Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
What percentage of mass murderers are female?
Hang on: surely you mean what proportion of the caught mass murderers are female?
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
Likewise, which is why it makes me so furious to see so many of my tax pounds spent on feckless Scots.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Because we have a nitwit and passive traitor in No 10.
Uncanny.
That's what I said when Johnson was PM.
Elevating Lebedev to the HoL and the Bunga Bunga party whilst FS sealed it for me.
Did that cost us £18bn?
Are you aware what Brexit is estimated to cost as calculated on the same basis as this 18b?
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
What percentage of mass murderers are female?
Very small. Thankfully the percentage of male murderers, whilst higher than female is also very small. Go and flagellate yourself again you self-loather lol.
Exclusive: Keir Starmer is for the first time facing criticism from within his cabinet over the Chagos deal
*One person says they don’t understand why the UK is sending so much money to Mauritius when the Treasury is asking departments to make brutal spending cuts at home
*Another says Starmer should cancel the deal
*They both blame the situation on legal advice from Richard Hermer, the attorney general
Glad the Cabinet seems to be developing some late onset testicles. I did suggest above that spending cuts could not be justified in the face of this deal.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
It must be a terrible thing for poor @kinabalu. He has been waiting and waiting for all these years to get a Labour government only to discover they are even more shit than the Tories. To top that he must now go and flagellate himself on a regular basis for being a) male and b)British. Poor chap. The only thing that could be possibly worse would be to be a Chartered Accountant.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
Likewise, which is why it makes me so furious to see so many of my tax pounds spent on feckless Scots.
you actually pay tax here, I thought you were an emigree tax dodger
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
you would need to improve greatly to be a quarter wit. Your barnett is fried , Taking 10 and returning is within the grasp of even a dimwit.
It must be a terrible thing for poor @kinabalu. He has been waiting and waiting for all these years to get a Labour government only to discover they are even more shit than the Tories. To top that he must now go and flagellate himself on a regular basis for being a) male and b)British. Poor chap. The only thing that could be possibly worse would be to be a Chartered Accountant.
No they are not more shit than the Tories, they haven't had enough time - yet.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
£18bn has an impact on our lives. It makes us £18bn poorer and requires tax increases or spending cuts to pay for. Giving it away is stupid, but not really enough to get worked up about, paying them £18bn to take it from us is mental to the point I'm not sure if Starmer is a Chinese plant.
Why haven't you NPV'd that figure?
The NPV of the deal is precisely £18 Bn as it is inflation linked
We must be doing it differently.
Shouldn't inflation and nominal interest rates broadly track in the long run ?
I'd say to some extent they should but your start point is key. Eg we have real positive interest rates atm.
We should cancel the Chagos deal, and quietly imply that Trump made us do it. Even if Trump denies it everyone will think "well that's the sort of thing he would do."
I'm getting increasingly angry the more I think about the Chagos treason.
Where's Chagos again? Why should I be bothered?
Because Leon said so and has masterfully hijacked the thread. At first nobody bit, but by his third post everyone was putty in his hands.
I don't know enough about the deal, although if Truss had her fingerprints on it it has the hallmark of a disaster.
It seems to have snagged Casino as well
If you really think the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds on an ongoing basis until we're all dead is a matter deserving of complete indifference, I don't quite get why you're posting on politicalbetting.com. I presume you were equally insoucient about Covid fraud.
The Yougov poll in the header shows Reform in 2nd place in Scotland - 17%. I know it's a subsample, caveats etc but it will be interesting to see how their vote settles up here. Need a Scotland only poll to see if they're ahead of Slab
Still a long way from winning a Scottish westminster seat, but there should be some very nervous Tory MSPs going into next years Holyrood vote. It looks like the drop in Slab has went to SNP, with a smaller chunk to Reform
The poll has the SNP on 34%, down 13% on the 2021 Holyrood SNP constituency vote. Labour only down 7% and the Tories only down 9%.
So since the last Holyrood election the main swing will be from SNP to Reform with a bit from SNP, SLab and SCon to the Scottish LDs who are on 13% which would be up 6% on their total in the 2021 constituency vote
You're basing your Holyrood prediction for next year on a subsample of a UK Westminster poll? Superb!
Chaps get thrown out of the Pump Room at Bath for asking for a G&T, and out of PB for offering betting intelligence based on Scottish subsamples. But applying them to a completely different voting system? That requires something worse than blackballing.
Keelhauling!
I long felt that this was a most ghastly punishment. It could be just somewhere in the novels of O'Brian, but people sometimes seemed to survive it. Wikipedia has little to offer. My favourite O'Brian punishment was nailing the culprits ears to a plank and setting them adrift. I think actually just as a threat to young midshipmen rather than an actual thing.
I thought keelhauling was intended to be survivalable? Just that the barnacles etc would rip your skin to shreds in the process? Or have I misinterpreted?
Well hard to know. Dreadful punishment anyway, so hard to find facts or discuss. Nonetheless it is of course history, so of interest. I think though it must have been survivable.
The barnacles were the worst thing, but even a wooden hull would be awful. In many seas you also have sharks.
There are probably worse punishments, but I'd not care to hear of them, and am only interested in this with regards to the microcosms of the ships of the Navy.
It must be a terrible thing for poor @kinabalu. He has been waiting and waiting for all these years to get a Labour government only to discover they are even more shit than the Tories. To top that he must now go and flagellate himself on a regular basis for being a) male and b)British. Poor chap. The only thing that could be possibly worse would be to be a Chartered Accountant.
I'm fine, Nigel, don't you worry your little head about it.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
AIUI the money is intended as compensation for evicting the Chagos Islanders from their homes. So presumably a failure to make a deal would leave us open to future legal action from the Chagos Islanders.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
AIUI the money is intended as compensation for evicting the Chagos Islanders from their homes. So presumably a failure to make a deal would leave us open to future legal action from the Chaos Islanders.
So why is the money meant to be going to Mauritius then and not Gatwick?
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
AIUI the money is intended as compensation for evicting the Chagos Islanders from their homes. So presumably a failure to make a deal would leave us open to future legal action from the Chaos Islanders.
Please don't confuse the narrative with verifiable data.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
you would need to improve greatly to be a quarter wit. Your barnett is fried , Taking 10 and returning is within the grasp of even a dimwit.
'Your barnett is fried'
Malc - what does this mean? (Barnet can mean hair, but I can't see it in this context). I presume 'is fried' is much the same as 'is toast'?
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
What percentage of mass murderers are female?
Very small. Thankfully the percentage of male murderers, whilst higher than female is also very small. Go and flagellate yourself again you self-loather lol.
No, little Nigel, not what percentage of females are mass murderers, what percentage of mass murderers are female?
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
you would need to improve greatly to be a quarter wit. Your barnett is fried , Taking 10 and returning is within the grasp of even a dimwit.
'Your barnett is fried'
Malc - what does this mean? (Barnet can mean hair, but I can't see it in this context). I presume 'is fried' is much the same as 'is toast'?
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
AIUI the money is intended as compensation for evicting the Chagos Islanders from their homes. So presumably a failure to make a deal would leave us open to future legal action from the Chaos Islanders.
So why is the money meant to be going to Mauritius then and not Gatwick?
I don't know, but I'm just trying to think a little further than "duh, stupid traitor Starmer". This is supposed to be a vaguely intellectual board.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
you would need to improve greatly to be a quarter wit. Your barnett is fried , Taking 10 and returning is within the grasp of even a dimwit.
'Your barnett is fried'
Malc - what does this mean? (Barnet can mean hair, but I can't see it in this context). I presume 'is fried' is much the same as 'is toast'?
It may be something to do with mars bars.
I'm pretty sure that even a rather bewildering gentleman such as MalcolmG isn't of the Mars Bar ilk. In fact I'd stake my reputation on it! (Stop trying to find small coins!)
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
Likewise, which is why it makes me so furious to see so many of my tax pounds spent on feckless Scots.
you actually pay tax here, I thought you were an emigree tax dodger
I’m not sure that anyone volunteering to live in California can be classed as a tax “dodger”
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
What percentage of mass murderers are female?
Very small. Thankfully the percentage of male murderers, whilst higher than female is also very small. Go and flagellate yourself again you self-loather lol.
No, little Nigel, not what percentage of females are mass murderers, what percentage of mass murderers are female?
Try again maybe?
I'll let you look it up as it interests you so much. Personally I am not flagellating myself over the issue for being male, I leave that to saddos like you. They are bad people, scum, and I am not interested in their gender.
We should cancel the Chagos deal, and quietly imply that Trump made us do it. Even if Trump denies it everyone will think "well that's the sort of thing he would do."
I think Trump is going to nix it. And what’s more I suspect he will take great pleasure in getting on his soapbox and telling everyone how idiotic the UK government are.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
What percentage of mass murderers are female?
Very small. Thankfully the percentage of male murderers, whilst higher than female is also very small. Go and flagellate yourself again you self-loather lol.
No, little Nigel, not what percentage of females are mass murderers, what percentage of mass murderers are female?
Try again maybe?
I'll let you look it up as it interests you so much. Personally I am not flagellating myself over the issue for being male, I leave that to saddos like you. They are bad people, scum, and I am not interested in their gender.
Does poor little Nigel not like being patronised then?
It must be a terrible thing for poor @kinabalu. He has been waiting and waiting for all these years to get a Labour government only to discover they are even more shit than the Tories. To top that he must now go and flagellate himself on a regular basis for being a) male and b)British. Poor chap. The only thing that could be possibly worse would be to be a Chartered Accountant.
I'm fine, Nigel, don't you worry your little head about it.
I'm sorry, did I just get under your skin a little? I am sure we will be friends again soon lol.
Hold on. The school shooting has changed to an adult education centre shooting. That's not a whole lot better for the victims but does show some details can be missed in the rush to report early.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
AIUI the money is intended as compensation for evicting the Chagos Islanders from their homes. So presumably a failure to make a deal would leave us open to future legal action from the Chaos Islanders.
So why is the money meant to be going to Mauritius then and not Gatwick?
I don't know, but I'm just trying to think a little further than "duh, stupid traitor Starmer". This is supposed to be a vaguely intellectual board.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
What percentage of mass murderers are female?
Very small. Thankfully the percentage of male murderers, whilst higher than female is also very small. Go and flagellate yourself again you self-loather lol.
No, little Nigel, not what percentage of females are mass murderers, what percentage of mass murderers are female?
Try again maybe?
I'll let you look it up as it interests you so much. Personally I am not flagellating myself over the issue for being male, I leave that to saddos like you. They are bad people, scum, and I am not interested in their gender.
Does poor little Nigel not like being patronised then?
Someone of your limited wit could try old bean, but you will fail, as you have just then. Sorry to tease, and it is so mean of me, as I know you self-righteous lefties are notoriously thin skinned. Oh, btw, did I mention, the Labour government is really shit. I mean really really shit.
Hold on. The school shooting has changed to an adult education centre shooting. That's not a whole lot better for the victims but does show some details can be missed in the rush to report early.
It is apparently on a campus with other schools - so whilst the shooting was not in them, they would have been affected and locked down whilst the shooting went on essentially next door. They might also share facilities.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
What percentage of mass murderers are female?
Very small. Thankfully the percentage of male murderers, whilst higher than female is also very small. Go and flagellate yourself again you self-loather lol.
No, little Nigel, not what percentage of females are mass murderers, what percentage of mass murderers are female?
Try again maybe?
I'll let you look it up as it interests you so much. Personally I am not flagellating myself over the issue for being male, I leave that to saddos like you. They are bad people, scum, and I am not interested in their gender.
Does poor little Nigel not like being patronised then?
Someone of your limited wit could try old bean, but you will fail, as you have just then. Sorry to tease, and it is so mean of me, as I know you self-righteous lefties are notoriously thin skinned. Oh, btw, did I mention, the Labour government is really shit. I mean really really shit.
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
It must be a terrible thing for poor @kinabalu. He has been waiting and waiting for all these years to get a Labour government only to discover they are even more shit than the Tories. To top that he must now go and flagellate himself on a regular basis for being a) male and b)British. Poor chap. The only thing that could be possibly worse would be to be a Chartered Accountant.
No they are not more shit than the Tories, they haven't had enough time - yet.
Your memory isn't very sharp is it?
My memory is pretty good thanks. I see you are also feeling a bit cross about the labour government shitness too!. I mean, I can understand it. There were many of us that felt relieved that Labour had at last found someone to lead their party that seemed half sensible and competent. But as soon as they have got into power the illusion has fallen apart. Their budget was an economic disaster and Starmer clearly couldn't lead a flock of sheep. His negotiating skills are best described as capitulatory. The man and his government are a joke. A very unfunny joke.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
AIUI the money is intended as compensation for evicting the Chagos Islanders from their homes. So presumably a failure to make a deal would leave us open to future legal action from the Chagos Islanders.
Crawley borough council could probably do with the cash.
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
What percentage of mass murderers are female?
Very small. Thankfully the percentage of male murderers, whilst higher than female is also very small. Go and flagellate yourself again you self-loather lol.
No, little Nigel, not what percentage of females are mass murderers, what percentage of mass murderers are female?
Try again maybe?
I'll let you look it up as it interests you so much. Personally I am not flagellating myself over the issue for being male, I leave that to saddos like you. They are bad people, scum, and I am not interested in their gender.
Does poor little Nigel not like being patronised then?
Someone of your limited wit could try old bean, but you will fail, as you have just then. Sorry to tease, and it is so mean of me, as I know you self-righteous lefties are notoriously thin skinned. Oh, btw, did I mention, the Labour government is really shit. I mean really really shit.
I'm mortified you think so. Truly.
I wouldn't say I am mortified, but definitely a little disappointed to note that you are as uncritical of Starmer as HYUFD was of Johnson. I thought that you were more intelligent than the type of person that believes "my party right or wrong".
The Labour government of Kier From HR is shit. He is utterly hopeless.
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
you would need to improve greatly to be a quarter wit. Your barnett is fried , Taking 10 and returning is within the grasp of even a dimwit.
'Your barnett is fried'
Malc - what does this mean? (Barnet can mean hair, but I can't see it in this context). I presume 'is fried' is much the same as 'is toast'?
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
The blindingly obvious solution to the Chagos problem is for the US to annex them while we shrug our shoulders and slink away, muttering to ourselves. Declare a 1,000-mile exclusion zone. Invite the president of Mauritius to peace talks in Guantanamo.
A good rule of thumb is "What would the Chinese do?"
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
Likewise, which is why it makes me so furious to see so many of my tax pounds spent on feckless Scots.
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
Yes, that's a massive call. Interesting to know how it's deducible - without any doubt whatsoever - from case notes.
I find it fascinating how politics and prior belief is dictating, to some, which way it goes.
To me - either is *possible*. We’ve had murderers in the NHS. We’ve had units fail so badly they were shut down.
Let justice be done.
Both are possible. But one has been tested in a court and found proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Which is not to say it’s the correct one (Horizon, anyone?) but that the onus is now on those claiming another solution to come up with compelling evidence in support of it.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
you would need to improve greatly to be a quarter wit. Your barnett is fried , Taking 10 and returning is within the grasp of even a dimwit.
'Your barnett is fried'
Malc - what does this mean? (Barnet can mean hair, but I can't see it in this context). I presume 'is fried' is much the same as 'is toast'?
barnett = napper = head = brain = fried, simple
I'm a feckless Scot (thanks for the tax money rcs!) but have never heard of 'barnett' being 'head'. Possibly because I'm feckless. 🤔.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
you would need to improve greatly to be a quarter wit. Your barnett is fried , Taking 10 and returning is within the grasp of even a dimwit.
'Your barnett is fried'
Malc - what does this mean? (Barnet can mean hair, but I can't see it in this context). I presume 'is fried' is much the same as 'is toast'?
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
I hate to agree with you William, although you may have a point. Whether she is guilty or not the management does seem like an utter shambles.
I am reminded of my mother's death in the midst of the Princess of Wales, Bridgend scandal. Two Filipino nurses went to prison whilst the managers all remained in post.
Good old SLab, the ultimate learned nothing, forgotten nothing party (or sub branch).
Scotsman Politics @scotpolitics Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis, via @alistairkgrant scotsman.com Anas Sarwar leaves door open to working with Nigel Farage's Reform on case-by-case basis The Scottish Labour leader said he would not turn his back on a good idea from any MSP 12:53 pm · 4 Feb 2025
I bet he would turn his back on a good idea from an SNP MSP.
Well, his entire party (Scottish bit) (MSPs) just abstained from the budget vote. If that isn't turning his back on at least some good ideas - some from parties other than the SNP - I don't know what is. Couldn't be arsed to ask for changes, provide good ideas etc. in the way of doiong his bit in the other direction (so to speak) [edit].
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
you would need to improve greatly to be a quarter wit. Your barnett is fried , Taking 10 and returning is within the grasp of even a dimwit.
'Your barnett is fried'
Malc - what does this mean? (Barnet can mean hair, but I can't see it in this context). I presume 'is fried' is much the same as 'is toast'?
barnett = napper = head = brain = fried, simple
I'm a feckless Scot (thanks for the tax money rcs!) but have never heard of 'barnett' being 'head'. Possibly because I'm feckless. 🤔.
He's trying to translate for the feckless furth of.
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
"The replacement of our constitutional system of government with the whims of an unelected private citizen is a coup. The U.S. president has no authority to cut programs created and funded by Congress, and a private citizen tapped by a president has even less standing to try anything so radical."
Heather Cox Richardson email.
Some people act as though the President has no more business getting involved in politics than King Charles.
Some people spew as if the US Constitution didn't exist.
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
Yes, that's a massive call. Interesting to know how it's deducible - without any doubt whatsoever - from case notes.
Sheer numbers would tell you something was amiss, and to be fair, this was noticed. The problem is, women keep getting pregnant so it is hard to take entire units out of service for extended periods unless there is spare capacity at other local hospitals.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
The blindingly obvious solution to the Chagos problem is for the US to annex them while we shrug our shoulders and slink away, muttering to ourselves. Declare a 1,000-mile exclusion zone. Invite the president of Mauritius to peace talks in Guantanamo.
A good rule of thumb is "What would the Chinese do?"
Alex Wickham @alexwickham Exclusive: Keir Starmer is for the first time facing criticism from within his cabinet over the Chagos deal
*One person says they don’t understand why the UK is sending so much money to Mauritius when the Treasury is asking departments to make brutal spending cuts at home
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
I must admit, the Chagos thing mystifies me: surely if the HMG walked away, the Mauritius government would come running, giving that the status quo is them getting nothing from the UK.
So, why aren't we shrugging our shoulders and saying "well, I guess if this doesn't work, well then there's no deal"?
AIUI the money is intended as compensation for evicting the Chagos Islanders from their homes. So presumably a failure to make a deal would leave us open to future legal action from the Chagos Islanders.
No it isn't.
As part of the deal, the UK said it would provide a package of financial support to Mauritius, including annual payments and infrastructure investment, but neither side has said how much is involved... Speaking in parliament last week about the negotiations Bérenger admitted that Mauritius needs "money to get out of the economic mess the previous government got us into, but not at any price, not under any conditions". (BBC)
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
you would need to improve greatly to be a quarter wit. Your barnett is fried , Taking 10 and returning is within the grasp of even a dimwit.
'Your barnett is fried'
Malc - what does this mean? (Barnet can mean hair, but I can't see it in this context). I presume 'is fried' is much the same as 'is toast'?
barnett = napper = head = brain = fried, simple
I'm a feckless Scot (thanks for the tax money rcs!) but have never heard of 'barnett' being 'head'. Possibly because I'm feckless. 🤔.
Malc accidentally used the wrong rhyming slang. Barnett is slang for hair (Barnett Fair), but Loaf is slang for head (Loaf Of Bread)
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
its what he believes. He believes in reparations.
So he imagines a black hole of £22B which he inherited and now he imagines he is going to give £19B of that £22B to a third party for no rational reason.
I think it is about time someone went to the High Court to have him removed from parliament. Clearly he is wanting of common reason and so is not capable of serving as an MP. There must still be the Common Law process for removing a deranged MP, wasn't it used in the 1920s ?
Then he can continue in his delusion that he isn't the worst Minister of the Crown since the Reformation unaffected by the reality that he is. Perhaps he and Joe Biden could set up house together.
No deal has been agreed yet. The deal is not all cost, but it ensures continuing income from the US for military base. The money is not all spent at once, but over a long period.
So, it may or may not be a good or bad deal, but it’s not a £19B bill now. The net cost is much lower and over many years.
I think it was Sean_F the other day who pointed out how people get very animated over stuff that has zero impact on their lives.
The trigger for his comment was people moaning about Brexit.
Interesting to know that you think losing £18 billion will have zero impact.
Over 99 years. 90m a year, rising with inflation.
So £1.20 each for 99 years. Definitely a pain that the govt has failed to justify or even explain the rationale for but the drama is out of line with the amount.
I want my money spent here, not handed over to some johnny foreigner. Always some absolute clown that will try to make out that £18B is just a small number. Away and learn about money you halfwit.
We established last week I am only a quarter wit. As for not sending money to johnny foreigner, does that mean we can put an end to the barnett formula?
you would need to improve greatly to be a quarter wit. Your barnett is fried , Taking 10 and returning is within the grasp of even a dimwit.
'Your barnett is fried'
Malc - what does this mean? (Barnet can mean hair, but I can't see it in this context). I presume 'is fried' is much the same as 'is toast'?
barnett = napper = head = brain = fried, simple
I'm a feckless Scot (thanks for the tax money rcs!) but have never heard of 'barnett' being 'head'. Possibly because I'm feckless. 🤔.
Malc accidentally used the wrong rhyming slang. Barnett is slang for hair (Barnett Fair), but Loaf is slang for head (Loaf Of Bread)
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
You thought Mandelbrot was antisemitic, but don't see antisemitism at the incessant pro-Pal Jew-hating parades
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
Yes, that's a massive call. Interesting to know how it's deducible - without any doubt whatsoever - from case notes.
It is of course possible that all these things are true: Letby is guilty of some or all of the 14 charges, and the hospital unit was useless, and that the expert evidence was imperfect, and that the court process was to some degree flawed, and for whatever reason the defence made errors, and some experts believe she is innocent.
However, simplifying a bit, as there are 14 guilty verdicts on the most serious of charges, the Court of Appeal is only going to allow an appeal in whole (all 14) if all 14 convictions are unsafe individually.
For this to be so, and for Letby to be actually innocent of all charges, in the circumstances of this case something strange must have occurred. (1) There are other murderers or murderer and Letby was unlucky or (2) There must have been what amounts to a joint conspiracy involving many to get her, despite knowing or believing they were wrong to do so and that she was innocent.
I personally don't believe either account (1) or (2).
The really big uphill struggle is going to be to cover all 14 cases with really compelling counter arguments. 13 won't be enough.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
You thought Mandelbrot was antisemitic, but don't see antisemitism at the incessant pro-Pal Jew-hating parades
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
Yes, that's a massive call. Interesting to know how it's deducible - without any doubt whatsoever - from case notes.
It is of course possible that all these things are true: Letby is guilty of some or all of the 14 charges, and the hospital unit was useless, and that the expert evidence was imperfect, and that the court process was to some degree flawed, and for whatever reason the defence made errors, and some experts believe she is innocent.
However, simplifying a bit, as there are 14 guilty verdicts on the most serious of charges, the Court of Appeal is only going to allow an appeal in whole (all 14) if all 14 convictions are unsafe individually.
For this to be so, and for Letby to be actually innocent of all charges, in the circumstances of this case something strange must have occurred. (1) There are other murderers or murderer and Letby was unlucky or (2) There must have been what amounts to a joint conspiracy involving many to get her, despite knowing or believing they were wrong to do so and that she was innocent.
I personally don't believe either account (1) or (2).
The really big uphill struggle is going to be to cover all 14 cases with really compelling counter arguments. 13 won't be enough.
Hang on - the prosecution would presumably have used the common element between all 14 as part of their argument? Now the reverse can't be argued in the appeal? How odd.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
Yes, and I have criticised the misogyny of orthodox Islamism on here a number of times.
It is perfectly possible to oppose all forms of bigotry. We do not have to choose.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
This is a problem of terminology.
I think most people would interpret Islamophobia as being irrational fear or hatred of Muslims, not of Islam. But it has the word “Islam” in it, which is confusing. But then the alternative - presumably “muslimophobia” - is awkward .
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
Yes, and I have criticised the misogyny of orthodox Islamism on here a number of times.
It is perfectly possible to oppose all forms of bigotry. We do not have to choose.
Wrong. This is the TwiX era. You have to choose. Beliefs now come as a package deal.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
Yes, and I have criticised the misogyny of orthodox Islamism on here a number of times.
It is perfectly possible to oppose all forms of bigotry. We do not have to choose.
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
Yes, that's a massive call. Interesting to know how it's deducible - without any doubt whatsoever - from case notes.
It is of course possible that all these things are true: Letby is guilty of some or all of the 14 charges, and the hospital unit was useless, and that the expert evidence was imperfect, and that the court process was to some degree flawed, and for whatever reason the defence made errors, and some experts believe she is innocent.
However, simplifying a bit, as there are 14 guilty verdicts on the most serious of charges, the Court of Appeal is only going to allow an appeal in whole (all 14) if all 14 convictions are unsafe individually.
For this to be so, and for Letby to be actually innocent of all charges, in the circumstances of this case something strange must have occurred. (1) There are other murderers or murderer and Letby was unlucky or (2) There must have been what amounts to a joint conspiracy involving many to get her, despite knowing or believing they were wrong to do so and that she was innocent.
I personally don't believe either account (1) or (2).
The really big uphill struggle is going to be to cover all 14 cases with really compelling counter arguments. 13 won't be enough.
Hang on - the prosecution would presumably have used the common element between all 14 as part of their argument? Now the reverse can't be argued in the appeal? How odd.
The jury will have been told that each individual case must be proved individually beyond reasonable doubt, no job lots, - and as we know they didn't return 100% guilty verdicts so they heard that point.
They will also have been given guidance on how and whether certainty on count X might help them in deciding count Y etc, and whether it could be corroboration.
But in logic, proof that you did not murder P is no evidence that you did not murder Q. There will always be lots of people you didn't murder - like unmurdred babies in the hospital. It is no help.
So for an appeal to be any use (except perhaps for slightly reducing the sentence but put that aside) has to clearly show the unsafety of all 14 convictions individually. If, say, 9 were set aside it stuill leaves 5 and so on. This is an exceedingly uphill task, as I suspect the next few years are going to show.
Comments
Should I tell you?
Are you sitting down?
I don't know enough about the deal, although if Truss had her fingerprints on it it has the hallmark of a disaster.
Your memory isn't very sharp is it?
The barnacles were the worst thing, but even a wooden hull would be awful. In many seas you also have sharks.
There are probably worse punishments, but I'd not care to hear of them, and am only interested in this with regards to the microcosms of the ships of the Navy.
I mean, who'd be friends with Starmer?
We should fund it out of Starmers special pension. The one that needed specific mention in the law.
Malc - what does this mean? (Barnet can mean hair, but I can't see it in this context). I presume 'is fried' is much the same as 'is toast'?
Try again maybe?
Lucy Letby didn’t murder a single baby, experts claim
...
The neonatologist said if the Countess of Chester Hospital had been operating in Canada, it would have been shut down.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/lucy-letby-new-medical-evidence-live/ (£££)
The Labour government of Kier From HR is shit. He is utterly hopeless.
To me - either is *possible*. We’ve had murderers in the NHS. We’ve had units fail so badly they were shut down.
Let justice be done.
A good rule of thumb is "What would the Chinese do?"
Which is not to say it’s the correct one (Horizon, anyone?) but that the onus is now on those claiming another solution to come up with compelling evidence in support of it.
I am reminded of my mother's death in the midst of the Princess of Wales, Bridgend scandal. Two Filipino nurses went to prison whilst the managers all remained in post.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24910129.scottish-government-budget-passes-holyrood-vote-labour-abstain/
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24908470.chippy-near-glasgow-goes-viral-latest-invention/
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
@alexwickham
Exclusive: Keir Starmer is for the first time facing criticism from within his cabinet over the Chagos deal
*One person says they don’t understand why the UK is sending so much money to Mauritius when the Treasury is asking departments to make brutal spending cuts at home
*Another says Starmer should cancel the deal
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1886863448241242190
The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
As part of the deal, the UK said it would provide a package of financial support to Mauritius, including annual payments and infrastructure investment, but neither side has said how much is involved... Speaking in parliament last week about the negotiations Bérenger admitted that Mauritius needs "money to get out of the economic mess the previous government got us into, but not at any price, not under any conditions". (BBC) Feel free to verify it, then.
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
However, simplifying a bit, as there are 14 guilty verdicts on the most serious of charges, the Court of Appeal is only going to allow an appeal in whole (all 14) if all 14 convictions are unsafe individually.
For this to be so, and for Letby to be actually innocent of all charges, in the circumstances of this case something strange must have occurred. (1) There are other murderers or murderer and Letby was unlucky or (2) There must have been what amounts to a joint conspiracy involving many to get her, despite knowing or believing they were wrong to do so and that she was innocent.
I personally don't believe either account (1) or (2).
The really big uphill struggle is going to be to cover all 14 cases with really compelling counter arguments. 13 won't be enough.
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
Thought not
It is perfectly possible to oppose all forms of bigotry. We do not have to choose.
I think most people would interpret Islamophobia as being irrational fear or hatred of Muslims, not of Islam. But it has the word “Islam” in it, which is confusing. But then the alternative - presumably “muslimophobia” - is awkward .
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
They will also have been given guidance on how and whether certainty on count X might help them in deciding count Y etc, and whether it could be corroboration.
But in logic, proof that you did not murder P is no evidence that you did not murder Q. There will always be lots of people you didn't murder - like unmurdred babies in the hospital. It is no help.
So for an appeal to be any use (except perhaps for slightly reducing the sentence but put that aside) has to clearly show the unsafety of all 14 convictions individually. If, say, 9 were set aside it stuill leaves 5 and so on. This is an exceedingly uphill task, as I suspect the next few years are going to show.