing like a tank, why the Nazis insisted on a version of the Totenkopf for Wermacht crews.
Standard elite cavalry badge of many units in Gt War and long before, also the Stosstruppe. Even the Reichswehr in Weimar times had a cav unit with the Totenkopf. Possibly that's where the Panzer Division one comes from rather than through the Freikorps and the NSDAP [edit] which last was the source for the WAffen ss. But not a great idea when you get captured, for sure. "Achtung, this is a badge of the 19th Brunswick Hussars, bitte!"
'Bloody SS, they've ruined the Totenkopf for everyone!'
As others have said: no Twelve Monkeys? no Groundhog Day? no Donnie Darko? And they have Timecop and The Tomorrow War in there - pfft. Flight of the Navigator should be way higher, Avengers Endgame and Interstellar lower. Not sure how good the film is, but if it's anywhere near the book, then Time Traveller's Wife should be in the top 10. And the best on-screen time travel is the German series Dark, from Netflix: sumptuous
Thanks, hadn't heard of Dark, sounds right up my Strasse.
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
Like the way he describes her actions as a "mistake" as if joining an organisation that beheaded people and burnt them alive, and watching gay men being thrown to their deaths, was comparable to not paying a parking ticket. Some of the Hitler Youth should have had this chap on board.
Otto English is a nasty, detestable c8nt
Begum took active part in the enslavement of people. Real, actual slavery.
At least the government of the day had the balls to try Amery and Joyce, dubiety in the trial of Joyce notwithstanding.
A different age. In 1945, no lawyer would have tried to get the treason laws thrown out as archaic or immoral or whatever. Begum would have got John Amery’s fate.
The practise of law has been steadily “improved” since then, under various governments. Until we have, apparently, no way to prosecute.
What I find interesting is the horror with which my proposals for a treason law get, when I put them in front of some lawyers. Why is that?
It's an extreme form of individualism which holds that one has no duties to the State or one's fellow citizens. Earlier generations had no difficulty with the idea that there are reciprocal obligations between state and citizen.
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
John Amery was white, male, upper class. William Joyce was white, male, middle class.
That did not save them from being executed, in the aftermath of WWII, for acting similarly to Shamima Begum.
Similar yes, but I think objectively, Begum was groomed. She was under 16 when she left to join ISIS, and by her admission, did not believe what she thought was Western propaganda about ISIS.
I'd rather see her tried for crimes that she has committed, but I don't think thats easy. How much evidence is there? Where should a trial be? Its not as if we have a Nuremberg style trial system going for ISIS.
Just drone her
Stop being an attention-seeking twat just for the sake of it
We drone our Islamist enemies all the time. She is one of them. What’s the difference with her?
The alternative - which I prefer - is that we pay the Syrians or Iraqis or Yazidis - her victims, remember - to try her. I imagine they will execute her. Being an ISIS bride is a capital offence. Oh well
You don't think that she was 15 years of age at the inception of her crimes might count for just a teensy weensy little something?
Age and “grooming” are mitigations for an offence. Not a shield against being prosecuted.
My grandfather fought in WWI
In his Glasgow pub, they would have lock-ins were the old soldiers would drink with the men on leave in WWII. Think decompression from the horror. Quite a few stories about encountering Hitler Youth, apparently.
Yes, she should be prosecuted. In the UK.
I agree - the problem is that the law has apparently been “improved” to the point where prosecution isn’t possible.
Mind you, my grandfather caused a moment, according to his diary. He was a bit of a spotter type - read everything he could find on the war. So when someone mentioned they shot out of hand people in black uniforms (SS), he pointed out they were probably tank crew.
Jus\t reading a book by a Chieftain loader in the Royal Tank Regiment. Very proud of their black uniforms for formal dress. 1980s garrison in Germany in an old SS barracks. Discovered the locals really, really did not care for their walking-out dress of an evening.
What I don't understand is though a black uniform is entirely understandable in context of a mucky old thing like a tank, why the Nazis insisted on a version of the Totenkopf for Wermacht crews.
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
John Amery was white, male, upper class. William Joyce was white, male, middle class.
That did not save them from being executed, in the aftermath of WWII, for acting similarly to Shamima Begum.
Similar yes, but I think objectively, Begum was groomed. She was under 16 when she left to join ISIS, and by her admission, did not believe what she thought was Western propaganda about ISIS.
I'd rather see her tried for crimes that she has committed, but I don't think thats easy. How much evidence is there? Where should a trial be? Its not as if we have a Nuremberg style trial system going for ISIS.
Just drone her
Stop being an attention-seeking twat just for the sake of it
We drone our Islamist enemies all the time. She is one of them. What’s the difference with her?
The alternative - which I prefer - is that we pay the Syrians or Iraqis or Yazidis - her victims, remember - to try her. I imagine they will execute her. Being an ISIS bride is a capital offence. Oh well
You don't think that she was 15 years of age at the inception of her crimes might count for just a teensy weensy little something?
Age and “grooming” are mitigations for an offence. Not a shield against being prosecuted.
My grandfather fought in WWI
In his Glasgow pub, they would have lock-ins were the old soldiers would drink with the men on leave in WWII. Think decompression from the horror. Quite a few stories about encountering Hitler Youth, apparently.
Yes, she should be prosecuted. In the UK.
I agree - the problem is that the law has apparently been “improved” to the point where prosecution isn’t possible.
Mind you, my grandfather caused a moment, according to his diary. He was a bit of a spotter type - read everything he could find on the war. So when someone mentioned they shot out of hand people in black uniforms (SS), he pointed out they were probably tank crew.
Jus\t reading a book by a Chieftain loader in the Royal Tank Regiment. Very proud of their black uniforms for formal dress. 1980s garrison in Germany in an old SS barracks. Discovered the locals really, really did not care for their walking-out dress of an evening.
What I don't understand is though a black uniform is entirely understandable in the context of a mucky old thing like a tank, why the Nazis insisted on a version of the Totenkopf for Wermacht crews.
Standard elite cavalry badge of many units in Gt War and long before, also the Stosstruppe. Even the Reichswehr in Weimar times had a cav unit with the Totenkopf. Possibly that's where the Panzer Division one comes from rather than through the Freikorps and the NSDAP [edit] which last was the source for the WAffen ss. But not a great idea when you get captured, for sure. "Achtung, this is a badge of the 19th Brunswick Hussars, bitte!"
'Bloody SS, they've ruined the Totenkopf for everyone!'
Reminds me of the little old lady selling brass boxes in Nepal. All but one design were selling well.
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
John Amery was white, male, upper class. William Joyce was white, male, middle class.
That did not save them from being executed, in the aftermath of WWII, for acting similarly to Shamima Begum.
Similar yes, but I think objectively, Begum was groomed. She was under 16 when she left to join ISIS, and by her admission, did not believe what she thought was Western propaganda about ISIS.
I'd rather see her tried for crimes that she has committed, but I don't think thats easy. How much evidence is there? Where should a trial be? Its not as if we have a Nuremberg style trial system going for ISIS.
She has publicly stated, in several TV programs that she took part in war crimes. Specifically the process of enslavement of Yazidi women. The avowed (by ISIS) intention of this process was to wipe out the Yazidi people by destroying the next generation.
Did she have legal representatives at that point? She can always say that she was lying I think she is guilty of lots of things but was also groomed. Life isn't black and white. To use the Nazi example a 20 year old German committing atrocities in 1945 had been under the Nazis for 12 years. Twelve long years of indoctrination. Not an excuse, but context.
As others have said: no Twelve Monkeys? no Groundhog Day? no Donnie Darko? And they have Timecop and The Tomorrow War in there - pfft. Flight of the Navigator should be way higher, Avengers Endgame and Interstellar lower. Not sure how good the film is, but if it's anywhere near the book, then Time Traveller's Wife should be in the top 10. And the best on-screen time travel is the German series Dark, from Netflix: sumptuous
Thanks, hadn't heard of Dark, sounds right up my Strasse.
Be prepared to draw up some family trees to keep track of who's who, and who's when...
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
John Amery was white, male, upper class. William Joyce was white, male, middle class.
That did not save them from being executed, in the aftermath of WWII, for acting similarly to Shamima Begum.
Similar yes, but I think objectively, Begum was groomed. She was under 16 when she left to join ISIS, and by her admission, did not believe what she thought was Western propaganda about ISIS.
I'd rather see her tried for crimes that she has committed, but I don't think thats easy. How much evidence is there? Where should a trial be? Its not as if we have a Nuremberg style trial system going for ISIS.
She has publicly stated, in several TV programs that she took part in war crimes. Specifically the process of enslavement of Yazidi women. The avowed (by ISIS) intention of this process was to wipe out the Yazidi people by destroying the next generation.
Did she have legal representatives at that point? She can always say that she was lying I think she is guilty of lots of things but was also groomed. Life isn't black and white. To use the Nazi example a 20 year old German committing atrocities in 1945 had been under the Nazis for 12 years. Twelve long years of indoctrination. Not an excuse, but context.
We still hanged Irma Griese at that age.
Age, coercion etc can be used in mitigation of sentence, but aren’t generally a shield against prosecution, IIRC
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
Humza getting a roasting at FM Questions, how embarrassing a Tory can slap you stupid: Douglas Ross on Humza Yousaf's time in office: "He was transport minister who drove without a licence, he delayed the dualling of the A9, and he clapped like a seal when Nicola Sturgeon launched a ferry with painted-on windows. https://twitter.com/HolyroodDaily/status/1628747308778024960
Commemorative you can’t escape the legacy of Arthur Donaldson tweet. Quite shocking that the rancid old **** was allowed to return to the Commons as if nothing had happened. Mind you, he’d probably be the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in its current iteration.
I don’t mind the fact that Keir is focusing on 5 things.
I do mind the fact that it’s waffly bollocks.
Unimpressive.
Compare that waffle to Blair’s somewhat more SMART objectives in 1997. Now, the election is probably 18 months away, but even so there’s no substance there.
I don’t mind the fact that Keir is focusing on 5 things.
I do mind the fact that it’s waffly bollocks.
Unimpressive.
Compare that waffle to Blair’s somewhat more SMART objectives in 1997. Now, the election is probably 18 months away, but even so there’s no substance there.
I don’t mind them unto themselves. I accept for the moment that the election is still some time away.
Sections 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 - preparation for acts of terrorism; Section 6 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2006 - providing and receiving training; Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000 – membership of a proscribed organisation; Sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - fundraising offences; Section 54 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - providing and receiving weapons training; Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - possession of articles for terrorist purpose; Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - possession of information likely to be useful to a terrorist.
Where there is the necessary extra-territorial jurisdiction, potential other offences include:
Kidnapping Murder/conspiracy to murder Conspiracy to cause explosions War crimes or crimes against humanity
The Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 introduces a new offence, as section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 of entering or remaining in an area outside the UK that has been designated in regulations by the Secretary of State in order to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.'
Noteworthy features of that poll: (1) Amazing that as many as 9% are favourable to Liz Truss. (Or is it just that 'Lucky Guy' has voted 10,000 times?) (2) No 'leading politician' of any party achieves a favourability rating of one third or more. Sortition is an idea whose time has come.
Sections 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 - preparation for acts of terrorism; Section 6 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2006 - providing and receiving training; Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000 – membership of a proscribed organisation; Sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - fundraising offences; Section 54 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - providing and receiving weapons training; Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - possession of articles for terrorist purpose; Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - possession of information likely to be useful to a terrorist.
Where there is the necessary extra-territorial jurisdiction, potential other offences include:
Kidnapping Murder/conspiracy to murder Conspiracy to cause explosions War crimes or crimes against humanity
The Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 introduces a new offence, as section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 of entering or remaining in an area outside the UK that has been designated in regulations by the Secretary of State in order to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.'
Apparently none of this can be applied to Begum.
And the witnesses to all that are in the UK, oh thats right they arent so any trial will be a farce with the defence going prove it and the prosecution only able to show her videos and poor little shamima crying her eyes out claiming she was forced to make them or some such tosh.
If she got back to the UK she would be walking the streets free as a bird in a matter of months and we all know it
I see, “let them eat turnips” is the new “sunlit uplands”.
Malcolm, presumably, is delighted.
Hmm, you do need haggis and potatoes as well, or mutton and potatoes as well, or carrots and potatoes as well. Mind, there's this catchy tune from Vichy France that might come in useful for Ms Coffey.
Tous les jours à la table, bouilli, réduit en purée ou en soupe, le rutabaga envahit tout, des halles des marchés aux cuisines bourgeoises en passant par les chansons populaires (Vive le rutabaga !). L'ingrédient principal du régime de Vichy n'est alors pas l'eau pétillante, mais ce gros radis jaunâtre qui donne même son nom aux «comités rutabagas», les ancêtres des comités d'entreprises, qui s'occupent notamment du ravitaillement des cantines.
Keir is also quite cowardly to back down or “change his mind” about Shamima.
Of course the idea of repatriating her is deeply unpopular, but I take the unfashionable view that there are some principles worth defending.
(And the likes of Rees-Mogg, and, one imagines, David Davis, would give him cover).
A stalwart defence of British justice and liberties is not necessarily unpopular. Cavilling and hemming and hawing is.
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with proposing an updated treason law?
Define treason as aiding, abetting, etc list of organisations and states.
Said list to be voted on in parliament for updates.
Would sort this out for the future….
The legislation would get bogged down with the PArliamentary allies of a certain PBer demanding execution by H, D and Q for breaking wind when KCIII is within 100 metres, sorry one furlong.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Isn't that point about this case that Shamima Begum is not deemed to have committed any offence whatsoever, but that the court simply confirmed that the law allows the Home Secretary to remove someone's citizenship purely on his/her own opinion, without any due process of law or right of appeal?
If that's what the law really says, then the court had no option to rule otherwise.
But equally if that's what the law says, it places the UK on a par with the worst of banana republics. That's 800 years plus after Magna Carta.
Keir is also quite cowardly to back down or “change his mind” about Shamima.
Of course the idea of repatriating her is deeply unpopular, but I take the unfashionable view that there are some principles worth defending.
(And the likes of Rees-Mogg, and, one imagines, David Davis, would give him cover).
A stalwart defence of British justice and liberties is not necessarily unpopular. Cavilling and hemming and hawing is.
Unfortunately Labour has form in this area, IIRC the whole stripping of citizenship BS started with them. I understand Starmer's position but it is a sad reflection on him as indeed the whole episode has been a sad reflection on the country as a whole.
Keir is also quite cowardly to back down or “change his mind” about Shamima.
Of course the idea of repatriating her is deeply unpopular, but I take the unfashionable view that there are some principles worth defending.
(And the likes of Rees-Mogg, and, one imagines, David Davis, would give him cover).
A stalwart defence of British justice and liberties is not necessarily unpopular. Cavilling and hemming and hawing is.
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with proposing an updated treason law?
Define treason as aiding, abetting, etc list of organisations and states.
Said list to be voted on in parliament for updates.
Would sort this out for the future….
The legislation would get bogged down with the PArliamentary allies of a certain PBer demanding execution by H, D and Q for breaking wind when KCIII is within 100 metres, sorry one furlong.
Within 2 rods, shirley?
Suspect the problem would be more the negative nationalist types.
Keir is also quite cowardly to back down or “change his mind” about Shamima.
Of course the idea of repatriating her is deeply unpopular, but I take the unfashionable view that there are some principles worth defending.
(And the likes of Rees-Mogg, and, one imagines, David Davis, would give him cover).
A stalwart defence of British justice and liberties is not necessarily unpopular. Cavilling and hemming and hawing is.
I agree with you. I wouldn't be surprised, however, that if the court had ruled the opposite, Starmer would have agreed with that instead. In playing safe, I think he's reluctant to publicly criticise the judgement of a UK court. He should show more courage.
Keir is also quite cowardly to back down or “change his mind” about Shamima.
Of course the idea of repatriating her is deeply unpopular, but I take the unfashionable view that there are some principles worth defending.
(And the likes of Rees-Mogg, and, one imagines, David Davis, would give him cover).
A stalwart defence of British justice and liberties is not necessarily unpopular. Cavilling and hemming and hawing is.
Unfortunately Labour has form in this area, IIRC the whole stripping of citizenship BS started with them. I understand Starmer's position but it is a sad reflection on him as indeed the whole episode has been a sad reflection on the country as a whole.
Labour has form. That’s one of the reasons I have not voted Labour. But I think Keir should do better.
(I think the original citizen stripping was actually the Tories, but Labour turbo-charged it).
Keir is also quite cowardly to back down or “change his mind” about Shamima.
Of course the idea of repatriating her is deeply unpopular, but I take the unfashionable view that there are some principles worth defending.
(And the likes of Rees-Mogg, and, one imagines, David Davis, would give him cover).
A stalwart defence of British justice and liberties is not necessarily unpopular. Cavilling and hemming and hawing is.
I agree with you. I wouldn't be surprised, however, that if the court had ruled the opposite, Starmer would have agreed with that instead. In playing safe, I think he's reluctant to publicly criticise the judgement of a UK court. He should show more courage.
I was thinking along those lines earlier, but then reflected that it's quite possible to accept the court's judgement that this was legal, while still arguing that it's wrong. Afterall, he - presumably - has many criticisms of indisputably legal government actions.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Isn't that point about this case that Shamima Begum is not deemed to have committed any offence whatsoever, but that the court simply confirmed that the law allows the Home Secretary to remove someone's citizenship purely on his/her own opinion, without any due process of law or right of appeal?
If that's what the law really says, then the court had no option to rule otherwise.
But equally if that's what the law says, it places the UK on a par with the worst of banana republics. That's 800 years plus after Magna Carta.
AIUI the court ruled that, on a far from clear cut decision, that ultimately they accepted the SoS's national security argument.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
I can live with that. But she is our evil woman with no redeeming qualities.
Yes. There seems to be a conflation of “she is guilty/evil” with “it is right that she have her citizenship removed”.
Personally I presume she is as guilty as sin, with zero redeeming features. But I don’t think the Home Sec should have the power to strip her (or my!) citizenship.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
Says Blobfish 2 – grumpy old twat on the internet, international judge and paragon of justice and virtue
Sorry but its people like you that make the law an arse most people in this country are pretty fed up with excuses being made for criminal scum and them being let off with excuses like they are poor, from a broken home, only 15.....news so are a lot of people but most of them know right from wrong.
Now if at 16 she had renounced ISIS and their acts and expressed remorse for her actions I might be more willing to concede maybe you have a point. She hasn't instead she has double downed time and time again and expressed no remorse....well she doesn't like being in a camp tough shit she made her bed and she can lie in it.
Keir is also quite cowardly to back down or “change his mind” about Shamima.
Of course the idea of repatriating her is deeply unpopular, but I take the unfashionable view that there are some principles worth defending.
(And the likes of Rees-Mogg, and, one imagines, David Davis, would give him cover).
A stalwart defence of British justice and liberties is not necessarily unpopular. Cavilling and hemming and hawing is.
I agree with you. I wouldn't be surprised, however, that if the court had ruled the opposite, Starmer would have agreed with that instead. In playing safe, I think he's reluctant to publicly criticise the judgement of a UK court. He should show more courage.
I was thinking along those lines earlier, but then reflected that it's quite possible to accept the court's judgement that this was legal, while still arguing that it's wrong. Afterall, he - presumably - has many criticisms of indisputably legal government actions.
A former DPP criticising upper court judgements is trickier than for most politicians. He'd be better off saying 'okay, the court made the right judgement - so we need to change the law'.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
Most of the country likes Ed Sheeran and Mrs Brown's Boys. So what?
Anyway, law doesn't determine 'evil', even where a judge uses that word in summations or whatever. As has been stated downthread, I'm not fond of the notion that a state can strip citizenship in this way. Its a principle thing.
The court said it was a matter of "great concern and difficulty...with finely balanced judgements..."
The fact that she was trafficked could have been a mitigating factor but the SoS (Javid) decided not to take this into account (as was his prerogative) and in the end his concern over national security meant that depriving her of her citizenship was not unlawful.
On the eve of Estonia´s independence day, we are hearing news that the Ukrainian Armed Forces may have broken further Russian units, Seems like the Russians have not been able to regroup and a significant push back might be underway. Russian reserves are now fully committed and yet they seem to be in real trouble close to Vuhledar.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
Most of the country likes Ed Sheeran and Mrs Brown's Boys. So what?
Anyway, law doesn't determine 'evil', even where a judge uses that word in summations or whatever. As has been stated downthread, I'm not fond of the notion that a state can strip citizenship in this way. Its a principle thing.
I am not happy particularly with it either however I also don't believe she would end up tried and convicted here so I take the view
She can come back and be free to walk the streets or We can strip her of her citizenship
The second option to me is the lesser of two evils
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Isn't that point about this case that Shamima Begum is not deemed to have committed any offence whatsoever, but that the court simply confirmed that the law allows the Home Secretary to remove someone's citizenship purely on his/her own opinion, without any due process of law or right of appeal?
If that's what the law really says, then the court had no option to rule otherwise.
But equally if that's what the law says, it places the UK on a par with the worst of banana republics. That's 800 years plus after Magna Carta.
AIUI the court ruled that, on a far from clear cut decision, that ultimately they accepted the SoS's national security argument.
On the contrary, as I understand it (based on press reports) they ruled that legally it was a matter for him to decide and not them.
I assume we've already done Motty, but I must admit to a rare tear in my eye when I read his obituary. Partly because he seemed a genuinely decent man. And partly because the passing of that generation of commentators who were the voice of their sport - Motty, Bill McLaren, Murray Walker, Eddie Waring, Harry Carpenter - represent the loss of - well, the 80s had their ups and downs, but Saturday afternoons in front of Grandstand with my dad were as close to an idyll of childhood as I can give you.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
I can live with that. But she is our evil woman with no redeeming qualities.
Yes. There seems to be a conflation of “she is guilty/evil” with “it is right that she have her citizenship removed”.
Personally I presume she is as guilty as sin, with zero redeeming features. But I don’t think the Home Sec should have the power to strip her (or my!) citizenship.
That's true, but there is also a counter narrative of "I don't think the Home Sec should have that power" with "Therefore the decision should have been deemed unlawful". That is, they shouldn't have that power, therefore let's argue they don't.
I haven't read through the decision itself yet, but from the reporting it sounds like a call of 'A reasonable person could have reached a different decision on the facts, but it was not a requirement to make a different decision, and so it was not unlawful for the Home Secretary to make that particualr decision'.
I would be happy for this power to be removed, and obviously challenges are acceptable, but until the law is changed it is what it is and essentially exile remains within the range of reasonable decisions. So it is a sad, twisty tale (involving someone who should be culpable for acts they must have known was wrong, notwithstanding anything else), but the only 'fix' is for a government to change things.
And I'm not convinced Starmer actually would do so once in power, despite his own position on this - I think government rarely likes to give power back.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
Most of the country likes Ed Sheeran and Mrs Brown's Boys. So what?
Anyway, law doesn't determine 'evil', even where a judge uses that word in summations or whatever. As has been stated downthread, I'm not fond of the notion that a state can strip citizenship in this way. Its a principle thing.
I am not happy particularly with it either however I also don't believe she would end up tried and convicted here so I take the view
She can come back and be free to walk the streets or We can strip her of her citizenship
The second option to me is the lesser of two evils
It's not "walk the streets". There are options available to the HS, apart from charging her if there are any offences suspected, or place a control order on her. There are plenty of returning ISIS members who are under control orders.
The judgement also puts the UK at odds with most of the rest of the world in terms of its repatriation policy and means that it is likely only "Brits" left in these camps.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
I can live with that. But she is our evil woman with no redeeming qualities.
Yes. There seems to be a conflation of “she is guilty/evil” with “it is right that she have her citizenship removed”.
Personally I presume she is as guilty as sin, with zero redeeming features. But I don’t think the Home Sec should have the power to strip her (or my!) citizenship.
Indeed, people can now be stripped of their citizenship even if they do not have dual nationality, if the Home Sec believes they are eligible for another countries citizenship.
This would include most second generation immigrants and even third generation immigrants (like myself) so a considerable percentage of the population.
Just as well we don't have a capricious tyrant as Home Sec...
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Isn't that point about this case that Shamima Begum is not deemed to have committed any offence whatsoever, but that the court simply confirmed that the law allows the Home Secretary to remove someone's citizenship purely on his/her own opinion, without any due process of law or right of appeal?
If that's what the law really says, then the court had no option to rule otherwise.
But equally if that's what the law says, it places the UK on a par with the worst of banana republics. That's 800 years plus after Magna Carta.
That was the significance for me, too . The court ruling, as I understand it, says that the HS can make that decision, stating that it is on grounds of public safety, and the courts then have no standing to consider any of the circumstances, however threadbare any justification might be. Classic example of hard cases making bad law.
A crypto investment firm with links to two all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) appears to have disappeared, leaving some investors fearing they have lost tens of thousands of pounds.
The episode is likely to raise further questions about the role of APPGs in parliament. Phoenix Community Capital established itself last year as a cryptocurrency project and investment scheme, which it said at one point was valued at $800m (£665m).
It was a sponsor of one APPG and its co-founder, Luke Sullivan, spoke at an event for a second APPG , as well as appearing as a panellist for events hosted by peers in parliament.
However, the company appears to have vanished in September last year, with its website going offline and the investment portfolios, known as “nests”, inaccessible to an estimated 8,000 investors after that date.
Some investors, including a former Premier League footballer, claim to have lost tens of thousands of pounds each.
Some of the firm’s assets and its name appear to have been sold to a new company run by an individual called “Dan”, who has told investors it has no obligation towards them, but that it would still try to make them some returns.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Isn't that point about this case that Shamima Begum is not deemed to have committed any offence whatsoever, but that the court simply confirmed that the law allows the Home Secretary to remove someone's citizenship purely on his/her own opinion, without any due process of law or right of appeal?
If that's what the law really says, then the court had no option to rule otherwise.
But equally if that's what the law says, it places the UK on a par with the worst of banana republics. That's 800 years plus after Magna Carta.
AIUI the court ruled that, on a far from clear cut decision, that ultimately they accepted the SoS's national security argument.
On the contrary, as I understand it (based on press reports) they ruled that legally it was a matter for him to decide and not them.
Are you sure your understanding is correct?
As per my subsequent post - the fact that she was trafficked could have been a mitigating factor but the SoS (Javid) decided not to take this into account (as was his prerogative) and in the end his concern over national security meant that depriving her of her citizenship was not unlawful.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Shamima is an evil woman with no redeeming qualities, most of the country agrees with that statement.
I can live with that. But she is our evil woman with no redeeming qualities.
Yes. There seems to be a conflation of “she is guilty/evil” with “it is right that she have her citizenship removed”.
Personally I presume she is as guilty as sin, with zero redeeming features. But I don’t think the Home Sec should have the power to strip her (or my!) citizenship.
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Isn't that point about this case that Shamima Begum is not deemed to have committed any offence whatsoever, but that the court simply confirmed that the law allows the Home Secretary to remove someone's citizenship purely on his/her own opinion, without any due process of law or right of appeal?
If that's what the law really says, then the court had no option to rule otherwise.
But equally if that's what the law says, it places the UK on a par with the worst of banana republics. That's 800 years plus after Magna Carta.
AIUI the court ruled that, on a far from clear cut decision, that ultimately they accepted the SoS's national security argument.
On the contrary, as I understand it (based on press reports) they ruled that legally it was a matter for him to decide and not them.
Are you sure your understanding is correct?
As per my subsequent post - the fact that she was trafficked could have been a mitigating factor but the SoS (Javid) decided not to take this into account (as was his prerogative) and in the end his concern over national security meant that depriving her of her citizenship was not unlawful.
You're agreeing with what I said, then - that they ruled it was a matter for him to decide?
They didn't accept his argument, but they accepted he was the sole arbiter, so that they had no right to dispute it?
A crypto investment firm with links to two all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) appears to have disappeared, leaving some investors fearing they have lost tens of thousands of pounds.
The episode is likely to raise further questions about the role of APPGs in parliament. Phoenix Community Capital established itself last year as a cryptocurrency project and investment scheme, which it said at one point was valued at $800m (£665m).
It was a sponsor of one APPG and its co-founder, Luke Sullivan, spoke at an event for a second APPG , as well as appearing as a panellist for events hosted by peers in parliament.
However, the company appears to have vanished in September last year, with its website going offline and the investment portfolios, known as “nests”, inaccessible to an estimated 8,000 investors after that date.
Some investors, including a former Premier League footballer, claim to have lost tens of thousands of pounds each.
Some of the firm’s assets and its name appear to have been sold to a new company run by an individual called “Dan”, who has told investors it has no obligation towards them, but that it would still try to make them some returns.
Let this rapey evil genocidal unrepentant Britain-hating gay-hating Yazidi-slaving Islamo-fascist BITCH rot to death in her squalid self-made hell
OR
Bring her back at vast expense and give her lots of “rehabilitation” and “counselling” as desired by @TOPPING and @Anabobazina and as she deserves, the poor wee lamb
Shamima Begum should be repatriated to the UK and tried here for whatever offences she is deemed to have committed.
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Isn't that point about this case that Shamima Begum is not deemed to have committed any offence whatsoever, but that the court simply confirmed that the law allows the Home Secretary to remove someone's citizenship purely on his/her own opinion, without any due process of law or right of appeal?
If that's what the law really says, then the court had no option to rule otherwise.
But equally if that's what the law says, it places the UK on a par with the worst of banana republics. That's 800 years plus after Magna Carta.
AIUI the court ruled that, on a far from clear cut decision, that ultimately they accepted the SoS's national security argument.
On the contrary, as I understand it (based on press reports) they ruled that legally it was a matter for him to decide and not them.
Are you sure your understanding is correct?
As per my subsequent post - the fact that she was trafficked could have been a mitigating factor but the SoS (Javid) decided not to take this into account (as was his prerogative) and in the end his concern over national security meant that depriving her of her citizenship was not unlawful.
You're agreeing with what I said, then - that they ruled it was a matter for him to decide?
They didn't accept his argument, but they accepted he was the sole arbiter, so that they had no right to dispute it?
I'm agreeing with what I have been saying all along (perhaps clumsily).
Let this rapey evil genocidal unrepentant Britain-hating gay-hating Yazidi-slaving Islamo-fascist BITCH rot to death in her squalid self-made hell
OR
Bring her back at vast expense and give her lots of “rehabilitation” and “counselling” as desired by @TOPPING and @Anabobazina and as she deserves, the poor wee lamb
Let the British people decide
Excellent - your posts are far more effective with randomised CAPITALS - breaks it up a bit.
A crypto investment firm with links to two all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) appears to have disappeared, leaving some investors fearing they have lost tens of thousands of pounds.
The episode is likely to raise further questions about the role of APPGs in parliament. Phoenix Community Capital established itself last year as a cryptocurrency project and investment scheme, which it said at one point was valued at $800m (£665m).
It was a sponsor of one APPG and its co-founder, Luke Sullivan, spoke at an event for a second APPG , as well as appearing as a panellist for events hosted by peers in parliament.
However, the company appears to have vanished in September last year, with its website going offline and the investment portfolios, known as “nests”, inaccessible to an estimated 8,000 investors after that date.
Some investors, including a former Premier League footballer, claim to have lost tens of thousands of pounds each.
Some of the firm’s assets and its name appear to have been sold to a new company run by an individual called “Dan”, who has told investors it has no obligation towards them, but that it would still try to make them some returns.
Some Peers appear to have been very stupid in giving the appearance of lending approval to what looks a total scam. I don’t think it’s suggested any Parliamentarians are directly involved ?
On the eve of Estonia´s independence day, we are hearing news that the Ukrainian Armed Forces may have broken further Russian units, Seems like the Russians have not been able to regroup and a significant push back might be underway. Russian reserves are now fully committed and yet they seem to be in real trouble close to Vuhledar.
Uplifting if it proves to be true.
Two weeks ago I went to a talk by Professor Geoffrey Till on the Ukraine war. It was a good talk, I posted about it here at the time.
I am struck, though, by Professor Till's feeling at that point (10th Feb) that the Russian spring offensive was already underway and that we should expect them to make significant gains.
He also acknowledged that he and all the other military strategists had been pretty much wrong about everything in this conflict to date; here's hoping his prediction that evening is another one that won't be ever realised.
On the eve of Estonia´s independence day, we are hearing news that the Ukrainian Armed Forces may have broken further Russian units, Seems like the Russians have not been able to regroup and a significant push back might be underway. Russian reserves are now fully committed and yet they seem to be in real trouble close to Vuhledar.
Fingers crossed! Just out of interest, where do you get to hear the news from?
Comments
There was a long history of it before the Nazis - who made it into a symbol of crime.
@BritainElects
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 45% (-)
CON: 31% (+3)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
REF: 4% (-1)
GRN: 3% (-1)
via
@Savanta_UK
, 17 - 19 Feb"
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1628739539500994563
Margaret Hodge
@margarethodge
At least when Liz Truss was Prime Minister there were fresh vegetables to measure her time in office.
https://twitter.com/margarethodge/status/1628737437265694720
Now 5.1
The film is not
They are currently making a stage version...
Yes, all the swastikas.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/feb/23/labour-keir-starmer-conservatives-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-latest-news#top-of-blog
IMHO, her trial should take place in one of the countries where she committed her alleged offences.
@PBLawyers?
2 with an increase in Lab lead
2 with a narrowing of Lab lead
28 pt lead with YG only 14 with Savanta
Something very strange going on
Douglas Ross on Humza Yousaf's time in office: "He was transport minister who drove without a licence, he delayed the dualling of the A9, and he clapped like a seal when Nicola Sturgeon launched a ferry with painted-on windows.
https://twitter.com/HolyroodDaily/status/1628747308778024960
Is not nonsensical as far as eg @Nigelb is concerned.
Tory vote is probably down to core, edges of the core etc.
Could be the structure of the Manhattan Project after Gen. Groves got going.
Or could be quangos that stop things happening.
I do mind the fact that it’s waffly bollocks.
Unimpressive.
Otto English is a twat, his race-baiting attempts to conjure up Archibald Maule-Ramsay don’t withstand the slightest examination.
28 YG
27 R&W
22 Deltapoll
17 Kantar
14 Savanta
Average 21.6
Malcolm, presumably, is delighted.
If you eat all the turnips, where will the cask strength turnip juice come from???!!!
Not fit for public consumption.
And it speaks badly of Labour’s actual ability to focus.
I accept for the moment that the election is still some time away.
I take exception to the supporting guff.
'D. Potential offences
Potential Terrorism Act offences include:
Sections 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 - preparation for acts of terrorism;
Section 6 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2006 - providing and receiving training;
Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000 – membership of a proscribed organisation;
Sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - fundraising offences;
Section 54 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - providing and receiving weapons training;
Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - possession of articles for terrorist purpose;
Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - possession of information likely to be useful to a terrorist.
Where there is the necessary extra-territorial jurisdiction, potential other offences include:
Kidnapping
Murder/conspiracy to murder
Conspiracy to cause explosions
War crimes or crimes against humanity
The Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 introduces a new offence, as section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 of entering or remaining in an area outside the UK that has been designated in regulations by the Secretary of State in order to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.'
Apparently none of this can be applied to Begum.
(1) Amazing that as many as 9% are favourable to Liz Truss. (Or is it just that 'Lucky Guy' has voted 10,000 times?)
(2) No 'leading politician' of any party achieves a favourability rating of one third or more. Sortition is an idea whose time has come.
Of course the idea of repatriating her is deeply unpopular, but I take the unfashionable view that there are some principles worth defending.
(And the likes of Rees-Mogg, and, one imagines, David Davis, would give him cover).
A stalwart defence of British justice and liberties is not necessarily unpopular. Cavilling and hemming and hawing is.
If she got back to the UK she would be walking the streets free as a bird in a matter of months and we all know it
imo she was a child when she went overseas and was then groomed which evidently had some degree of success.
Get her back, try her here and throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it.
Of course Shamima is one of those subjects that @Leon loves because he goes off on one and enjoys the outrage he hopes to provoke.
Shamima is a sad case. @Leon's response to her is also a sad case for that matter.
Define treason as aiding, abetting, etc list of organisations and states.
Said list to be voted on in parliament for updates.
Would sort this out for the future….
Tous les jours à la table, bouilli, réduit en purée ou en soupe, le rutabaga envahit tout, des halles des marchés aux cuisines bourgeoises en passant par les chansons populaires (Vive le rutabaga !). L'ingrédient principal du régime de Vichy n'est alors pas l'eau pétillante, mais ce gros radis jaunâtre qui donne même son nom aux «comités rutabagas», les ancêtres des comités d'entreprises, qui s'occupent notamment du ravitaillement des cantines.
https://www.liberation.fr/cahier-ete-2015/2015/08/14/rutabaga-du-vilain-navet-au-classique_1363534/
And see also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip_Winter
If that's what the law really says, then the court had no option to rule otherwise.
But equally if that's what the law says, it places the UK on a par with the worst of banana republics. That's 800 years plus after Magna Carta.
The late, great Motty – all you need to watch.
RIP.
Suspect the problem would be more the negative nationalist types.
I wouldn't be surprised, however, that if the court had ruled the opposite, Starmer would have agreed with that instead.
In playing safe, I think he's reluctant to publicly criticise the judgement of a UK court. He should show more courage.
(I think the original citizen stripping was actually the Tories, but Labour turbo-charged it).
Personally I presume she is as guilty as sin, with zero redeeming features. But I don’t think the Home Sec should have the power to strip her (or my!) citizenship.
Now if at 16 she had renounced ISIS and their acts and expressed remorse for her actions I might be more willing to concede maybe you have a point. She hasn't instead she has double downed time and time again and expressed no remorse....well she doesn't like being in a camp tough shit she made her bed and she can lie in it.
///genocidal.rapey.witch
Then let them decide what to do. Sorted. Now we can all move on
Anyway, law doesn't determine 'evil', even where a judge uses that word in summations or whatever. As has been stated downthread, I'm not fond of the notion that a state can strip citizenship in this way. Its a principle thing.
The fact that she was trafficked could have been a mitigating factor but the SoS (Javid) decided not to take this into account (as was his prerogative) and in the end his concern over national security meant that depriving her of her citizenship was not unlawful.
There was a good piece on this yday on PM.
She can come back and be free to walk the streets
or
We can strip her of her citizenship
The second option to me is the lesser of two evils
“throw in some rehabilitation and counselling while you're at it”
You actually want to spend UK taxpayers money on “rehabilitation and counselling” for this Islamo-Nazi hag?
Spend your own. Let us give our money to her thousands of victims
Are you sure your understanding is correct?
I haven't read through the decision itself yet, but from the reporting it sounds like a call of 'A reasonable person could have reached a different decision on the facts, but it was not a requirement to make a different decision, and so it was not unlawful for the Home Secretary to make that particualr decision'.
I would be happy for this power to be removed, and obviously challenges are acceptable, but until the law is changed it is what it is and essentially exile remains within the range of reasonable decisions. So it is a sad, twisty tale (involving someone who should be culpable for acts they must have known was wrong, notwithstanding anything else), but the only 'fix' is for a government to change things.
And I'm not convinced Starmer actually would do so once in power, despite his own position on this - I think government rarely likes to give power back.
The judgement also puts the UK at odds with most of the rest of the world in terms of its repatriation policy and means that it is likely only "Brits" left in these camps.
This would include most second generation immigrants and even third generation immigrants (like myself) so a considerable percentage of the population.
Just as well we don't have a capricious tyrant as Home Sec...
The court ruling, as I understand it, says that the HS can make that decision, stating that it is on grounds of public safety, and the courts then have no standing to consider any of the circumstances, however threadbare any justification might be.
Classic example of hard cases making bad law.
A crypto investment firm with links to two all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) appears to have disappeared, leaving some investors fearing they have lost tens of thousands of pounds.
The episode is likely to raise further questions about the role of APPGs in parliament. Phoenix Community Capital established itself last year as a cryptocurrency project and investment scheme, which it said at one point was valued at $800m (£665m).
It was a sponsor of one APPG and its co-founder, Luke Sullivan, spoke at an event for a second APPG , as well as appearing as a panellist for events hosted by peers in parliament.
However, the company appears to have vanished in September last year, with its website going offline and the investment portfolios, known as “nests”, inaccessible to an estimated 8,000 investors after that date.
Some investors, including a former Premier League footballer, claim to have lost tens of thousands of pounds each.
Some of the firm’s assets and its name appear to have been sold to a new company run by an individual called “Dan”, who has told investors it has no obligation towards them, but that it would still try to make them some returns.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/23/crypto-firm-with-links-to-parliamentary-groups-appears-to-have-vanished?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
They didn't accept his argument, but they accepted he was the sole arbiter, so that they had no right to dispute it?
Let this rapey evil genocidal unrepentant Britain-hating gay-hating Yazidi-slaving Islamo-fascist BITCH rot to death in her squalid self-made hell
OR
Bring her back at vast expense and give her lots of “rehabilitation” and “counselling” as desired by @TOPPING and @Anabobazina and as she deserves, the poor wee lamb
Let the British people decide
I don’t think it’s suggested any Parliamentarians are directly involved ?
Two weeks ago I went to a talk by Professor Geoffrey Till on the Ukraine war. It was a good talk, I posted about it here at the time.
I am struck, though, by Professor Till's feeling at that point (10th Feb) that the Russian spring offensive was already underway and that we should expect them to make significant gains.
He also acknowledged that he and all the other military strategists had been pretty much wrong about everything in this conflict to date; here's hoping his prediction that evening is another one that won't be ever realised.