"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
Fucking hell - you literally falsified a quote from me, putting it in quotation marks. by saying that was what I “meant”. You literally lied about what I said. Are you denying that you made a up a quote by me and put it there as if they were my own words? It’s there, in the post history, you lying moron. If you had any morals you would apologise for that but you won’t because you’re a craven prick.
Be a liar or be stupid but don’t be both.
And before that I quoted your actual words and made it clear it was my paraphrase before hand by saying this is what you actually meant. So don't give a shit what you think I suspect 99.9% of readers here did not take that as me claiming you said the second....the real truth is you have no fucking answer and are embarrassed because you realised you were talking crap in the first place so now decide to attack on the technicality because you are a lawyer....fuck off not bothering with the conversation anymore....go complain to a mod or something if you think you have a case
I’ll take that as an apology. Thank you, accepted. It’s nice when people accept they are wrong.
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
Fucking hell - you literally falsified a quote from me, putting it in quotation marks. by saying that was what I “meant”. You literally lied about what I said. Are you denying that you made a up a quote by me and put it there as if they were my own words? It’s there, in the post history, you lying moron. If you had any morals you would apologise for that but you won’t because you’re a craven prick.
Be a liar or be stupid but don’t be both.
And before that I quoted your actual words and made it clear it was my paraphrase before hand by saying this is what you actually meant. So don't give a shit what you think I suspect 99.9% of readers here did not take that as me claiming you said the second....the real truth is you have no fucking answer and are embarrassed because you realised you were talking crap in the first place so now decide to attack on the technicality because you are a lawyer....fuck off not bothering with the conversation anymore....go complain to a mod or something if you think you have a case
I’ll take that as an apology. Thank you, accepted. It’s nice when people accept they are wrong.
I can assure you it wasn't an apology....here is a clue apologies dont tell you to fuck off
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
Fucking hell - you literally falsified a quote from me, putting it in quotation marks. by saying that was what I “meant”. You literally lied about what I said. Are you denying that you made a up a quote by me and put it there as if they were my own words? It’s there, in the post history, you lying moron. If you had any morals you would apologise for that but you won’t because you’re a craven prick.
Be a liar or be stupid but don’t be both.
And before that I quoted your actual words and made it clear it was my paraphrase before hand by saying this is what you actually meant. So don't give a shit what you think I suspect 99.9% of readers here did not take that as me claiming you said the second....the real truth is you have no fucking answer and are embarrassed because you realised you were talking crap in the first place so now decide to attack on the technicality because you are a lawyer....fuck off not bothering with the conversation anymore....go complain to a mod or something if you think you have a case
I’ll take that as an apology. Thank you, accepted. It’s nice when people accept they are wrong.
I can assure you it wasn't an apology....here is a clue apologies dont tell you to fuck off
No, you accepted you were wrong, and I think that is admirable. You said “fuck off” but what you MEANT was “I’m sorry”.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
I was really rather astonished by the media manufacturing of King Charles, after the death of the Queen. It was utterly absurd. Even the guardian went along with it.
I don’t think they have the influence they need to entrench the monarchy.
Gone within a generation, imo.
Can't see it myself. It's not worth the political capital or aggravation spending time and effort on what exactly we replace it with. Obviously there's any number of options that could be used, but path of least resistance is to just keep going with the status quo so long as Charles and the follow ups avoid glaringly bad cock ups. Minor ones are salvageable.
I think Harry is the biggest risk to the institution - I'm astonished he's not already called for abolition of the monarchy, its where his views would seem to logically go, and decades of him on the sidelines saying something like that is powerful, even though he is not currently very well liked.
The wokeism of Charles and William is what will end the monarchy.
"Kylie Minogue REFUSES offer to star at King Charles' Coronation concert because of growing Republican sentiment in Australia"
May seem a small thing but lots of little pointers of how the wind is blowing.
A few loud protestors can basically ruin a royal event. Police tried to remove protestors in the summer but seem to have now accepted they can't do that.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Lets dial this back with an actual example
All members of the EU and us are members of the ECHR.
The uk has created an offence of marital rape despite it being a majority overriding a minority believing its ok...
Quote "On the subject of marital rape, “more than a third of over-65s” do not consider forced marital sex rape, along with 16% of people aged 16 to 24. Overall, one in four Britons believed that non-consensual sex within marriage did not constitute rape."
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
Fucking hell - you literally falsified a quote from me, putting it in quotation marks. by saying that was what I “meant”. You literally lied about what I said. Are you denying that you made a up a quote by me and put it there as if they were my own words? It’s there, in the post history, you lying moron. If you had any morals you would apologise for that but you won’t because you’re a craven prick.
Be a liar or be stupid but don’t be both.
And before that I quoted your actual words and made it clear it was my paraphrase before hand by saying this is what you actually meant. So don't give a shit what you think I suspect 99.9% of readers here did not take that as me claiming you said the second....the real truth is you have no fucking answer and are embarrassed because you realised you were talking crap in the first place so now decide to attack on the technicality because you are a lawyer....fuck off not bothering with the conversation anymore....go complain to a mod or something if you think you have a case
I’ll take that as an apology. Thank you, accepted. It’s nice when people accept they are wrong.
I can assure you it wasn't an apology....here is a clue apologies dont tell you to fuck off
No, you accepted you were wrong, and I think that is admirable.
The only one wrong was you but now we are both boring people so just going to ignore you
I wasn't conscious for all the Diana stuff so I don't really understand the history of Charles, but he has a reputation for being quite green and on the right side of history.
In all the various tiktoks/insta stories that come up, he seems quite comfortable hugging people and shaking hands, and is naturally self-deprecating. Wouldn't write him off.
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
Fucking hell - you literally falsified a quote from me, putting it in quotation marks. by saying that was what I “meant”. You literally lied about what I said. Are you denying that you made a up a quote by me and put it there as if they were my own words? It’s there, in the post history, you lying moron. If you had any morals you would apologise for that but you won’t because you’re a craven prick.
Be a liar or be stupid but don’t be both.
And before that I quoted your actual words and made it clear it was my paraphrase before hand by saying this is what you actually meant. So don't give a shit what you think I suspect 99.9% of readers here did not take that as me claiming you said the second....the real truth is you have no fucking answer and are embarrassed because you realised you were talking crap in the first place so now decide to attack on the technicality because you are a lawyer....fuck off not bothering with the conversation anymore....go complain to a mod or something if you think you have a case
I’ll take that as an apology. Thank you, accepted. It’s nice when people accept they are wrong.
I can assure you it wasn't an apology....here is a clue apologies dont tell you to fuck off
No, you accepted you were wrong, and I think that is admirable.
The only one wrong was you but now we are both boring people so just going to ignore you
What you MEANT to say was “you’re absolutely right Doug”
It seems to be acceptable to put words in peoples mouths now. Just following your lead.
"Kylie Minogue REFUSES offer to star at King Charles' Coronation concert because of growing Republican sentiment in Australia"
May seem a small thing but lots of little pointers of how the wind is blowing.
A few loud protestors can basically ruin a royal event. Police tried to remove protestors in the summer but seem to have now accepted they can't do that.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
I was really rather astonished by the media manufacturing of King Charles, after the death of the Queen. It was utterly absurd. Even the guardian went along with it.
I don’t think they have the influence they need to entrench the monarchy.
Gone within a generation, imo.
Can't see it myself. It's not worth the political capital or aggravation spending time and effort on what exactly we replace it with. Obviously there's any number of options that could be used, but path of least resistance is to just keep going with the status quo so long as Charles and the follow ups avoid glaringly bad cock ups. Minor ones are salvageable.
I think Harry is the biggest risk to the institution - I'm astonished he's not already called for abolition of the monarchy, its where his views would seem to logically go, and decades of him on the sidelines saying something like that is powerful, even though he is not currently very well liked.
The wokeism of Charles and William is what will end the monarchy.
That 'wokeism' is the best chance Chas and Bill have.
I wasn't conscious for all the Diana stuff so I don't really understand the history of Charles, but he has a reputation for being quite green and on the right side of history.
In all the various tiktoks/insta stories that come up, he seems quite comfortable hugging people and shaking hands, and is naturally self-deprecating. Wouldn't write him off.
To me he comes across as well intentioned, bumbling, and eccentric. That has risks, but is broadly harmless.
He was obviously a bloody awful husband, but I was young when Diana died and I just do not get the visceral hatred some people have for him or Camilla (and it does rise to that level for some).
Of course, being happy to flog honours (sure, he didn't know about it, sure) and get his mitts on cash in briefcases is not a good look.
"Kylie Minogue REFUSES offer to star at King Charles' Coronation concert because of growing Republican sentiment in Australia"
May seem a small thing but lots of little pointers of how the wind is blowing.
A few loud protestors can basically ruin a royal event. Police tried to remove protestors in the summer but seem to have now accepted they can't do that.
I wasn't conscious for all the Diana stuff so I don't really understand the history of Charles, but he has a reputation for being quite green and on the right side of history.
In all the various tiktoks/insta stories that come up, he seems quite comfortable hugging people and shaking hands, and is naturally self-deprecating. Wouldn't write him off.
To me he comes across as well intentioned, bumbling, and eccentric. That has risks, but is broadly harmless.
He was obviously a bloody awful husband, but I was young when Diana died and I just do not get the visceral hatred some people have for him or Camilla (and it does rise to that level for some).
Of course, being happy to flog honours (sure, he didn't know about it, sure) and get his mitts on cash in briefcases is not a good look.
People absolutely hate adulterers.
In my experience the women get the most abuse (from fellow women) because women should know better.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
I was really rather astonished by the media manufacturing of King Charles, after the death of the Queen. It was utterly absurd. Even the guardian went along with it.
I don’t think they have the influence they need to entrench the monarchy.
Gone within a generation, imo.
Can't see it myself. It's not worth the political capital or aggravation spending time and effort on what exactly we replace it with. Obviously there's any number of options that could be used, but path of least resistance is to just keep going with the status quo so long as Charles and the follow ups avoid glaringly bad cock ups. Minor ones are salvageable.
I think Harry is the biggest risk to the institution - I'm astonished he's not already called for abolition of the monarchy, its where his views would seem to logically go, and decades of him on the sidelines saying something like that is powerful, even though he is not currently very well liked.
The wokeism of Charles and William is what will end the monarchy.
That 'wokeism' is the best chance Chas and Bill have.
Yeah, everyone loves a bit of wokeism. They've already lost the support of the woke. The current wokeism will see them lose the support they have of the unwoke.
Tweeted by Sunak, so yes. Seems to suggest UK has "world beating" modern slavery.
Look, if slavery still exists we should at least update it for the modern world, that's just plain sense.
Say what you like about slavery but it gets shit done.
Has anything ever rivalled the pyramids?
People say that was contractors, I hear.
All I'm saying is 10,000 years of human civilization cannot be wrong. And what is progressive conservatism if not modernising the old ideas to keep them fresh?
Tweeted by Sunak, so yes. Seems to suggest UK has "world beating" modern slavery.
Look, if slavery still exists we should at least update it for the modern world, that's just plain sense.
Say what you like about slavery but it gets shit done.
Has anything ever rivalled the pyramids?
People say that was contractors, I hear.
All I'm saying is 10,000 years of human civilization cannot be wrong. And what is progressive conservatism if not modernising the old ideas to keep them fresh?
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
From this poll.
My take is this is a rather poor poll for Labour, 6% chunk knocked off the lead since the last one.
7% only on economy doesn’t look too good for Labour either.
We have to remember, losing 6% of lead now and only 7% ahead on economy, we are still north country miles away from a general election.
We used to think of these seats as Labour heartlands, loyal to Labour even through the Thatcher landslides of the eighties? Why then are Tories doing so well there this week, against all these headwinds?
I stopped reading at 'my take'
That’s a shame as I raised some interesting points.
Why talk up a poll where the gap has closed so much since the last one?
Why, in this situation, are Labour not further ahead on economy?
Why, considering some of the worst headwinds any UK government have had to endure since the 70’s, is the Tory position clearly not worsening, in fact just recently seems to be advancing, such as in this poll?
I can tap out and not offer my “honest unspun take” if Admins don’t like them.
Well you've never done that before, predicting the Tories are advancing.
Not for a while no, I prefer seeing sequences of polls, and judge month by month before pointing to movemrnt like that, as it’s more secure movement measured from more data.
But I’m sticking to my guns, Tonight's R&W Red Wall poll is actually surprisingly better for the Conservatives for once, so your pro Labour ramping of it is a bit of an odd take.
If we want to be really deep on this, I think it’s looking like red wall voters may be a different kettle of fish from normal election swingers. This parliament terms local council elections, and to extent by-elections, has given Labour mixed results on winning them back, particularly midlands branch of red wall, less so Wales branch of red wall. As a betting tip, Labour might put on 100 seats at next election, but find a few of these Red Wall areas not coming back in the end. And it might be Red Wall hold outs deny them the majority. That’s what I take from tonight’s poll, which is obviously very different than yours.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
£12m says I don't need to use the word 'allegedly'.
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
From this poll.
My take is this is a rather poor poll for Labour, 6% chunk knocked off the lead since the last one.
7% only on economy doesn’t look too good for Labour either.
We have to remember, losing 6% of lead now and only 7% ahead on economy, we are still north country miles away from a general election.
We used to think of these seats as Labour heartlands, loyal to Labour even through the Thatcher landslides of the eighties? Why then are Tories doing so well there this week, against all these headwinds?
I stopped reading at 'my take'
That’s a shame as I raised some interesting points.
Why talk up a poll where the gap has closed so much since the last one?
Why, in this situation, are Labour not further ahead on economy?
Why, considering some of the worst headwinds any UK government have had to endure since the 70’s, is the Tory position clearly not worsening, in fact just recently seems to be advancing, such as in this poll?
I can tap out and not offer my “honest unspun take” if Admins don’t like them.
Well you've never done that before, predicting the Tories are advancing.
Not for a while no, I prefer seeing sequences of polls, and judge month by month before pointing to movemrnt like that, as it’s more secure movement measured from more data.
But I’m sticking to my guns, Tonight's R&W Red Wall poll is actually surprisingly better for the Conservatives for once, so your pro Labour ramping of it is a bit of an odd take.
If we want to be really deep on this, I think it’s looking like red wall voters may be a different kettle of fish from normal election swingers. This parliament terms local council elections, and to extent by-elections, has given Labour mixed results on winning them back, particularly midlands branch of red wall, less so Wales branch of red wall. As a betting tip, Labour might put on 100 seats at next election, but find a few of these Red Wall areas not coming back in the end. And it might be Red Wall hold outs deny them the majority. That’s what I take from tonight’s poll, which is obviously very different than yours.
Pro Labour ramping by me? WTF are you on about?
I've consistently written thread headers saying I don't think Labour will win a majority at the next election.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
£12m says I don't need to use the word 'allegedly'.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
£12m says I don't need to use the word 'allegedly'.
We could wait for things to be confirmed more formally but if you put all the pizzas of the puzzle together I think we can get to an express decision here.
Lee Anderson sees the same polls as us (maybe more). Today's news suggests he lacks Moon Rabbit's view on these things. Which may be the best argument that she is rght?
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
£12m says I don't need to use the word 'allegedly'.
Hopefully this is the start of the end to the railway strikes
It does feel like the beginning of the end of the large scale industrial action.
The rail strikes don’t really seem to have had the impact expected ahead of them either.
If anything, longer it’s gone on, the more it kicks into next year, the higher Union demands should be for both years, not lower, otherwise a sign that they are losing. Firefighters settled short of par - 7% not remotely replacing what they have lost in recent years. And signing in advance 5% for April 23 to April 24 without knowing how much more of gain or a cut that might actually be.
I would also like to know, as unions made such a play it’s not all about pay, it’s about conditions, working practices and investment, especially the rail unions, so when there is a settlement just what did they settle on regarding conditions, contracts working practices and investment. Or was it really all about pay?
Has there been enough media coverage of the actual details in the offers and settlements?
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
£12m says I don't need to use the word 'allegedly'.
Except that’s American ‘justice’, the home of the plea deal, and the chance of a stupid verdict in a case that goes to court. I don’t know the truth, but I doubt Andrew thinks paying up meant he said he was guilty.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
£12m says I don't need to use the word 'allegedly'.
While true is it you they will come after first or OGH?
I think we can both rest easy but if the mods asked me to retract/delete I would of course.
probably yes, just thought it was worth saying we are guests here and some people can be sue happy.....chance it will be andrew probably approaching 0%
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
From this poll.
My take is this is a rather poor poll for Labour, 6% chunk knocked off the lead since the last one.
7% only on economy doesn’t look too good for Labour either.
We have to remember, losing 6% of lead now and only 7% ahead on economy, we are still north country miles away from a general election.
We used to think of these seats as Labour heartlands, loyal to Labour even through the Thatcher landslides of the eighties? Why then are Tories doing so well there this week, against all these headwinds?
I stopped reading at 'my take'
That’s a shame as I raised some interesting points.
Why talk up a poll where the gap has closed so much since the last one?
Why, in this situation, are Labour not further ahead on economy?
Why, considering some of the worst headwinds any UK government have had to endure since the 70’s, is the Tory position clearly not worsening, in fact just recently seems to be advancing, such as in this poll?
I can tap out and not offer my “honest unspun take” if Admins don’t like them.
Well you've never done that before, predicting the Tories are advancing.
Not for a while no, I prefer seeing sequences of polls, and judge month by month before pointing to movemrnt like that, as it’s more secure movement measured from more data.
But I’m sticking to my guns, Tonight's R&W Red Wall poll is actually surprisingly better for the Conservatives for once, so your pro Labour ramping of it is a bit of an odd take.
If we want to be really deep on this, I think it’s looking like red wall voters may be a different kettle of fish from normal election swingers. This parliament terms local council elections, and to extent by-elections, has given Labour mixed results on winning them back, particularly midlands branch of red wall, less so Wales branch of red wall. As a betting tip, Labour might put on 100 seats at next election, but find a few of these Red Wall areas not coming back in the end. And it might be Red Wall hold outs deny them the majority. That’s what I take from tonight’s poll, which is obviously very different than yours.
Pro Labour ramping by me? WTF are you on about?
I've consistently written thread headers saying I don't think Labour will win a majority at the next election.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
I was really rather astonished by the media manufacturing of King Charles, after the death of the Queen. It was utterly absurd. Even the guardian went along with it.
I don’t think they have the influence they need to entrench the monarchy.
Gone within a generation, imo.
Can't see it myself. It's not worth the political capital or aggravation spending time and effort on what exactly we replace it with. Obviously there's any number of options that could be used, but path of least resistance is to just keep going with the status quo so long as Charles and the follow ups avoid glaringly bad cock ups. Minor ones are salvageable.
I think Harry is the biggest risk to the institution - I'm astonished he's not already called for abolition of the monarchy, its where his views would seem to logically go, and decades of him on the sidelines saying something like that is powerful, even though he is not currently very well liked.
Harry would have to formally abdicate his place in the succession and give up his Royal titles to do that credibly, but the evidence seems to be that he's quite attached to the privilege, he's just a bit sore about being the second child, and now surplus to requirements.
If he did actually hand back the titles and all the rest then he could make a powerful argument against the institution. He could appeal to his brother to do the same, for his own good and the good of his children. The argument that having a Royal family is cruel to the poor sods born into it is one with some merit, and it rather disarms the normal accusations of jealousy, etc.
If the two of them did abdicate, and so Andrew suddenly became next in line, it would call the whole institution into question. And then would Beatrice or Eugenie really want to take it on, and submit their children to the same relentless scrutiny?
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
He damaged Epstein's reputation, surely?
I'm still stunned at the earlier poll which said his approval rating was -53.
Who are the roughly one-quarter of respondents who like the sleazy bastard?
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
Strange thing about the sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline is it was clearly done to make a point, but we don't know who did it and why.
Well, broadly speaking, the Russians know whether they did it or not, so they will know whether they are making a point, or having a point made to them.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
He damaged Epstein's reputation, surely?
Epstein was innocent shocker?
Erstwhile. Unless you believe we are all born sinners.
Watching this STV SNP leadership debate, it's a total kneejerk reaction from the first 5 minutes but there's something about the way Kate Forbes' mouth and lips move when she speaks that seems a bit...odd, like there's no connection between what she's thinking and what she's saying.
Tweeted by Sunak, so yes. Seems to suggest UK has "world beating" modern slavery.
Look, if slavery still exists we should at least update it for the modern world, that's just plain sense.
Say what you like about slavery but it gets shit done.
Has anything ever rivalled the pyramids?
How do you know that was slavery?
The Egyptians have form for using slaves.
But did they let illegal immigrants join their slavery system? This is the burning question for me.
Am I right in understanding that the Modern Sxlavery legislation is not applicable for illegals? Therfore perfectly legal to enslave them? Indeed as they are not allowed paid work it must be compulsory to do so?
Watching this STV SNP leadership debate, it's a total kneejerk reaction from the first 5 minutes but there's something about the way Kate Forbes' mouth and lips move when she speaks that seems a bit...odd, like there's no connection between what she's thinking and what she's saying.
On the subject of Charles and William, my understanding is that William is going to come out as non-binary, will henceforth be known as "they", is changing their name to Will.We.Are and will be neither King nor Queen, but Monarch.
On the subject of Charles and William, my understanding is that William is going to come out as non-binary, will henceforth be known as "they", is changing their name to Will.We.Are and will be neither King nor Queen, but Monarch.
So.
Monarch Will.We.Are I here we come.
He should have gone all the way and been queen william and king kate
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
I was really rather astonished by the media manufacturing of King Charles, after the death of the Queen. It was utterly absurd. Even the guardian went along with it.
I don’t think they have the influence they need to entrench the monarchy.
Gone within a generation, imo.
Can't see it myself. It's not worth the political capital or aggravation spending time and effort on what exactly we replace it with. Obviously there's any number of options that could be used, but path of least resistance is to just keep going with the status quo so long as Charles and the follow ups avoid glaringly bad cock ups. Minor ones are salvageable.
I think Harry is the biggest risk to the institution - I'm astonished he's not already called for abolition of the monarchy, its where his views would seem to logically go, and decades of him on the sidelines saying something like that is powerful, even though he is not currently very well liked.
Harry would have to formally abdicate his place in the succession and give up his Royal titles to do that credibly, but the evidence seems to be that he's quite attached to the privilege, he's just a bit sore about being the second child, and now surplus to requirements.
If he did actually hand back the titles and all the rest then he could make a powerful argument against the institution. He could appeal to his brother to do the same, for his own good and the good of his children. The argument that having a Royal family is cruel to the poor sods born into it is one with some merit, and it rather disarms the normal accusations of jealousy, etc.
If the two of them did abdicate, and so Andrew suddenly became next in line, it would call the whole institution into question. And then would Beatrice or Eugenie really want to take it on, and submit their children to the same relentless scrutiny?
Watching this STV SNP leadership debate, it's a total kneejerk reaction from the first 5 minutes but there's something about the way Kate Forbes' mouth and lips move when she speaks that seems a bit...odd, like there's no connection between what she's thinking and what she's saying.
Sounds like she is one of the thunderbirds
Seems to have calmed it down quite a bit after her opening statement at least, so maybe it was just nerves, but it's still slightly odd.
On the subject of Charles and William, my understanding is that William is going to come out as non-binary, will henceforth be known as "they", is changing their name to Will.We.Are and will be neither King nor Queen, but Monarch.
So.
Monarch Will.We.Are I here we come.
He should have gone all the way and been queen william and king kate
I've seen the photos of Catherine, so know that there's no way she'll be "King".
Calm down lads, you’ve made your point. Don’t give Putin an excuse.
When did Putin need an excuse?
He needs the government to invite him in, as Lukashenko did in Belarus. Don’t think this lot will, they are more neutral / borderline lukewarm to Russia than massive fans. But the foreign agent law is very Putinesque and with the president in the US on a visit now saying she will veto it, things could get interesting.
I really don’t want them to get interesting. I have a nice 2 week family holiday planned in early August taking in the capital, the West, 2 different bits of the Caucasus and Kakheti.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
He damaged Epstein's reputation, surely?
I'm still stunned at the earlier poll which said his approval rating was -53.
Who are the roughly one-quarter of respondents who like the sleazy bastard?
Watching this STV SNP leadership debate, it's a total kneejerk reaction from the first 5 minutes but there's something about the way Kate Forbes' mouth and lips move when she speaks that seems a bit...odd, like there's no connection between what she's thinking and what she's saying.
Sounds like she is one of the thunderbirds
Seems to have calmed it down quite a bit after her opening statement at least, so maybe it was just nerves, but it's still slightly odd.
Being outside scotland I suspect like most non scots the next leader of the snp is a matter of disinterest and down to them. Can't vote for them anyway so...
On the subject of Charles and William, my understanding is that William is going to come out as non-binary, will henceforth be known as "they", is changing their name to Will.We.Are and will be neither King nor Queen, but Monarch.
So.
Monarch Will.We.Are I here we come.
Is there are What3Words reference there somewhere?
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
He damaged Epstein's reputation, surely?
Epstein was innocent shocker?
Unless you believe we are all born sinners.
Nah, that's just a scam to guilt people even if they have led an exemplary life.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
He damaged Epstein's reputation, surely?
Epstein was innocent shocker?
Unless you believe we are all born sinners.
Nah, that's just a scam to guilt people even if they have led an exemplary life.
I am not a sinner certainly, my faith doesn't believe in sin
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
The country needs to get over the Camilla thing, in my opinion.
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
The only person I know still annoyed about Charles having an affair with Camilla is TSE. Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is. To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
Andrew damaged other erstwhile innocent parties, which is way worse than anything Harry did.
Allegedly, surely, unless you know different?
He damaged Epstein's reputation, surely?
Epstein was innocent shocker?
Unless you believe we are all born sinners.
Nah, that's just a scam to guilt people even if they have led an exemplary life.
I am not a sinner certainly, my faith doesn't believe in sin
Army chaplain: 'Private, what must we do before we can be forgiven our sins?'
Hopefully this is the start of the end to the railway strikes
It does feel like the beginning of the end of the large scale industrial action.
The rail strikes don’t really seem to have had the impact expected ahead of them either.
If anything, longer it’s gone on, the more it kicks into next year, the higher Union demands should be for both years, not lower, otherwise a sign that they are losing. Firefighters settled short of par - 7% not remotely replacing what they have lost in recent years. And signing in advance 5% for April 23 to April 24 without knowing how much more of gain or a cut that might actually be.
I would also like to know, as unions made such a play it’s not all about pay, it’s about conditions, working practices and investment, especially the rail unions, so when there is a settlement just what did they settle on regarding conditions, contracts working practices and investment. Or was it really all about pay?
Has there been enough media coverage of the actual details in the offers and settlements?
No sign of talks for the junior doctors strikes next week. Incidentally the Consultants consultative ballot was heavily for striking too, if no progress on our negotiations.
1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.
2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.
3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.
Clearly designed to be illegal and pass on the blame to the courts.
Yes, the whole purpose is performative cruelty so as to create outrage at "Leftie North London Lawyers". It is designed to fail.
I'm actually struggling to get wound up by it all because it is so transparently performative and designed only to create dividing lines that most people will just dismiss it.
Less than two years to go as well.
It seems that the government plan at the next election will be to promise to leave the ECHR and to ask voters to trust Suella Braverman with their human rights!
As I have been saying the last couple of days leaving the ECHR is the logical conclusion if we want to deny refugee status to those who have travelled through safe countries. I probably wouldn't be in favour (depends on what replaces it), but it could be a legitimate part of an attempt to solve the problem.
Whereas making these endless new illegal laws is just cynical theatre at the expense of refugees, our courts and our voters.
It is not the ECHR we would need to leave for this to work. It is the 1951 Convention on Refugees that we helped write. This bill, as set out today is incompatible with several parts of that. It is very probably incompatible with the 1948 UN Convention on Human Rights, Article 14 of which specifically provides for the right of a refugee to seek asylum in another country.
Of course the UN is a lot less an attractive target than the ECHR and a lot more embarrassing. Could we really hold onto our Security Council seat if we withdraw from them?
As I have said before the current rights of refugees to seek asylum are simply not sustainable and eventually we will have to address this. But I don't think being at the front of the queue for this is a great plan. Or even a vote winner.
Pretty cool carnyx The sound that once sent a shiver down the Roman legionary's spine! The bellow of a reconstructed carnyx - a war trumpet used by Iron Age Celts, Gauls, and Germans to incite troops to battle and instil terror in the enemy
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
We also have record levels of inward net migration.
Which no one bats an eyelid at.
Mind you I’ve learnt that not building houses is racist today. Every days a school day.
You have raised this a couple of times now Taz, and it’s an interesting point. The Tories are conflating two separate things into one - uncontrolled immigration via channel boats, where at least least some of the people may be genuine asylum seekers not given many other options to claim asylum here by UK government other than that dangerous crossing, conflated with immigration and feelings and issues with that par se.
For example, let’s looks at some of these Express and Mail front pages - uncontrolled immigration is one key issue which can place clear sharp difference between government and Keir Starmer.
Hence the hammering of the asylum laws and obligations to be tough on “uncontrolled immigration” Immigration under this government meanwhile
Net migration for the UK in the year ending June 2022 This was estimated to be at 504,000, an increase of 331,000 compared with the YE June 2021 (173,000). This was driven by net migration of non-EU nationals, at 509,000 in the YE June 2022, an increase of 352,000 compared with YE June 2021.
Apart from you pointing this out, I don’t think anyone else here or in media is pointing up this conflating difference.
Hopefully this is the start of the end to the railway strikes
It does feel like the beginning of the end of the large scale industrial action.
The rail strikes don’t really seem to have had the impact expected ahead of them either.
If anything, longer it’s gone on, the more it kicks into next year, the higher Union demands should be for both years, not lower, otherwise a sign that they are losing. Firefighters settled short of par - 7% not remotely replacing what they have lost in recent years. And signing in advance 5% for April 23 to April 24 without knowing how much more of gain or a cut that might actually be.
I would also like to know, as unions made such a play it’s not all about pay, it’s about conditions, working practices and investment, especially the rail unions, so when there is a settlement just what did they settle on regarding conditions, contracts working practices and investment. Or was it really all about pay?
Has there been enough media coverage of the actual details in the offers and settlements?
No sign of talks for the junior doctors strikes next week. Incidentally the Consultants consultative ballot was heavily for striking too, if no progress on our negotiations.
May backfire many will think hey that means I wont get treated by a junior doctor so will get a senior one
On the subject of Charles and William, my understanding is that William is going to come out as non-binary, will henceforth be known as "they", is changing their name to Will.We.Are and will be neither King nor Queen, but Monarch.
So.
Monarch Will.We.Are I here we come.
He should have gone all the way and been queen william and king kate
I've seen the photos of Catherine, so know that there's no way she'll be "King".
Get with the modern world! It's only a matter of self ID to become king.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
We also have record levels of inward net migration.
Which no one bats an eyelid at.
Mind you I’ve learnt that not building houses is racist today. Every days a school day.
You have raised this a couple of times now Taz, and it’s an interesting point. The Tories are conflating two separate things into one - uncontrolled immigration via channel boats, where at least least some of the people may be genuine asylum seekers not given many other options to claim asylum here by UK government other than that dangerous crossing, conflated with immigration and feelings and issues with that par se.
For example, let’s looks at some of these Express and Mail front pages - uncontrolled immigration is one key issue which can place clear sharp difference between government and Keir Starmer.
Hence the hammering of the asylum laws and obligations to be tough on “uncontrolled immigration” Immigration under this government meanwhile
Net migration for the UK in the year ending June 2022 This was estimated to be at 504,000, an increase of 331,000 compared with the YE June 2021 (173,000). This was driven by net migration of non-EU nationals, at 509,000 in the YE June 2022, an increase of 352,000 compared with YE June 2021.
Apart from you pointing this out, I don’t think anyone else here or in media is pointing up this conflating difference.
So step 1 has worked.
We won't know the actual impact of this policy until we've seen some opinion polling, of course.
One paragraph in and the journalist is already lying. People are not fleeing persecution when they are coming from France.
According to reputable aid agencies the conditions are intolerable for refugees in France.
Probably the locals are huntings them for cannibal feasts or something.
One thing that is rarely touched on, how do people afford to pay £1000s to the people smugglers. The reality is most work illegally in France for many months to raise the money. But that's a bit inconvenient if your position is France is not a safe country to claim asylum in.
All the money they can scrape together back home is one answer.
Another is debt slavery to the criminal gangs involved. Which is then being used as a reason to claim persecution.....
I can't find the link, but research was done and it was found the most common was to arrive in Italy and France, work illegally, particularly in agricultural sector, then often after 6+ months make their way to Northern France.
The prevalence of the debt slavery claim is a more recent one, that seems to be tied to particularly Albanian claims for asylum, because Albanians won't be granted asylum without extra circumstances around their situation.
I've no knowledge of the details, but surely the answer to the question how do people afford to pay £1000s to organised criminals is that organised criminals lend them the money and then they work - whether it's on the black but waged, as slaves hidden from sight, or somewhere on the spectrum in between - for organised criminals. If they haven't got the money but they still manage to pay it, they've got to borrow it from somewhere. What am I missing here?
I'd much rather the government promise to stamp out slavery (a bit overdue) than say it's going to stop the boats.
Comments
You see how this works?
May seem a small thing but lots of little pointers of how the wind is blowing.
A few loud protestors can basically ruin a royal event. Police tried to remove protestors in the summer but seem to have now accepted they can't do that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11820127/Kylie-Minogue-REFUSES-offer-star-King-Charles-Coronation-concert.html
Neither ECHR legislates on anything of course. The Court passes judgements, which is what your link refers to.
Noone booed the queen because she was the queen, ffs. She had earned respect even if the institution of the monarchy had not.
In all the various tiktoks/insta stories that come up, he seems quite comfortable hugging people and shaking hands, and is naturally self-deprecating. Wouldn't write him off.
It seems to be acceptable to put words in peoples mouths now. Just following your lead.
We're going to have Peter Andre performing.
That'll stop 'em.
He was obviously a bloody awful husband, but I was young when Diana died and I just do not get the visceral hatred some people have for him or Camilla (and it does rise to that level for some).
Of course, being happy to flog honours (sure, he didn't know about it, sure) and get his mitts on cash in briefcases is not a good look.
In my experience the women get the most abuse (from fellow women) because women should know better.
Has anything ever rivalled the pyramids?
There is no great swell of republican sentiment. And there is no clear consensus on an alternative.
They've already lost the support of the woke. The current wokeism will see them lose the support they have of the unwoke.
All I'm saying is 10,000 years of human civilization cannot be wrong. And what is progressive conservatism if not modernising the old ideas to keep them fresh?
Andrew is only being moved into Frogmore because he is being downgraded from where he currently is.
To be honest, my opinion of Harry is somewhat lower than my opinion of Andrew. Both have behaved stupidly and selfishly. But only Harry had the direct intention of damaging hus family. Andrew did so only as an unintentional byproduct of his actions.
But I’m sticking to my guns, Tonight's R&W Red Wall poll is actually surprisingly better for the Conservatives for once, so your pro Labour ramping of it is a bit of an odd take.
If we want to be really deep on this, I think it’s looking like red wall voters may be a different kettle of fish from normal election swingers. This parliament terms local council elections, and to extent by-elections, has given Labour mixed results on winning them back, particularly midlands branch of red wall, less so Wales branch of red wall. As a betting tip, Labour might put on 100 seats at next election, but find a few of these Red Wall areas not coming back in the end. And it might be Red Wall hold outs deny them the majority. That’s what I take from tonight’s poll, which is obviously very different than yours.
https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-pays-financial-settlement-to-accuser-virginia-giuffre-court-documents-show-12560767
I've consistently written thread headers saying I don't think Labour will win a majority at the next election.
https://twitter.com/faytuks/status/1633204738089992192?s=46&t=t1IEY_5UZfb65mquusi2ZQ
Calm down lads, you’ve made your point. Don’t give Putin an excuse.
I would also like to know, as unions made such a play it’s not all about pay, it’s about conditions, working practices and investment, especially the rail unions, so when there is a settlement just what did they settle on regarding conditions, contracts working practices and investment. Or was it really all about pay?
Has there been enough media coverage of the actual details in the offers and settlements?
If he did actually hand back the titles and all the rest then he could make a powerful argument against the institution. He could appeal to his brother to do the same, for his own good and the good of his children. The argument that having a Royal family is cruel to the poor sods born into it is one with some merit, and it rather disarms the normal accusations of jealousy, etc.
If the two of them did abdicate, and so Andrew suddenly became next in line, it would call the whole institution into question. And then would Beatrice or Eugenie really want to take it on, and submit their children to the same relentless scrutiny?
Who are the roughly one-quarter of respondents who like the sleazy bastard?
It's the official Scotch Nationalist First Secretary Election Stooshie.
Forbes (glances at Yousaf) does not accept mediocrity
Regan MORAL MANDATE
So.
Monarch Will.We.Are I here we come.
Yousaf goes for shock announcement that future SNP election campaigns will feature the idea of independence.
I really don’t want them to get interesting. I have a nice 2 week family holiday planned in early August taking in the capital, the West, 2 different bits of the Caucasus and Kakheti.
Private: 'Commit some, sir.'
Of course the UN is a lot less an attractive target than the ECHR and a lot more embarrassing. Could we really hold onto our Security Council seat if we withdraw from them?
As I have said before the current rights of refugees to seek asylum are simply not sustainable and eventually we will have to address this. But I don't think being at the front of the queue for this is a great plan. Or even a vote winner.
The sound that once sent a shiver down the Roman legionary's spine! The bellow of a reconstructed carnyx - a war trumpet used by Iron Age Celts, Gauls, and Germans to incite troops to battle and instil terror in the enemy
https://twitter.com/OptimoPrincipi/status/1633118805198077953
For example, let’s looks at some of these Express and Mail front pages - uncontrolled immigration is one key issue which can place clear sharp difference between government and Keir Starmer.
Hence the hammering of the asylum laws and obligations to be tough on “uncontrolled immigration” Immigration under this government meanwhile
Net migration for the UK in the year ending June 2022
This was estimated to be at 504,000, an increase of 331,000 compared with the YE June 2021 (173,000). This was driven by net migration of non-EU nationals, at 509,000 in the YE June 2022, an increase of 352,000 compared with YE June 2021.
Apart from you pointing this out, I don’t think anyone else here or in media is pointing up this conflating difference.
We won't know the actual impact of this policy until we've seen some opinion polling, of course.
I'd much rather the government promise to stamp out slavery (a bit overdue) than say it's going to stop the boats.