This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Hence also the appeal of authoritarians, who can pretend they can avoid problems by setting aside democratic checks.
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
I can be very bothered about a few thousand in betting wins - because it's that type of behaviour that explains everything else.
They'll prosecute the bets but not the PPE, they've spent £ms in legal fees in attempts to conceal entails of PPE contract awards. You should be even more bothered about the PPE.
I'm sorry, this has to be a parody account. It cannot be genuine.
That is exactly what I thought when I saw it and rooted around a bit before I posted to check that it is a Genuine Tory Video.
5.6 million views so far.
(The video is of someone raking a beach and laying a red carpet down to the sea with the words "Welcome" written in the sand with a subtitle saying "Labours approach to Illegal immigration"
Rather amusing that pompous centrist Tories are voting Tory instead of Libdem to keep Reform out when their own party is putting out stuff like this).
Eh?
The pompous centrist Tories buggered off to Lib and Lab ages ago, in part because of stuff like this.
Bear in mind that to the few Tories who are still with them, Sunak is not a centre-right Brexiteer but a lefty big state remainer.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
If it's unexpected, what can the politicians do?
1) The politicians make a law saying “make us good” 2) The Supreme Court rules that the law says “make us good” and it must be obeyed. 3) The politicians say WTAF?
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
Why? I've never understood this "scandal".
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
This is legally and historically simply wrong. Please don't comment on matters that you know nothing about. The SC exercises the powers of the former Judicial Committee of the (appointed) House of Lords who made hundreds of similar decisions.. This has always happened. Administrative law has always existed. People like you were fulminating against the (appointed) Court of Appeal after Wednesbury.
The SC is part of our constitution because the Blair Government put it there to replace the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords - whose final members were the first justices of the SC. Disagree with the decision all you like but if you think the executive should be above the law, as you imply, you are advocating reversing over 400 years of English and British history.
I'm sorry, this has to be a parody account. It cannot be genuine.
That is exactly what I thought when I saw it and rooted around a bit before I posted to check that it is a Genuine Tory Video.
5.6 million views so far.
(The video is of someone raking a beach and laying a red carpet down to the sea with the words "Welcome" written in the sand with a subtitle saying "Labours approach to Illegal immigration"
Rather amusing that pompous centrist Tories are voting Tory instead of Libdem to keep Reform out when their own party is putting out stuff like this).
Eh?
The pompous centrist Tories buggered off to Lib and Lab ages ago, in part because of stuff like this.
Bear in mind that to the few Tories who are still with them, Sunak is not a centre-right Brexiteer but a lefty big state remainer.
Good point, though it mainly highlights how far decoupled from reality the British right is.
So if you’re on a gap year abroad there are no exemptions for National Service, you’re expected to travel back and do those weekends , if you’re working you lose pay . And military places are capped at 30,000 so if more wanted to do that they won’t be able to .
The NS policy is a pathetic attempt to appeal to those that never did it but think the youth of today aren’t up to much.
London hospitals hackers publish stolen blood test data
Overnight on Thursday they shared almost 400GB of the private information on their darknet site and Telegram channel. The data includes patient names, dates of birth, NHS numbers and descriptions of blood tests. It is not known if test results are also in the data. There are also business account spreadsheets detailing financial arrangements between hospitals and GP services and Synnovis.
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
Why? I've never understood this "scandal".
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
You also didn't spot how much impact Sunak leaving the D-Day ceremony early would have. Maybe you need your re-tune your antennae?
London hospitals hackers publish stolen blood test data
Overnight on Thursday they shared almost 400GB of the private information on their darknet site and Telegram channel. The data includes patient names, dates of birth, NHS numbers and descriptions of blood tests. It is not known if test results are also in the data. There are also business account spreadsheets detailing financial arrangements between hospitals and GP services and Synnovis.
Security costs - especially to get people who know what they're doing. Institutional culture also matters - people need to follow processes and not e @sshats with data.
But there are always zero-day attacks, and sometimes hackers can get lucky.
It is believed this attack came from Russia. For those fearing a war with Russia: we are already at war with Russia...
People are the weakest link in data security.
They are, which is why IT security needs to do more to help them. On my current project I have about two dozen passwords, some of which have to be changed every 90 days or so, and I had to request the installation of a password manager to my laptop. What do they think people are going to do when faced with the need for two dozen passwords?
Did the Supreme Court account for the extra CO2 emitted because of the extra oil that will have to be imported if they stopped this development?
It’s a procedural issue, surely. If the county was supposed to have considered it, they should have considered it. The Supreme Court is not ruling on the merits of the application, but how it was assessed.
Yep. Those claiming this will stop drilling, particularly on the UKCS are simply wrong. The judgement says the licencing authority has to take the additional pollution into account. It doesn't say that it is an overriding consideration and as long as the planning/licensing authority can say they have considered this then it doesn't act as a barrier to drilling.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
To be fair, I agree with you.
The consequences are down to virtue-signalling politicians passing a legally binding Net Zero law that the courts are then forced to take into account when making all their judgements.
Politicians need to learn that legislation has real-world legal consequences and isn't just about generating a cool headline or Twitter meme.
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
Why? I've never understood this "scandal".
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
I wonder if there might have been any possible third way that didn't involve bunging hundreds of millions to donors of the Tory party for doing very little and failing to deliver even that?
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
This is a stupid take. The Supreme Court is established by statute law - which is as far as the British constitution goes - and in the judgement it was upholding statute law - it wasn't making anything up.
It didn't create any law, and there's an easy remedy (repeal or amend the relevant Acts it referred to in its judgement).
Why the hyperbole about legitimacy? Why undermine the judiciary in such a way?
Did the Supreme Court account for the extra CO2 emitted because of the extra oil that will have to be imported if they stopped this development?
Imported oil doesn’t necessarily mean more CO2 is emitted. Most of our oil imports are from Norway, which means their transport to the UK is very efficient.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
This is a stupid take. The Supreme Court is established by statute law - which is as far as the British constitution goes - and in the judgement it was upholding statute law - it wasn't making anything up.
It didn't create any law, and there's an easy remedy (repeal or amend the relevant Acts it referred to in its judgement).
Why the hyperbole about legitimacy? Why undermine the judiciary in such a way?
Your response is fascistic and stupid.
Oil lobby wankers persuading right-wingers that the law isn't the law and the job of the courts is to ignore laws the Speccie doesn't like. Just all kinds of stupid.
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
Why? I've never understood this "scandal".
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
You also didn't spot how much impact Sunak leaving the D-Day ceremony early would have. Maybe you need your re-tune your antennae?
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
Why? I've never understood this "scandal".
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
I wonder if there might have been any possible third way that didn't involve bunging hundreds of millions to donors of the Tory party for doing very little and failing to deliver even that?
I don't think there was a third way TBH. You can go through proper procurement process, or get stuff quick.
Remember that Labour MPs were asking why no-name companies hadn't been contracted, and trying to make a scandal out of that. How quickly they forget...
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
Mate you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. Judicial review of public authority decisions has always been part of our constitution. Blame politicians for drafting shit laws. It is politicians which set out the procedural and powers frameworks that public authorities are required to follow. Surrey CC did not clearly.
I do blame them. I blame Blair for establishing the wretched thing in the first place.
If this is simply a procedural matter, perhaps you can elaborate what the "supreme court" would have done with this emissions responsibility documentation? Just accepted it? Or measured it against some confected notion of Net Zero goals and decided not to allow the project to go ahead? If it's just procedural, why does it matter? Should all car factories be responsible for all the drives people will ever take in their cars, despite the fact that people will just import a Chinese car and carry on their merry way? Are food sellers responsible for the gas people will burn whilst grilling their bacon? It is an utter farce.
Attacking the individual is a sign of immense weakness of argument by the way.
On immigration: "How can you make a plan for the economy when you won't say how many people you want in the country "
How indeed.
I would counter that with "how can businesses invest when they know the labour market is being made inflexible by quotas?" Immigration means more jobs created. It's not obvious, I'll admit, but it's true.
Plus, how much do you actually want the government "planning" the economy? Do we want five year plans? I don't think we do. Let the market do its thing.
So no plans is your idea. That's bonkers. I'm not saying there's a right or a wrong number but just to wing it is absurd. Lab are building 1.5m houses. What if it's not enough. They are the government and it is reasonable to ask how big they want the population to be.
Uh, no. I asked a perfectly legitimate question: how much do you want the government planning the economy?
Me, I DO want the government inserting itself into house building, using the private sector and driving building forwards. I do NOT want the government setting limits on immigration. Yes there need to be RULES on immigration. But if there are vacancies that companies need filled, hiring from abroad is legitimate. Telling a company "sorry you're struggling to find someone, but you can't hire that person from Denmark because we've hit our target this year" is a recipe for buggering up the economy. Because companies in that situation will suffer from reduced inward investment and they will offshore operations to places where worker movement is more flexible.
Maybe there is some "correct" number of people there should be. I can't for the life of me think how you'd go about deciding that. What if you get your slide rule out and discover that the right number of 28,200,000? Then what?
I agree - though I would put the same emphasis on Thailand or India (for example) as on Denmark.
As I said the other day, if people have a means of support (job or independent wealth) and do not pose a criminal or security threat to the country then it should not be the Government's business to prevent them coming to the UK.
Denmark was on my mind because I've got family there and because they were just playing in the football. You're absolutely right. Rules-based not target-based immigration policy. Farage's plans to set a limit is stupid. The fact that net limit is 0 is one of the most economically unsound things I've ever heard. And I lived through a Truss premiership and TWO Corbyn elections.
His argument is not stupid. The article says that 75% of small drones are already being lost over the battlefield, with immature EW systems to counter them. EW systems will improve.
There is a battle going on between small drones - particularly PFV ones - and counter systems. It is not 'stupid' to suggest that the counter systems may win. Though personally I think, as often occurs, weapon and counter-weapon will evolve.
But here's the thing: these drones are effective because they are cheap. The more robust you make them against EW or other weapons, the more expensive and larger they become. And their advantage comes from being able to be fielded in large quantities.
His argument is stupid.
First, drones are cheap and exisndabke. In the case of FPV attack drones, deliberately so. Even with a 90% attrition rates they'd be more cost effective e than any other battlefield weapon.
Second, the rare of development is far faster than that of systems to counter them. In an evolutionary arms rave, they have an advantage.
(Snip)
I disagree, and you ignore my points. Yes, they are cheap and (whatever that word is). But making them more robust increases the cost, and hence the number you can field, and the accuracy problem is a massive one. PFV drones have found a niche that may rapidly close.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
Why? I've never understood this "scandal".
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
You also didn't spot how much impact Sunak leaving the D-Day ceremony early would have. Maybe you need your re-tune your antennae?
It's interesting though that the bets has appeared to cut through much more than the PPE contracts. Was discussing this with my wife yesterday, trying to understand why.
Maybe it's because the bets were relatively small and human scale that they felt more real? I think there's some interesting psychology in trying to understand the difference.
If I had to put a finger in the air I would put turnout at about 66%. I think some Tories will sit on their hands, but others will be motivated to vote - for Reform. But among the centre and left I detect enthusiasm for giving the Tories a good kicking. That will boost turnout with the young.
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
Why? I've never understood this "scandal".
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
If the PPE was non compliant whose fault was that ?
The selling company selling goods not fit for purpose or the buying company who inadequately specified the product.
Surely if goods were supplied away from the specification they should have been rejected and not paid for ?
Also if there are to be "prosecutions" what would the prosecutions be for ? Who would be charged and for what ? There is alot of talk out there about the PPE scandal but very little specifics.
If PPE was not to the specification required there is no reason why it could not be condition assessed and used under concession either.
I'm sorry, this has to be a parody account. It cannot be genuine.
Why not? The Tories want to go hard on immigration, say that Labour will not, and tell Reform voters (who they believe to be most exercised by immigration) that they share their concerns and set out the risk if they let in a Labour government.
A video of a red carpet being rolled out on the beach if peopel vote Labour fits that message.
Genius!
I have however noted a flaw in your wizard wheeze. The Conservatives have been in office during a period of eye-watering immigration, if that sort of concern floats your boat.
Just a minor technicality, I guess.
It's not my wheeze, I was just pointing pit the video need not be a parody because it pushes the message the Tories want.
It's not persuasive, but that's a different matter.
It is very important we keep support in the Saudis. Without their support for preachers of racist fascism, how are we going to keep training the next generation of the spontaneous self combusting community?
We could switch to an NVQ in Terrorism, but surely getting foreigners to fund it for free, as retraining in the prisons, is a win?
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
Why? I've never understood this "scandal".
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
You also didn't spot how much impact Sunak leaving the D-Day ceremony early would have. Maybe you need your re-tune your antennae?
It's interesting though that the bets has appeared to cut through much more than the PPE contracts. Was discussing this with my wife yesterday, trying to understand why.
Maybe it's because the bets were relatively small and human scale that they felt more real? I think there's some interesting psychology in trying to understand the difference.
PPE was a while ago; this is now. PPE was money-grabbing by Tory hangers-on, like Mone, whereas this is by people at the heart of the election including the Campaign Director and at least two potential MPs. And perhaps some are prepared to cut some slack for events during the pandemic, given the widespread panic that was evident particularly during the first few months? The PPE suppliers were at least providing some sort of service, if at inflated cost and in some cases not proving to be of any worth; the Tory betters are simply using their privileged insider positions for their own financial benefit.
His argument is not stupid. The article says that 75% of small drones are already being lost over the battlefield, with immature EW systems to counter them. EW systems will improve.
There is a battle going on between small drones - particularly PFV ones - and counter systems. It is not 'stupid' to suggest that the counter systems may win. Though personally I think, as often occurs, weapon and counter-weapon will evolve.
But here's the thing: these drones are effective because they are cheap. The more robust you make them against EW or other weapons, the more expensive and larger they become. And their advantage comes from being able to be fielded in large quantities.
His argument is stupid.
First, drones are cheap and exisndabke. In the case of FPV attack drones, deliberately so. Even with a 90% attrition rates they'd be more cost effective e than any other battlefield weapon.
Second, the rare of development is far faster than that of systems to counter them. In an evolutionary arms rave, they have an advantage.
(Snip)
I disagree, and you ignore my points. Yes, they are cheap and (whatever that word is). But making them more robust increases the cost, and hence the number you can field, and the accuracy problem is a massive one. PFV drones have found a niche that may rapidly close.
There’s already mini point defence systems, based around an auto shotgun or two that claim 99% rates versus the cheap and cheerful drones.
Which brings you rapidly back to semi-stealthy, larger platform, firing weapons at a target from standoff distance. Yours for a few million.
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
Why? I've never understood this "scandal".
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
So why didn't NHS procurement buy directly from suppliers on AliExpress rather than use carefully selected (by the Government) middle men who made 500% margins buying from suppliers on AliExpress?
Some of those fast tracked suppliers were paid up front. So, and it went something like this, the Government/NHS pays half a million pounds with the order to an authorised NHS supplier in the UK. The NHS supplier orders £200k of PPE from China, they pay £200k to the Chinese supplier. Six weeks later the shipment is delivered direct to NHS stores from China and the UK NHS supplier invoices NHS for his/ her balance of £500,000.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
Oh, this nonsense reminds me that I never got around to telling you to fuck off for calling for people to be drowned.
So, er, fuck off.
There, glad I got that off my chest.
Charming. Especially, given that I did no such thing.
I got that wrong, and I apologise.
Your conspiracy theory is still nonsense.
Thanks.
In the cold light of day I could have worded it better but appreciate your comment.
Yes it probably is nonsense but amusing nonetheless to think of the security services trying to be James Bond and ending up being Basildon Bond.
You really need to be careful about going down this conspiracy theory route. We in Scotland have had a couple of years head start after the 2014 referendum when idiotic tales were going round that you should use a pen instead of a pencil because the "security services" will erase your Yes vote and replace it with a No vote. This is the stock in trade of those who want to undermine out democracy by undermining our faith in democracy. For example, Russia. They put these stories about to harm us. The same story about pens went about in 2016 at the EU referendum, and a few of us up here were "aye, right, we've seen this one before". Since then all kinds of crap has been said and amplified. They spread because they're interesting, but before forwarding them you should ask whether you have any evidence and whether spreading a false rumour of this nature can be harmful. If the answers are "no" and "yes", please exercise restraint and keep it to yourself. We, and our democracy, have enemies. Don't do their work for them.
There's nothing more logically vacuous than dismissing a theory as a conspiracy theory. The implication is that it is unthinkable and historically unknown for a lot of people to do a bad thing and conspire to cover it up. As in Hur Hur, are you really claiming that a bunch of highly respected establishment figures including numerous distinguished lawyers and headed by a vicar, conspired to put literally hundreds of innocent people in jail? Hur Hur.
The triumph of the conspiracy theory theory was in the second world war, when reports of the shoah were largely discounted because Hur Hur we had this last time round with Belgian atrocities, you always get this exaggerated nonsense in time of war. Ignore.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is how stupid supports evil. If you think a thesis is wrong attack it with evidence, not with a useless heuristic about "conspiracy theories."
Listen up, stupid fuck. The starting point is that extraordinary claims require evidence. You think there are conspiracies to steal elections in this country? Put up some evidence. Asking people to come up with evidence that something DIDN'T happen is -- and you should stop for a moment here to think about how obvious this is -- witless.
Now, given that I also made a claim, that Russia attempts to interfere with Western politics through disinformation and that we all need to be on guard for this, it's only fair I direct you to some evidence for that.
These a metric fucktonne of this stuff if you want to gorge yourself silly.
Now, go back and think about the claims that started this... MI5 or whoever fiddled some vote here. Where's the evidence? Oh, you don't have any? THAT is why it's a conspiracy theory. Moron.
Lab Leak was dismissed - by all of "the science", including the Lancet, in a now provably fraudulent letter - as "a racist conspiracy theory". As such we were literally banned from talking about it for a year, even as a concept, on Twitter and Facebook - largely at the behest of the Biden administration, to an extent where it actually troubled Nick Clegg
Now it turns out Lab Leak is almost certainly true
I'm sorry, this has to be a parody account. It cannot be genuine.
That is exactly what I thought when I saw it and rooted around a bit before I posted to check that it is a Genuine Tory Video.
5.6 million views so far.
(The video is of someone raking a beach and laying a red carpet down to the sea with the words "Welcome" written in the sand with a subtitle saying "Labours approach to Illegal immigration"
Rather amusing that pompous centrist Tories are voting Tory instead of Libdem to keep Reform out when their own party is putting out stuff like this).
Eh?
The pompous centrist Tories buggered off to Lib and Lab ages ago, in part because of stuff like this.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
It is what happens when you pass laws with vague lofty clauses granting opaque, ill defined, rights, like the Human Rights Act, Climate Change Act and Equalities Act.
It gives m'luds free rein to make it up as they go along.
The solution is to repeal said laws, and where necessary replace them with something more defibitively written.
Meanwhile this is absolute catnip for Farage. This is precisely the sort of thing they were elected to do in 2019 and manifestly failed to.
I can't really be bothered about what at most is a few thousand in betting wins. However suspending procurement processes then awarding £bns in contracts to associates for non-compliant PPE in a national crisis, I'd like to see the culprits in prison and their assets seized as proceeds of crime.
Why? I've never understood this "scandal".
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
I think the scandal might be the mindless deskilling of society.
Hospital basements used to have a few handy chaps knocking out bits and bobs in a workshop. They had the skills to make ppe on demand and they had all been sacked in the name of efficient procurement.
Comments
2) The Supreme Court rules that the law says “make us good” and it must be obeyed.
3) The politicians say WTAF?
Who are the idiots in this?
We were potentially in an apocalyptic position and we needed kit, vaccines and supplies - fast - even at the cost of inefficiency and inflated prices. The alternative was mass death (we didnt know just how lethal it could be at the time) and catastrophic economic damage.
Sure, some people took the piss and made a quick buck, but next to the absurdity of a months long tender and procurement process in a national crisis that was very much the lesser of two evils.
The SC is part of our constitution because the Blair Government put it there to replace the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords - whose final members were the first justices of the SC. Disagree with the decision all you like but if you think the executive should be above the law, as you imply, you are advocating reversing over 400 years of English and British history.
The NS policy is a pathetic attempt to appeal to those that never did it but think the youth of today aren’t up to much.
The consequences are down to virtue-signalling politicians passing a legally binding Net Zero law that the courts are then forced to take into account when making all their judgements.
Politicians need to learn that legislation has real-world legal consequences and isn't just about generating a cool headline or Twitter meme.
NEW THREAD
It didn't create any law, and there's an easy remedy (repeal or amend the relevant Acts it referred to in its judgement).
Why the hyperbole about legitimacy? Why undermine the judiciary in such a way?
Your response is fascistic and stupid.
Remember that Labour MPs were asking why no-name companies hadn't been contracted, and trying to make a scandal out of that. How quickly they forget...
If this is simply a procedural matter, perhaps you can elaborate what the "supreme court" would have done with this emissions responsibility documentation? Just accepted it? Or measured it against some confected notion of Net Zero goals and decided not to allow the project to go ahead? If it's just procedural, why does it matter? Should all car factories be responsible for all the drives people will ever take in their cars, despite the fact that people will just import a Chinese car and carry on their merry way? Are food sellers responsible for the gas people will burn whilst grilling their bacon? It is an utter farce.
Attacking the individual is a sign of immense weakness of argument by the way.
You're absolutely right. Rules-based not target-based immigration policy. Farage's plans to set a limit is stupid. The fact that net limit is 0 is one of the most economically unsound things I've ever heard. And I lived through a Truss premiership and TWO Corbyn elections.
Maybe it's because the bets were relatively small and human scale that they felt more real? I think there's some interesting psychology in trying to understand the difference.
Fuck off @Luckyguy1983 with your insidious business-rimming planet-wrecking bullshit
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4325273/watershed-moment-battle-surrey-oil-project-wins-landmark-supreme-court-victory
https://www.cpre.org.uk/news/supreme-court-decision-on-oil-drilling-is-major-win-for-the-countryside/
The selling company selling goods not fit for purpose or the buying company who inadequately specified the product.
Surely if goods were supplied away from the specification they should have been rejected and not paid for ?
Also if there are to be "prosecutions" what would the prosecutions be for ? Who would be charged and for what ? There is alot of talk out there about the PPE scandal but very little specifics.
If PPE was not to the specification required there is no reason why it could not be condition assessed and used under concession either.
It's not persuasive, but that's a different matter.
It is very important we keep support in the Saudis. Without their support for preachers of racist fascism, how are we going to keep training the next generation of the spontaneous self combusting community?
We could switch to an NVQ in Terrorism, but surely getting foreigners to fund it for free, as retraining in the prisons, is a win?
Which brings you rapidly back to semi-stealthy, larger platform, firing weapons at a target from standoff distance. Yours for a few million.
Business is a key part of that.
Still, in true Boris Johnson style, fuck business eh.
Some of those fast tracked suppliers were paid up front. So, and it went something like this, the Government/NHS pays half a million pounds with the order to an authorised NHS supplier in the UK. The NHS supplier orders £200k of PPE from China, they pay £200k to the Chinese supplier. Six weeks later the shipment is delivered direct to NHS stores from China and the UK NHS supplier invoices NHS for his/ her balance of £500,000.
It gives m'luds free rein to make it up as they go along.
The solution is to repeal said laws, and where necessary replace them with something more defibitively written.
Meanwhile this is absolute catnip for Farage. This is precisely the sort of thing they were elected to do in 2019 and manifestly failed to.
Hospital basements used to have a few handy chaps knocking out bits and bobs in a workshop. They had the skills to make ppe on demand and they had all been sacked in the name of efficient procurement.