South Korea’s proposed amendment to its Network Act, ostensibly focused on redressing defamatory deepfakes, reaches much further — and endangers tech cooperation.
So long as the US doesn't regulate other countries multinationals, then that would -at least- be consistent.
However, I haven't seen any proposals to exempt Sony or Siemens from US laws. Presumably that's coming, right?
Why should they be consistent? Power doesn't work that way.
Which is a perfectly consistent view (albeit the US dresses up their concerns as somehow being about fundamental rights, like free speech).
But it's also a fundamentally foolish one.
Americans use Google and Apple and Netflix and Amazon and ChatGPT and Anthropic. You might be able to get countries to change laws, but you are liable to get kicked in the teeth by consumer behaviour. (As Tesla has found out.)
I don't think Tesla is a good example because that's a backlash against Musk personally rather than America in general.
If country (a) is seen to be bullying country (b), it would be extremely surprising if consumers did not react.
I can even give you some historical examples if you like. In 2019, Japan and South Korea got into a bit an argie bargie about semiconductor materials as the Japanese government attempted to maintan their local dominance and proibited some exports to South Korea. It was -fair to say- extremely poorly recieved in South Korea.
Result:
• Uniqlo sales in Korea dropped ~40% • Toyota sales collapsed by over 50% • Japanese beer imports fell ~90%
We've seen an 85% fall in the sale of US spirits in Canada, and a 41% drop in fresh orange juice.
South Korea’s proposed amendment to its Network Act, ostensibly focused on redressing defamatory deepfakes, reaches much further — and endangers tech cooperation.
So long as the US doesn't regulate other countries multinationals, then that would -at least- be consistent.
However, I haven't seen any proposals to exempt Sony or Siemens from US laws. Presumably that's coming, right?
Why should they be consistent? Power doesn't work that way.
Which is a perfectly consistent view (albeit the US dresses up their concerns as somehow being about fundamental rights, like free speech).
But it's also a fundamentally foolish one.
Americans use Google and Apple and Netflix and Amazon and ChatGPT and Anthropic. You might be able to get countries to change laws, but you are liable to get kicked in the teeth by consumer behaviour. (As Tesla has found out.)
I don't think Tesla is a good example because that's a backlash against Musk personally rather than America in general.
If country (a) is seen to be bullying country (b), it would be extremely surprising if consumers did not react.
I can even give you some historical examples if you like. In 2019, Japan and South Korea got into a bit an argie bargie about semiconductor materials as the Japanese government attempted to maintan their local dominance and proibited some exports to South Korea. It was -fair to say- extremely poorly recieved in South Korea.
Result:
• Uniqlo sales in Korea dropped ~40% • Toyota sales collapsed by over 50% • Japanese beer imports fell ~90%
Well, how can I put this, Japan has historical "form" in Korea, so it's no great surprise that throwing its weight around went down badly there.
Fascinating that Bardot's convictions for racism were barely mentioned in the news coverage of her death. I wonder if it would have been the same if she had died closer to the events?
She was great for animal rights, less great on rights for Muslims and immigrants
Thus proving that people who elevate animals over humans are wronguns.
Strangely, there is a kernel of truth to this.
It's surprisingly common amongst misanthropes, who use animals to express their positive feelings whilst humans absorb the negative ones.
One thing that surprised me is that there is still hunting with hounds in Ireland. I think there are something like 40-odd hunts, including at least one down here in West Cork, red jackets and all.
Some of the farmers really hate them, but they have enough support to have defeated a recent Dail attempt to ban foxhunting by 124 votes to 24.
Quite conclusively you might note. You will find some farmers (or accountants) who really hate everything so the key issue was the vote in the Dail.
We need to reunify the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland so the good Irish MPs can outvote the nitwits we have in Westminster.
Most Irish MPs represent rural or semi rural constituencies, most UK MPs represent big city, suburban or large town constituencies is probably the main difference.
Though yes well done the Dail for voting to keep fox hunting unlike Westminster and Holyrood
Bloody funny 'most', given the population is 65% urban.
There are 59 Dublin TDs and, if we're generous, 10 Cork City TDs (though Cork North Central in particular has a substantial rural hinterland), and 4 Limerick City TDs (again there's a decent chunk of the consistency that covers rural East Limerick).
Galway is the fourth-largest city in Ireland with a population of a bit less than 90k. It's part of the Galway West constituency which elects 5 TDs to represent a population of about 150k, so the city has 60% of the population, but by no means dominates the election. Generally it's enough to elect one leftie with mostly city votes (though the two most recent left-wing TDs for the constituency, also consecutive Presidents of Ireland, were Irish-speakers who did well in the Connemara Gaeltacht areas too).
The next largest city is Waterford (60k) part of the Waterford constituency which covers the entire county of Waterford (population 127k). Now there are other urban areas within Waterford County such as Dungarvan (10k) and Tramore (11k), but we're definitely into the part of the distribution where constituencies are at least well split between urban and rural.
If you combine all the Dublin, Cork and Limerick TDs, and halfish the Galway and Waterford TDs, you can generously get to 77 urban TDs, but I think a better count would be the Dublin 59, 9 from Cork City, 3 from Limerick and 1 from Galway, to make a total of 72.
Either way you are well short of half of the 174 TDs in the Dail.
I'd agree with HYUFD on this one.
Thanks - official figures seem to say 65% of the population [edit] are urban. A matter of definition rather than the townies getting half the democratic cake [edit] that the rustics do per head, I presume.
Did you see my later post? It's kinda like gerrymandering by geography. Geomandering?
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
Or more accurately they have supported the rule of law and the right to free expression.
Sure, these are under threat in some Western civilised countries, but there is little point in having these if they are just applied when convenient for governments.
The guy seems a bit of an arsehole to me, but arseholes have rights too.
The issue isn't even about individual rights IMO. Making citizenship conditional on the whim of a minister is a massive hornets' nest. While I could accept there may be theoretical situations where revoking citizenship could be useful, the fact people suggest doing so on objectionable tweets just shows we shouldn't go there.
"Against this backdrop, thoughtful dissenters will consider whether an early election could be forced by via some kind of general strike blended with a dose of fuel and port blockades."
Little dig at the Telegraph there. Sure the article can’t be irrational and is well reasoned.
Clicks on article
Sees it’s Isobel Oakshott.
Clicks off promptly.
Reform know their only chance is to get an early election - within the next 12-18 months - while it is still Labour vs Not Labour and they can look an attractive and viable alternative to the current Government.
After that, it becomes more problematic as one of a number of things might happen (and I stress these are neither in order of likelihood nor desirability).
Labour gets its act together and economy starts improving The Conservative messaging on the economy in particular starts to resonate Reform's own internal contradictions start tearing it apart
1 won’t happen. Labours goose is cooked and any replacement for SKS and Reeves will be economically worse.
2 has started already. The Tories would be insane to get rid of her in my view.
3 given his track record I’d say there’s a strong chance of that but if it doesn’t happen then it’s game on.
We're a long way off an election and it's wishful thinking to imagine Labour can't or won't recover. In any case, IF economic perceptions change and people start to "feel" better (even if the truth is otherwise) that will lead a rebound in Labour polling numbers.
As for Badenoch, I've said on here a number of times she has had a good autumn but it's probable the May local elections will be painful and that will be the point of challenge. Don't underestimate the ability of people to do silly things and if 60 Conservative MPs see their seats going to Reform, that might be enough for a successful challenge.
As for Reform, the prospect of victory does wonders for party unity (look at how little trouble the "left" gave Blair after he became leader and started looking popular) so as long as they look the next Government internal dissent will be silenced but as soon as it starts becoming clear they won't win - let's say a winnable by-election isn't won - the knives will be out.
The window of opportunity for Reform isn't going to be open for ever but they are in no position to force an election and encouraging what amounts to civil insurrection to get one is ludicrous. The only way there would be an election is if Labour MPs wanted one and on most polling numbers most won't.
I voted for Labour. I’d love them to recover. If they recover and the economy picks up we all gain. I just cannot see it and I cannot see any replacements being an improvement.
We are a high tax, high welfare, high regulation, low growth economy and although they talk the talk on deregulation they have yet to walk the walk.
A man has been arrested after five people were assaulted with a weapon at a hospital.
Merseyside Police say the incident began when a man attended Newton Community Hospital, in Newton-Le-Willows, on Tuesday afternoon and requested an appointment.
"At this stage, it is believed that his request was declined, and when he was asked to leave, he became increasingly agitated and damaged a counter before assaulting several people inside the hospital, with a weapon - possibly a crowbar," a police spokesperson said.
A 20-year-old man, who police say is originally from Afghanistan, has been arrested on suspicion of five counts of wounding with intent, affray and criminal damage.
Apparently he went crazy a he was not happy waiting for an appointment. Not defending him but I must admit to feeling slightly vexed when I’m stuck in a slow queue.
I had lunch yesterday with the executive director of a programme that helps special forces operatives reintegrate with society.
She said her job was to teach them that the “old lady with ten coupons in front of them in the queue” doesn’t behave like other SFOs…
A worthy cause but why is it left to a charity to do the work the Services should do. Admirable they have the time and resources to do it but …
There seems to be a ‘they’re disposable’ attitude going on here.
Perhaps not so much 'they're disposable' as 'they're no longer on the books so who cares?' - something I've got a sense of from some recent memoirs.
I'm also reminded of the closures of the Services hospitals in recent decades. You'd think HMG would at least want to keep some of the specialist expertise (in, for instance, battle fatigue and PTSD) rather than simply assume the NHS would provide. As I understand it, there was some back pedalling, but not much.
I once 'accidentally stumbled' into the fence of a old disused hospital (afaik it was mostly used for WW pilots) and - the fence having given way, managed to take some photo's. This was my favourite.
Kearns is a far left campaigner - indistinguishable from Polanski on policy - and sits at the heart of Kemi Badenoch’s team as Shadow Minister for National Security:
Kemi wants her to be the UK’s Minister for National Security.
Do you?
Alicia Kearns is a One Nation Tory, if Reform are going to call even One Nation Tories 'far left' how do they expect to win centrist swing voters at the next GE?
She’s also excercise extremely poor judgement over this British/Egyptian guy but, unlike most others who did, has come out on the attack over it and I don’t think it’s doing her any favours.
These people are not 'One Nation' Tories. Disraeli would do somersaults in his grave if he knew that a group that believed in handing sovereignty to an organisation of continental bureaucrats, or undermining British industry by piling costs on energy, or importing people who hate Britain, had labelled themselves using his words. Disraeli spoke of 'two nations - the rich and the poor'. There is nothing more regressive and more guaranteed to take money out of poor peoples' pockets and give it to rich people than high energy costs, as we must all use it, and there is no 'cheaper' alternative. They are two nation Conservatives.
I'm no Conservative but I always thought the essence of Disraeli's One Nation philosophy was a paternalist attitude which argued the ruling elite had a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. Indeed, you could argue in promoting basic education, Victorian Liberal entrepreneurs were enacting aspects of Disraeli's ideas.
The idea of a paternalistic Conservative Party governing in the interests of all had plenty of supporters and was the antithesis of State socialism but where is that paternalism now? Conservatives seem eager to cut public services which help the less fortunate and promote socio-economic ideals which basically say "if you make the rich even richer that will help the poor".
I'd argue Disraeli would equally be horrified at the notion of a group which allowed Britain's basic assets to be sold to foreigners so the British family has to pay more for its energy in order for the customers of the French and other companies which have been allowed to take over our energy supplies to enjoy subsidised energy.
I'd also argue Disraeli would be horrified at the way companies have been allowed to pollute and poison our rivers without consequence.
Kearns is a far left campaigner - indistinguishable from Polanski on policy - and sits at the heart of Kemi Badenoch’s team as Shadow Minister for National Security:
Kemi wants her to be the UK’s Minister for National Security.
Do you?
Alicia Kearns is a One Nation Tory, if Reform are going to call even One Nation Tories 'far left' how do they expect to win centrist swing voters at the next GE?
She’s also excercise extremely poor judgement over this British/Egyptian guy but, unlike most others who did, has come out on the attack over it and I don’t think it’s doing her any favours.
These people are not 'One Nation' Tories. Disraeli would do somersaults in his grave if he knew that a group that believed in handing sovereignty to an organisation of continental bureaucrats, or undermining British industry by piling costs on energy, or importing people who hate Britain, had labelled themselves using his words. Disraeli spoke of 'two nations - the rich and the poor'. There is nothing more regressive and more guaranteed to take money out of poor peoples' pockets and give it to rich people than high energy costs, as we must all use it, and there is no 'cheaper' alternative. They are two nation Conservatives.
On the subject of Disraeli I remember studying that period of political history at school and it was weird how there were two very committed camps - the Disraelites and the Gladstonians. I was a Disraelite personally - might have been influenced by Disraeli’s brothers having been at my school and Gladstone having been educated at the young flash interloper school.
Had we ended up with a Portillo v Brown election in 2005 we could have effectively had a Disraeli v Gladstone rerun
Talking of Mikey P, have we discussed this?
According to documents released by the National Archives, former Treasury Chief Secretary Michael Portillo argued forcefully in 1991 that the project, then known as Crossrail, was a “mistake” that would “never” be built. He warned Prime Minister John Major that the scheme was excessively costly and its benefits wildly overstated, urging its immediate cancellation. This revelation offers a fascinating glimpse into a critical moment of decision-making, pitting short-term fiscal prudence against long-term, nation-building investment.
"Against this backdrop, thoughtful dissenters will consider whether an early election could be forced by via some kind of general strike blended with a dose of fuel and port blockades."
Little dig at the Telegraph there. Sure the article can’t be irrational and is well reasoned.
Clicks on article
Sees it’s Isobel Oakshott.
Clicks off promptly.
Reform know their only chance is to get an early election - within the next 12-18 months - while it is still Labour vs Not Labour and they can look an attractive and viable alternative to the current Government.
After that, it becomes more problematic as one of a number of things might happen (and I stress these are neither in order of likelihood nor desirability).
Labour gets its act together and economy starts improving The Conservative messaging on the economy in particular starts to resonate Reform's own internal contradictions start tearing it apart
1 won’t happen. Labours goose is cooked and any replacement for SKS and Reeves will be economically worse.
2 has started already. The Tories would be insane to get rid of her in my view.
3 given his track record I’d say there’s a strong chance of that but if it doesn’t happen then it’s game on.
We're a long way off an election and it's wishful thinking to imagine Labour can't or won't recover. In any case, IF economic perceptions change and people start to "feel" better (even if the truth is otherwise) that will lead a rebound in Labour polling numbers.
As for Badenoch, I've said on here a number of times she has had a good autumn but it's probable the May local elections will be painful and that will be the point of challenge. Don't underestimate the ability of people to do silly things and if 60 Conservative MPs see their seats going to Reform, that might be enough for a successful challenge.
As for Reform, the prospect of victory does wonders for party unity (look at how little trouble the "left" gave Blair after he became leader and started looking popular) so as long as they look the next Government internal dissent will be silenced but as soon as it starts becoming clear they won't win - let's say a winnable by-election isn't won - the knives will be out.
The window of opportunity for Reform isn't going to be open for ever but they are in no position to force an election and encouraging what amounts to civil insurrection to get one is ludicrous. The only way there would be an election is if Labour MPs wanted one and on most polling numbers most won't.
I voted for Labour. I’d love them to recover. If they recover and the economy picks up we all gain. I just cannot see it and I cannot see any replacements being an improvement.
We are a high tax, high welfare, high regulation, low growth economy and although they talk the talk on deregulation they have yet to walk the walk.
To be heretical, it was interesting hearing Martin Lewis (some people's idea of the perfect Prime Minister) opining there had been very little honesty on the economy from successive Governments over a 20-30 year period.
Well, yes, and he said this was due to electoral necessity. Well, yes again, and bears use wooded areas for toiletary functions. It's a little more than that, however. The Truss proposals (which had some economic rationale behind them) failed for a number of reasons but primarily because they didn't pass the "fairness" test with the public. Making already rich people richer just doesn't work for most of the electorate - indeed, many favour a harsher redistribution despite the oft-quoted statistic of 1% of the tax paying population paying 29% of all the tax paid.
I've often said a rich man will always find (or pay) someone to argue their case, a poor man hasn't the same luxury but the notion of "fairness" has been challenged by the pandemic among other things so you could well argue the high tax, high welfare economy you cite isn't as unpopular as some think but in an ageing society with higher levels of economic inactivity there's a challenge or two at work (or not work if you prefer) trying to square the circle if we think in 20th century terms of work, income, growth and taxation.
Truss was dogma over intelligence.
If she'd had the latter she'd have dealt with the 100k tax trap in her infamous budget, which she notably didn't, but did cut the top rate because headlines.
That sort of facile superficiality showed us all we needed to know about the depth of her thinking and why the markets, rightly, smelt a rat.
"Against this backdrop, thoughtful dissenters will consider whether an early election could be forced by via some kind of general strike blended with a dose of fuel and port blockades."
Little dig at the Telegraph there. Sure the article can’t be irrational and is well reasoned.
Clicks on article
Sees it’s Isobel Oakshott.
Clicks off promptly.
Reform know their only chance is to get an early election - within the next 12-18 months - while it is still Labour vs Not Labour and they can look an attractive and viable alternative to the current Government.
After that, it becomes more problematic as one of a number of things might happen (and I stress these are neither in order of likelihood nor desirability).
Labour gets its act together and economy starts improving The Conservative messaging on the economy in particular starts to resonate Reform's own internal contradictions start tearing it apart
1 won’t happen. Labours goose is cooked and any replacement for SKS and Reeves will be economically worse.
2 has started already. The Tories would be insane to get rid of her in my view.
3 given his track record I’d say there’s a strong chance of that but if it doesn’t happen then it’s game on.
We're a long way off an election and it's wishful thinking to imagine Labour can't or won't recover. In any case, IF economic perceptions change and people start to "feel" better (even if the truth is otherwise) that will lead a rebound in Labour polling numbers.
As for Badenoch, I've said on here a number of times she has had a good autumn but it's probable the May local elections will be painful and that will be the point of challenge. Don't underestimate the ability of people to do silly things and if 60 Conservative MPs see their seats going to Reform, that might be enough for a successful challenge.
As for Reform, the prospect of victory does wonders for party unity (look at how little trouble the "left" gave Blair after he became leader and started looking popular) so as long as they look the next Government internal dissent will be silenced but as soon as it starts becoming clear they won't win - let's say a winnable by-election isn't won - the knives will be out.
The window of opportunity for Reform isn't going to be open for ever but they are in no position to force an election and encouraging what amounts to civil insurrection to get one is ludicrous. The only way there would be an election is if Labour MPs wanted one and on most polling numbers most won't.
To ensure she survives beyond May, Kemi needs to ensure the Conservatives are at least second on the UK NEV in the local and devolved elections and ahead of Labour even if Reform still win overall. That would plus Tory gains of a few Labour councils like Westminster and Barnet would secure her position and put the pressure on Starmer to avoid a leadership challenge.
If however Labour beat the Conservatives on NEV then Sir Keir will likely survive and it will be Kemi facing a VONC with either Cleverly or Jenrick her likely replacement. Jenrick backing Tory MPs would certainly be sending in their letters to Bob Blackman like hyenas circling a wounded gazelle if the Tories fall to 3rd on NEV and councillors and councils won next May and lose MSPs and AMs too
You repeat your last pararaph almost daily, but miss out that any such self inflicted hari kari would see the conservative party staring into the abyss
Neither Jenrick or Cleverly will do any better than Badenoch
Jenrick has been on fire this week. Both his self promotion campaign and his pants. He has nonetheless had a very good if cynical happy holidays. Two birds, one stone. Downing Starmer and Cleverly with the one hit was Machiavellian genius.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
South Korea’s proposed amendment to its Network Act, ostensibly focused on redressing defamatory deepfakes, reaches much further — and endangers tech cooperation.
So long as the US doesn't regulate other countries multinationals, then that would -at least- be consistent.
However, I haven't seen any proposals to exempt Sony or Siemens from US laws. Presumably that's coming, right?
Why should they be consistent? Power doesn't work that way.
Which is a perfectly consistent view (albeit the US dresses up their concerns as somehow being about fundamental rights, like free speech).
But it's also a fundamentally foolish one.
Americans use Google and Apple and Netflix and Amazon and ChatGPT and Anthropic. You might be able to get countries to change laws, but you are liable to get kicked in the teeth by consumer behaviour. (As Tesla has found out.)
I don't think Tesla is a good example because that's a backlash against Musk personally rather than America in general.
If country (a) is seen to be bullying country (b), it would be extremely surprising if consumers did not react.
I can even give you some historical examples if you like. In 2019, Japan and South Korea got into a bit an argie bargie about semiconductor materials as the Japanese government attempted to maintan their local dominance and proibited some exports to South Korea. It was -fair to say- extremely poorly recieved in South Korea.
Result:
• Uniqlo sales in Korea dropped ~40% • Toyota sales collapsed by over 50% • Japanese beer imports fell ~90%
Well, how can I put this, Japan has historical "form" in Korea, so it's no great surprise that throwing its weight around went down badly there.
It's a love hate relationship. But a lot closer than it was a few years ago.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
Or more accurately they have supported the rule of law and the right to free expression.
Sure, these are under threat in some Western civilised countries, but there is little point in having these if they are just applied when convenient for governments.
The guy seems a bit of an arsehole to me, but arseholes have rights too.
And if we unpersoned all arseholes, let alone anyone accused of being an arsehole, who would be left?
Then they came for the arseholes and I did nothing, because who could possibly believe I was an arsehole?
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
That's a lot of words. Largely you projecting.
I oppose citizenship stripping because it is essentially authoritarian. Whether those desperate for that power are right or left wing authoritarians is irrelevant as fad as I'm concerned.
Are these people simply fuckwits or like UKIP/Brexit/Reform's Nathan Gill do they accept dirty post-Soviet money to write/speak their shite?
Some people are pro Russian fuckwits, like the Prime Minister of India.
India is producing military drones for Russia as well. The government should have acted when the news was made public and suspended the trade deal, revoked visas and suspended issuance of new student, work and visitor visas for Indian nationals until the policy is reversed. Modi needs to learn the hard way there are consequences and cutting the Indian elite and their kids access to the UK would be something tangible.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
That's a lot of words. Largely you projecting.
I oppose citizenship stripping because it is essentially authoritarian. Whether those desperate for that power are right or left wing authoritarians is irrelevant as fad as I'm concerned.
But it already happens, there is no new principle or precedent being set? No new laws would be necessary and we'd remove this shitbag from the country. You seem to be worrying about a Rubicon that was crossed many, many years ago. In practice revoking his citizenship would be a net benefit for the nation and draw a line in the sand that British citizenship has a high bar and we don't accept antisemites, Islamists and terrorist sympathisers.
Don't you see that Labour are opposed to revoking citizenship not because of the "precedent" it might set but because the internal politics of their own party would become untenable as the Islamist faction would abandon them and they'd lose seats in London, Birmingham, Bradford and the other strongholds they have.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts here always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
Had he just come over on a boat, I'd be all in on deporting him - BUT we campaigned to get him here, using every means in our limited power to secure his release and bring him here. Two successive Governments were responsible.
That was a foolish error, but we now need to own that error. To do otherwise would be wrong and make us look even worse than we already do.
"Doctor must prove he saved woman’s life to avoid parking ticket Council says requesting proof is ‘standard process’ to ensure ‘fairness, transparency and compliance’"
Are these people simply fuckwits or like UKIP/Brexit/Reform's Nathan Gill do they accept dirty post-Soviet money to write/speak their shite?
Some people are pro Russian fuckwits, like the Prime Minister of India.
What could possibly worry a Prime Minister about being targetted by enemies?
(Though it looks like there was no such targetting of Putin. Perhaps the most credible bit of evidence being that it didn't work. In recent times the Ukranians have been pretty good at hitting their targets)
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
The sad accountant in me went to see if Begg Todifer Limited still existed. Sadly not. Company SC146151 was dissolved a long time ago. Incorporated in 1993 but dissolved by 2002. It's not even on Companies House anymore. Had to go deeper to find it's dissolution.
The Tuapse oil refinery is burning again, and several hundred thousand people have been without electricity for hours in the Moscow region this evening.
Sounds like the Russian government has been delaying payment of bills in December in order to hit their revised annual budget deficit target. That explains the cash reserves they've been accumulating - it's money to pay the bills in January.
"Doctor must prove he saved woman’s life to avoid parking ticket Council says requesting proof is ‘standard process’ to ensure ‘fairness, transparency and compliance’"
'So your worships, at the request of the solicitor representing the prosecution, I'm going to make her as ill as she was when I attended, then we sit back do nothing and watch what happens. If she snuffs it, you can clear me.'
Are these people simply fuckwits or like UKIP/Brexit/Reform's Nathan Gill do they accept dirty post-Soviet money to write/speak their shite?
Some people are pro Russian fuckwits, like the Prime Minister of India.
What could possibly worry a Prime Minister about being targetted by enemies?
(Though it looks like there was no such targetting of Putin. Perhaps the most credible bit of evidence being that it didn't work. In recent times the Ukranians have been pretty good at hitting their targets)
Doesn't seem to worry him when Zelensky is the target.
The forces medical services show very little interest in vetrans after discharge as I am sure @Dura_Ace can testify.
They are very interested in getting you out and making you somebody else's problem ASAFP. Which is understandable as they are grossly under resourced and have their hands full with people who might actually be capable of useful service again at some point. The write offs and basket cases consume precious budget to zero effect so the strategy is to get them off the books by any means necessary and let families, the NHS and charities take the strain. The promotion system used to be shamelessly gamed in this pursuit to sweeten the pension provision and try to get people to leave (I got promoted to OF-4 for exactly one day for this reason) but the pension is quite shit now so it's not as effective.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
"Doctor must prove he saved woman’s life to avoid parking ticket Council says requesting proof is ‘standard process’ to ensure ‘fairness, transparency and compliance’"
When I was a Junior Doctor in SW London in the late Eighties I worked with a Surgical Senior Registrar who lived near Guildford. He was speeding down the A3 one night on his way home doing over a ton when he got pulled over by the blue lights. He flashed his ID to the traffic cop, lied that he was on his way to an Emergency at Guildford Hospital. The copper fell for it, but isisted on blue lighting him all the way to the hospital. My collegue followed closely, then when they got to Guilford Hospital he parked outside Casualty and ran in.
He hid for the best part of an hour until he was sure that the copper had gone, then meekly sneaked out and drove home slowly on the backroads.
Absolutely none, and on Tuesday Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said there would be none forthcoming. “I don’t think there should be any evidence if such a massive drone attack is being carried out, which, thanks to the well-coordinated work of the air defence system, was shot down,” he told journalists in a phone call.
Often, when there is a Ukrainian drone attack, Russians living nearby post video of explosions to social media, but there is no footage of this supposed attack, and residents of nearby Valdai told Russian independent media outlets they had not heard explosions on Monday."
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
That's a lot of words. Largely you projecting.
I oppose citizenship stripping because it is essentially authoritarian. Whether those desperate for that power are right or left wing authoritarians is irrelevant as fad as I'm concerned.
But it already happens, there is no new principle or precedent being set?
When was the last revocation of citizenship for a speech offence ?
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
That's a lot of words. Largely you projecting.
I oppose citizenship stripping because it is essentially authoritarian. Whether those desperate for that power are right or left wing authoritarians is irrelevant as fad as I'm concerned.
But it already happens, there is no new principle or precedent being set?
When was the last revocation of citizenship for a speech offence ?
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
That's a lot of words. Largely you projecting.
I oppose citizenship stripping because it is essentially authoritarian. Whether those desperate for that power are right or left wing authoritarians is irrelevant as fad as I'm concerned.
But it already happens, there is no new principle or precedent being set?
When was the last revocation of citizenship for a speech offence ?
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
One of the interesting things about the Begum case is that it allowed the government to remove her British citizenship on the grounds that she was eligible, but had never held, Bangladeshi citizenship.
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
I would say he can see himself out, but perhaps he can't.
From that clip - usual Dom. Right on the problem. No idea what his solution is, but it will be the wrong one, of course.
I know what you mean, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong on the problem as well here.
Dom's theory of government is to get a small number of enormous brains and lock them in a small room. Then pipe national-level data into that room, so these mega minds can decide what to do, and pipe those decisions out for the rest of us (hereafter called "minions") to act on.
There are a bajillion ways that this model doesn't work, but it's attractive if you believe in the Great Man version of history.
I'm reminded of the description of Manuel Fraga- a relatively open minister under Franco, incredibly reactionary in democratic Spain. He was so clever, they said, that the Spanish State could fit inside his head. Unfortunately, that limited his vision of the state to what could fit in his head, and democratic nations are bigger than that.
He’s definitely right that the best and brightest don’t go into government - administrative or elective.
The current system of obfuscation and obscuration of responsibility for everything is useless.
It’s more than that though: the Rory Stewart anecdote that someone posted yesterday was fascinating
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
The forces medical services show very little interest in vetrans after discharge as I am sure @Dura_Ace can testify.
They are very interested in getting you out and making you somebody else's problem ASAFP. Which is understandable as they are grossly under resourced and have their hands full with people who might actually be capable of useful service again at some point. The write offs and basket cases consume precious budget to zero effect so the strategy is to get them off the books by any means necessary and let families, the NHS and charities take the strain. The promotion system used to be shamelessly gamed in this pursuit to sweeten the pension provision and try to get people to leave (I got promoted to OF-4 for exactly one day for this reason) but the pension is quite shit now so it's not as effective.
OF-4? Is that military code for Old Fart 4th grade?
The protests and demonstrations in Iran could be consequential - the regime is struggling with the currency and inflation, and the students want political change ... will the mullahs be mullered?
"Against this backdrop, thoughtful dissenters will consider whether an early election could be forced by via some kind of general strike blended with a dose of fuel and port blockades."
Little dig at the Telegraph there. Sure the article can’t be irrational and is well reasoned.
Clicks on article
Sees it’s Isobel Oakshott.
Clicks off promptly.
Reform know their only chance is to get an early election - within the next 12-18 months - while it is still Labour vs Not Labour and they can look an attractive and viable alternative to the current Government.
After that, it becomes more problematic as one of a number of things might happen (and I stress these are neither in order of likelihood nor desirability).
Labour gets its act together and economy starts improving The Conservative messaging on the economy in particular starts to resonate Reform's own internal contradictions start tearing it apart
1 won’t happen. Labours goose is cooked and any replacement for SKS and Reeves will be economically worse.
2 has started already. The Tories would be insane to get rid of her in my view.
3 given his track record I’d say there’s a strong chance of that but if it doesn’t happen then it’s game on.
We're a long way off an election and it's wishful thinking to imagine Labour can't or won't recover. In any case, IF economic perceptions change and people start to "feel" better (even if the truth is otherwise) that will lead a rebound in Labour polling numbers.
As for Badenoch, I've said on here a number of times she has had a good autumn but it's probable the May local elections will be painful and that will be the point of challenge. Don't underestimate the ability of people to do silly things and if 60 Conservative MPs see their seats going to Reform, that might be enough for a successful challenge.
As for Reform, the prospect of victory does wonders for party unity (look at how little trouble the "left" gave Blair after he became leader and started looking popular) so as long as they look the next Government internal dissent will be silenced but as soon as it starts becoming clear they won't win - let's say a winnable by-election isn't won - the knives will be out.
The window of opportunity for Reform isn't going to be open for ever but they are in no position to force an election and encouraging what amounts to civil insurrection to get one is ludicrous. The only way there would be an election is if Labour MPs wanted one and on most polling numbers most won't.
To ensure she survives beyond May, Kemi needs to ensure the Conservatives are at least second on the UK NEV in the local and devolved elections and ahead of Labour even if Reform still win overall. That would plus Tory gains of a few Labour councils like Westminster and Barnet would secure her position and put the pressure on Starmer to avoid a leadership challenge.
If however Labour beat the Conservatives on NEV then Sir Keir will likely survive and it will be Kemi facing a VONC with either Cleverly or Jenrick her likely replacement. Jenrick backing Tory MPs would certainly be sending in their letters to Bob Blackman like hyenas circling a wounded gazelle if the Tories fall to 3rd on NEV and councillors and councils won next May and lose MSPs and AMs too
You repeat your last pararaph almost daily, but miss out that any such self inflicted hari kari would see the conservative party staring into the abyss
Neither Jenrick or Cleverly will do any better than Badenoch
If the Tories fell to 3rd in the NEV next May behind both Reform and Labour they would already be staring into the abyss anyway. So many Tory MPs would feel they had to gamble on Jenrick, to try and win back Reform voters or Cleverly, to try and get Labour or LD tactical votes to beat Reform if Kemi showed herself unable to do either
I simply do not agree with you
Well let us hope Kemi ensures the Tories are at least second on NEV next May and secures her position
Secure, even if they achieve 2nd on under 20% of the NEV?
Yes as they would still be the main alternative to Reform then and it would be Labour in 3rd and Starmer facing a leadership challenge then not Kemi
What if it's Reform first, Greens second, Tories third, Labour fourth?
Then Badenoch would be challenged. It's third place only apparently...
Nah, I think it’s behind Reform (lost the right) AND behind Labour (the traditional Opponent) that’s the killer
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time, rising from an average of 4 revocations per year up until around the Brexit referendum, and now several hundred per year.
Absolutely none, and on Tuesday Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said there would be none forthcoming. “I don’t think there should be any evidence if such a massive drone attack is being carried out, which, thanks to the well-coordinated work of the air defence system, was shot down,” he told journalists in a phone call.
Often, when there is a Ukrainian drone attack, Russians living nearby post video of explosions to social media, but there is no footage of this supposed attack, and residents of nearby Valdai told Russian independent media outlets they had not heard explosions on Monday."
To be fair that’s not proof it didn’t happen.
However, if we only have Putin’s word for it, it seems quite retarded to take that as sufficient proof that it did.
Presumably US intelligence can’t find any evidence, but Trump is so cravenly invested in Putin’s good faith that he has chosen to go along with it.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
One of the interesting things about the Begum case is that it allowed the government to remove her British citizenship on the grounds that she was eligible, but had never held, Bangladeshi citizenship.
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
Or indeed those eligible for Irish citizenship. Which is a lot. In fact. You could probably cull the population by over a quarter if you were so minded.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
That's a lot of words. Largely you projecting.
I oppose citizenship stripping because it is essentially authoritarian. Whether those desperate for that power are right or left wing authoritarians is irrelevant as fad as I'm concerned.
But it already happens, there is no new principle or precedent being set?
When was the last revocation of citizenship for a speech offence ?
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
That's a lot of words. Largely you projecting.
I oppose citizenship stripping because it is essentially authoritarian. Whether those desperate for that power are right or left wing authoritarians is irrelevant as fad as I'm concerned.
But it already happens, there is no new principle or precedent being set?
When was the last revocation of citizenship for a speech offence ?
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Absolutely none, and on Tuesday Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said there would be none forthcoming. “I don’t think there should be any evidence if such a massive drone attack is being carried out, which, thanks to the well-coordinated work of the air defence system, was shot down,” he told journalists in a phone call.
Often, when there is a Ukrainian drone attack, Russians living nearby post video of explosions to social media, but there is no footage of this supposed attack, and residents of nearby Valdai told Russian independent media outlets they had not heard explosions on Monday."
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
One of the interesting things about the Begum case is that it allowed the government to remove her British citizenship on the grounds that she was eligible, but had never held, Bangladeshi citizenship.
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
It also creates a de facto second class of citizen. Those who happen to have other citizenship (like me).
Kearns is a far left campaigner - indistinguishable from Polanski on policy - and sits at the heart of Kemi Badenoch’s team as Shadow Minister for National Security:
Kemi wants her to be the UK’s Minister for National Security.
Do you?
Alicia Kearns is a One Nation Tory, if Reform are going to call even One Nation Tories 'far left' how do they expect to win centrist swing voters at the next GE?
She’s also excercise extremely poor judgement over this British/Egyptian guy but, unlike most others who did, has come out on the attack over it and I don’t think it’s doing her any favours.
These people are not 'One Nation' Tories. Disraeli would do somersaults in his grave if he knew that a group that believed in handing sovereignty to an organisation of continental bureaucrats, or undermining British industry by piling costs on energy, or importing people who hate Britain, had labelled themselves using his words. Disraeli spoke of 'two nations - the rich and the poor'. There is nothing more regressive and more guaranteed to take money out of poor peoples' pockets and give it to rich people than high energy costs, as we must all use it, and there is no 'cheaper' alternative. They are two nation Conservatives.
On the subject of Disraeli I remember studying that period of political history at school and it was weird how there were two very committed camps - the Disraelites and the Gladstonians. I was a Disraelite personally - might have been influenced by Disraeli’s brothers having been at my school and Gladstone having been educated at the young flash interloper school.
Had we ended up with a Portillo v Brown election in 2005 we could have effectively had a Disraeli v Gladstone rerun
Talking of Mikey P, have we discussed this?
According to documents released by the National Archives, former Treasury Chief Secretary Michael Portillo argued forcefully in 1991 that the project, then known as Crossrail, was a “mistake” that would “never” be built. He warned Prime Minister John Major that the scheme was excessively costly and its benefits wildly overstated, urging its immediate cancellation. This revelation offers a fascinating glimpse into a critical moment of decision-making, pitting short-term fiscal prudence against long-term, nation-building investment.
And his successors live on in the mismanagement of HS2 to avoid spending money on something useful, productive and in this case, outside London.
Not only can't we manage an infrastructure project bigger than laying cobblestones in Cemaes Bay, it would seem we can't even resurface a road post- Brexit. For proof try the B4234.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
One of the interesting things about the Begum case is that it allowed the government to remove her British citizenship on the grounds that she was eligible, but had never held, Bangladeshi citizenship.
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
Or indeed those eligible for Irish citizenship. Which is a lot. In fact. You could probably cull the population by over a quarter if you were so minded.
Indeed.
My (Farage adjacent) father was quite supportive of the victims of the Windrush deportations, as he realised that he had arrived in much the same way, albeit from a different colony, and with parents of British descent.
Mind you, If I were deported to the Antipodes as a result I wouldn't protest too hard.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
One of the interesting things about the Begum case is that it allowed the government to remove her British citizenship on the grounds that she was eligible, but had never held, Bangladeshi citizenship.
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
Every British citizen is sorta eligible for Irish citizenship (their British citizenship gives them the right to reside in Ireland and after a number of years they can apply for Irish citizenship).
I don't know if this theoretical entitlement is on a par with Begum's entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship, which the government there insisted she wouldn't be given.
But you could argue it gives every British citizen a theoretical second citizenship, and therefore the possibility of losing their British citizenship.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It seems like an odd thing to do given that the content production is funded by the licence fee anyway and running ads in non-UK countries must be close to a 100% margin.
The marginal gain in revenue for direct subscription fees is surely less than what they lose from being the single globally free English news organisation.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
One of the interesting things about the Begum case is that it allowed the government to remove her British citizenship on the grounds that she was eligible, but had never held, Bangladeshi citizenship.
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
Every British citizen is sorta eligible for Irish citizenship (their British citizenship gives them the right to reside in Ireland and after a number of years they can apply for Irish citizenship).
I don't know if this theoretical entitlement is on a par with Begum's entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship, which the government there insisted she wouldn't be given.
But you could argue it gives every British citizen a theoretical second citizenship, and therefore the possibility of losing their British citizenship.
Some countries, like India, don't allow Dual Citizenship. I have no idea why this is the case.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It seems like an odd thing to do given that the content production is funded by the licence fee anyway and running ads in non-UK countries must be close to a 100% margin.
The marginal gain in revenue for direct subscription fees is surely less than what they lose from being the single globally free English news organisation.
Absolutely. And I’m not going to pay $10 a month for it, either.
(I will / would pay $10 or more for access to the BBC generally, if they could figure out a graceful workaround to their various rights issues. It’s batshit that in 2025 I can’t just pay money to listen to 1970s episodes of the Archers should I want to (I don’t want to, but there’s surely plenty of stuff I would be interested in).
"1. Deprivation of citizenship where it is conducive to the public good is reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm, for example in response to activities such as those involving:
national security including espionage and acts of terrorism unacceptable behaviour such as the ‘glorification’ of terrorism war crimes serious organised crime"
Would what he did count as glorifying terrorism? I don't know.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
One of the interesting things about the Begum case is that it allowed the government to remove her British citizenship on the grounds that she was eligible, but had never held, Bangladeshi citizenship.
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
It also creates a de facto second class of citizen. Those who happen to have other citizenship (like me).
Which is true already. That's the point I've been making. We're not introducing new laws, precedents or principles. Existing legislation will be enough, existing legal precedent will be enough. The government is making a choice not to revoke his citizenship for political reasons of holding their voter coalition of leftie progressives and conservative Muslims together. There is no principled stand here. There's no high minded concept of free speech being defended. It's simple realpolitik and Labour are taking you all for fools by pretending they're standing up for some kind of principled opposition to citizenship revocation.
Modi’s race baiting is thought to have contributed to the deaths of thousands of Muslims in the 2002 Gujarati riots. He was thereby proscribed as a terrorist by the U.K and U.S. governments until his election as PM made that untenable.
Not something you often hear brought up very much anymore.
"1. Deprivation of citizenship where it is conducive to the public good is reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm, for example in response to activities such as those involving:
national security including espionage and acts of terrorism unacceptable behaviour such as the ‘glorification’ of terrorism war crimes serious organised crime"
Would what he did count as glorifying terrorism? I don't know.
I suspect there will be some disclosure sections that will be unfilled or full of lies that would count as fraud on a citizenship application. One of the reasons that the US asks those idiotic sounding questions about "have you ever committed a terrorist act" etc... is so they are easily able to remove terrorists for fraud on their visa applications rather than try and get them for a terrorist attack committed outside of US jurisdiction.
FFS William, "the largest fraud in American history?" Are you taking the piss? Have you not been following the industrial scale "deals" involving peace negotiations by friends and family of the President with regard to both Gaza and Ukraine?
You wouldn't be smearing a political opponent using posts from pro-Trumpers on X would you?
Modi’s race baiting is thought to have contributed to the deaths of thousands of Muslims in the 2002 Gujarati riots. He was thereby proscribed as a terrorist by the U.K and U.S. governments until his election as PM made that untenable.
Not something you often hear brought up very much anymore.
His Hindutva politics are pretty seedy. It spills over in Leicester on occasions.
His propaganda is pretty pernicious. All the most Islamophopic people I know IRL are Hindu.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Ah yes. Still, the increase in numbers is curious. Looking into this further..
In 2023 only 2 people had their British citizenship removed on the basis that to do so was "conducive to the public good".
The most recent definition of this that I have found thus far is that:
The Government considers that deprivation on ‘conducive grounds’ is an appropriate response to activities such as those involving: • national security, including espionage and acts of terrorism directed at this country or an allied power; • unacceptable behaviour of the kind mentioned in the then Home Secretary’s Statement of 24 August 2005 ‘glorification’ of terrorism etc 14; • war crimes; and • serious and organised crime.
I'm not sure that his tweets meet the standard for glorification of terrorism, though that argument might be more easily made about tweets made by his sister. And I haven't looked at the 2005 statement.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
One of the interesting things about the Begum case is that it allowed the government to remove her British citizenship on the grounds that she was eligible, but had never held, Bangladeshi citizenship.
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
Or almost any child born to first generation migrants.
"Asylum seekers should be required to wear electronic tags so their movements can be tracked, a policing chief has proposed.
Katy Bourne, Sussex’s police and crime commissioner (PCC), said the move would act as a deterrent to any potential criminal activity. It could also give migrants “greater freedom” to travel further from holding centres and help them get temporary jobs."
A man has been arrested after five people were assaulted with a weapon at a hospital.
Merseyside Police say the incident began when a man attended Newton Community Hospital, in Newton-Le-Willows, on Tuesday afternoon and requested an appointment.
"At this stage, it is believed that his request was declined, and when he was asked to leave, he became increasingly agitated and damaged a counter before assaulting several people inside the hospital, with a weapon - possibly a crowbar," a police spokesperson said.
A 20-year-old man, who police say is originally from Afghanistan, has been arrested on suspicion of five counts of wounding with intent, affray and criminal damage.
Apparently he went crazy a he was not happy waiting for an appointment. Not defending him but I must admit to feeling slightly vexed when I’m stuck in a slow queue.
I had lunch yesterday with the executive director of a programme that helps special forces operatives reintegrate with society.
She said her job was to teach them that the “old lady with ten coupons in front of them in the queue” doesn’t behave like other SFOs…
A worthy cause but why is it left to a charity to do the work the Services should do. Admirable they have the time and resources to do it but …
There seems to be a ‘they’re disposable’ attitude going on here.
It’s a charity that specialises in integrated physical and mental health care for veterans - they work in close partnership with the military. I’d love to figure out a way to get them to collaborate with the QEHB and 1664 Association.
@rcs1000 be warned - they are based near you (UCLA Ronald Reagan) so I may invite you to a dinner with the director at some point…
Are these people simply fuckwits or like UKIP/Brexit/Reform's Nathan Gill do they accept dirty post-Soviet money to write/speak their shite?
False dichotomy.
For example, both Gill and Assange are fuckwits *and* accept dirty post-Soviet money to write/speak their shite.
True enough. The clever operatives are the ones who made the speeches, trousered the bungs and never got caught. Not that I can think of any names mind you.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
A few more minutes and we enter the last day of the year.
I always feel a kind of bitter-sweet melancholy during the final day as the year passes before the anticipated excitement and champagne fizz of New Year's Evening itself.
Modi’s race baiting is thought to have contributed to the deaths of thousands of Muslims in the 2002 Gujarati riots. He was thereby proscribed as a terrorist by the U.K and U.S. governments until his election as PM made that untenable.
Not something you often hear brought up very much anymore.
His Hindutva politics are pretty seedy. It spills over in Leicester on occasions.
His propaganda is pretty pernicious. All the most Islamophopic people I know IRL are Hindu.
A man has been arrested after five people were assaulted with a weapon at a hospital.
Merseyside Police say the incident began when a man attended Newton Community Hospital, in Newton-Le-Willows, on Tuesday afternoon and requested an appointment.
"At this stage, it is believed that his request was declined, and when he was asked to leave, he became increasingly agitated and damaged a counter before assaulting several people inside the hospital, with a weapon - possibly a crowbar," a police spokesperson said.
A 20-year-old man, who police say is originally from Afghanistan, has been arrested on suspicion of five counts of wounding with intent, affray and criminal damage.
Apparently he went crazy a he was not happy waiting for an appointment. Not defending him but I must admit to feeling slightly vexed when I’m stuck in a slow queue.
I had lunch yesterday with the executive director of a programme that helps special forces operatives reintegrate with society.
She said her job was to teach them that the “old lady with ten coupons in front of them in the queue” doesn’t behave like other SFOs…
A worthy cause but why is it left to a charity to do the work the Services should do. Admirable they have the time and resources to do it but …
There seems to be a ‘they’re disposable’ attitude going on here.
Perhaps not so much 'they're disposable' as 'they're no longer on the books so who cares?' - something I've got a sense of from some recent memoirs.
I'm also reminded of the closures of the Services hospitals in recent decades. You'd think HMG would at least want to keep some of the specialist expertise (in, for instance, battle fatigue and PTSD) rather than simply assume the NHS would provide. As I understand it, there was some back pedalling, but not much.
In my experience it’s actually the other way around. The military very much has the attitude that “we take care of our own”. It’s really challenging to get them to trust outsiders even when objectively third party solutions are best
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
The Tory Shadow Attorney General is also now Abramovich’s legal counsel - apparently working to protect his assets from efforts to recover them for Ukraine.
I think you are correct. And right, which has a somewhat different meaning.
I don"t think a barrister should be judged for representing a criminal as our whole justice system is based on the principle of defendents having access to good representation. But Abramovich can easily pay for the best legal representation and it seems seriously stupid for a politician to put themselves on the wrong side of a moral issue like this.
Are these people simply fuckwits or like UKIP/Brexit/Reform's Nathan Gill do they accept dirty post-Soviet money to write/speak their shite?
Some people are pro Russian fuckwits, like the Prime Minister of India.
I'd just add that, while Russian disinformation is the most likely explanation here, Putin should be considered a perfectly legitimate target to kill - arguably the most legitimate of all - and Ukraine would be well within their rights if able to.
"Against this backdrop, thoughtful dissenters will consider whether an early election could be forced by via some kind of general strike blended with a dose of fuel and port blockades."
Little dig at the Telegraph there. Sure the article can’t be irrational and is well reasoned.
Clicks on article
Sees it’s Isobel Oakshott.
Clicks off promptly.
Reform know their only chance is to get an early election - within the next 12-18 months - while it is still Labour vs Not Labour and they can look an attractive and viable alternative to the current Government.
After that, it becomes more problematic as one of a number of things might happen (and I stress these are neither in order of likelihood nor desirability).
Labour gets its act together and economy starts improving The Conservative messaging on the economy in particular starts to resonate Reform's own internal contradictions start tearing it apart
1 won’t happen. Labours goose is cooked and any replacement for SKS and Reeves will be economically worse.
2 has started already. The Tories would be insane to get rid of her in my view.
3 given his track record I’d say there’s a strong chance of that but if it doesn’t happen then it’s game on.
We're a long way off an election and it's wishful thinking to imagine Labour can't or won't recover. In any case, IF economic perceptions change and people start to "feel" better (even if the truth is otherwise) that will lead a rebound in Labour polling numbers.
As for Badenoch, I've said on here a number of times she has had a good autumn but it's probable the May local elections will be painful and that will be the point of challenge. Don't underestimate the ability of people to do silly things and if 60 Conservative MPs see their seats going to Reform, that might be enough for a successful challenge.
As for Reform, the prospect of victory does wonders for party unity (look at how little trouble the "left" gave Blair after he became leader and started looking popular) so as long as they look the next Government internal dissent will be silenced but as soon as it starts becoming clear they won't win - let's say a winnable by-election isn't won - the knives will be out.
The window of opportunity for Reform isn't going to be open for ever but they are in no position to force an election and encouraging what amounts to civil insurrection to get one is ludicrous. The only way there would be an election is if Labour MPs wanted one and on most polling numbers most won't.
To ensure she survives beyond May, Kemi needs to ensure the Conservatives are at least second on the UK NEV in the local and devolved elections and ahead of Labour even if Reform still win overall. That would plus Tory gains of a few Labour councils like Westminster and Barnet would secure her position and put the pressure on Starmer to avoid a leadership challenge.
If however Labour beat the Conservatives on NEV then Sir Keir will likely survive and it will be Kemi facing a VONC with either Cleverly or Jenrick her likely replacement. Jenrick backing Tory MPs would certainly be sending in their letters to Bob Blackman like hyenas circling a wounded gazelle if the Tories fall to 3rd on NEV and councillors and councils won next May and lose MSPs and AMs too
You repeat your last pararaph almost daily, but miss out that any such self inflicted hari kari would see the conservative party staring into the abyss
Neither Jenrick or Cleverly will do any better than Badenoch
If the Tories fell to 3rd in the NEV next May behind both Reform and Labour they would already be staring into the abyss anyway. So many Tory MPs would feel they had to gamble on Jenrick, to try and win back Reform voters or Cleverly, to try and get Labour or LD tactical votes to beat Reform if Kemi showed herself unable to do either
I simply do not agree with you
Well let us hope Kemi ensures the Tories are at least second on NEV next May and secures her position
Secure, even if they achieve 2nd on under 20% of the NEV?
Yes as they would still be the main alternative to Reform then and it would be Labour in 3rd and Starmer facing a leadership challenge then not Kemi
What if it's Reform first, Greens second, Tories third, Labour fourth?
I think LibDems second is more likely.
To back this up, the LibDems are second on vote share in council by elections since last May
With that said... in quite a few European countries, the Greens have ended up the de facto party of the Left. And in almost all (France being the obvious exception) they outpoll the local equivalent of the LibDems.
So, I don't think it's impossible that a charasmatic leader like Polanski could lead the Greens to second place behind Reform. Heck, it's not impossible that if the Conservative/Reform split were to end up almost equal, and the Labour Party were to continue to shed votes, that they could end up leading the polls.
Possible, yes but their performance in by elections doesn't point to it.
I reckon the order will be:
Reform LibDems Conservatives Labour Green Your Party and their fellow travellers
Like that brief period at the very end of the May government when LD and Brexit fought it out for the top spot (after a bizarrely long period of May's Tories leading the polls despite being paralysed and unable to advance their brexit policy).
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
One of the interesting things about the Begum case is that it allowed the government to remove her British citizenship on the grounds that she was eligible, but had never held, Bangladeshi citizenship.
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
Or indeed those eligible for Irish citizenship. Which is a lot. In fact. You could probably cull the population by over a quarter if you were so minded.
Comments
It's surprisingly common amongst misanthropes, who use animals to express their positive feelings whilst humans absorb the negative ones.
What did she say about you?
The idea of a paternalistic Conservative Party governing in the interests of all had plenty of supporters and was the antithesis of State socialism but where is that paternalism now? Conservatives seem eager to cut public services which help the less fortunate and promote socio-economic ideals which basically say "if you make the rich even richer that will help the poor".
I'd argue Disraeli would equally be horrified at the notion of a group which allowed Britain's basic assets to be sold to foreigners so the British family has to pay more for its energy in order for the customers of the French and other companies which have been allowed to take over our energy supplies to enjoy subsidised energy.
I'd also argue Disraeli would be horrified at the way companies have been allowed to pollute and poison our rivers without consequence.
If she'd had the latter she'd have dealt with the 100k tax trap in her infamous budget, which she notably didn't, but did cut the top rate because headlines.
That sort of facile superficiality showed us all we needed to know about the depth of her thinking and why the markets, rightly, smelt a rat.
It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick.
You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
But a lot closer than it was a few years ago.
I didn't like being spoken to in that manor.
Zelenskey tried to kill Putin today, hopefully Putin takes it personally and responds in kind to Zelenskey.
https://x.com/ImJulianAssange/status/2005820986889760819
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
Largely you projecting.
I oppose citizenship stripping because it is essentially authoritarian.
Whether those desperate for that power are right or left wing authoritarians is irrelevant as fad as I'm concerned.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
Don't you see that Labour are opposed to revoking citizenship not because of the "precedent" it might set but because the internal politics of their own party would become untenable as the Islamist faction would abandon them and they'd lose seats in London, Birmingham, Bradford and the other strongholds they have.
That was a foolish error, but we now need to own that error. To do otherwise would be wrong and make us look even worse than we already do.
Council says requesting proof is ‘standard process’ to ensure ‘fairness, transparency and compliance’"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/27/doctor-must-prove-he-saved-womans-life-avoid-parking-ticket
For example, both Gill and Assange are fuckwits *and* accept dirty post-Soviet money to write/speak their shite.
(Though it looks like there was no such targetting of Putin. Perhaps the most credible bit of evidence being that it didn't work. In recent times the Ukranians have been pretty good at hitting their targets)
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
Clearly didn't sell enough William Hague jigsaws.
Sounds like the Russian government has been delaying payment of bills in December in order to hit their revised annual budget deficit target. That explains the cash reserves they've been accumulating - it's money to pay the bills in January.
'So your worships, at the request of the solicitor representing the prosecution, I'm going to make her as ill as she was when I attended, then we sit back do nothing and watch what happens. If she snuffs it, you can clear me.'
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
He hid for the best part of an hour until he was sure that the copper had gone, then meekly sneaked out and drove home slowly on the backroads.
So, yes the scam can work.
Would like to see that.
As for Modi, he’s always been a right twat.
And an incel to boot.
"What evidence has Moscow provided?
Absolutely none, and on Tuesday Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said there would be none forthcoming. “I don’t think there should be any evidence if such a massive drone attack is being carried out, which, thanks to the well-coordinated work of the air defence system, was shot down,” he told journalists in a phone call.
Often, when there is a Ukrainian drone attack, Russians living nearby post video of explosions to social media, but there is no footage of this supposed attack, and residents of nearby Valdai told Russian independent media outlets they had not heard explosions on Monday."
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
It's been debunked since there is zero evidence corroborating the claimed 90+ drone strikes.
That's simply not even remotely credible.
Opponent) that’s the killer
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-citizenship-removed-from-individuals-since-2000/number-of-individuals-who-have-had-british-citizenship-removed-since-2000
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
2018 - 50
2019 - 82
2020 - 43
2021 - 273
2022 - 308
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-02-11/HL4962
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time, rising from an average of 4 revocations per year up until around the Brexit referendum, and now several hundred per year.
However, if we only have Putin’s word for it, it seems quite retarded to take that as sufficient proof that it did.
Presumably US intelligence can’t find any evidence, but Trump is so cravenly invested in Putin’s good faith that he has chosen to go along with it.
In fact. You could probably cull the population by over a quarter if you were so minded.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
https://x.com/nickshirleyy/status/2004642794862961123
Those who happen to have other citizenship (like me).
My (Farage adjacent) father was quite supportive of the victims of the Windrush deportations, as he realised that he had arrived in much the same way, albeit from a different colony, and with parents of British descent.
Mind you, If I were deported to the Antipodes as a result I wouldn't protest too hard.
I don't know if this theoretical entitlement is on a par with Begum's entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship, which the government there insisted she wouldn't be given.
But you could argue it gives every British citizen a theoretical second citizenship, and therefore the possibility of losing their British citizenship.
The marginal gain in revenue for direct subscription fees is surely less than what they lose from being the single globally free English news organisation.
(I will / would pay $10 or more for access to the BBC generally, if they could figure out a graceful workaround to their various rights issues. It’s batshit that in 2025 I can’t just pay money to listen to 1970s episodes of the Archers should I want to (I don’t want to, but there’s surely plenty of stuff I would be interested in).
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
"1. Deprivation of citizenship where it is conducive to the public good is reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm, for example in response to activities such as those involving:
national security including espionage and acts of terrorism
unacceptable behaviour such as the ‘glorification’ of terrorism
war crimes
serious organised crime"
Would what he did count as glorifying terrorism? I don't know.
He was thereby proscribed as a terrorist by the U.K and U.S. governments until his election as PM made that untenable.
Not something you often hear brought up very much anymore.
You wouldn't be smearing a political opponent using posts from pro-Trumpers on X would you?
His propaganda is pretty pernicious. All the most Islamophopic people I know IRL are Hindu.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-03-11/37114
In 2023 only 2 people had their British citizenship removed on the basis that to do so was "conducive to the public good".
The most recent definition of this that I have found thus far is that:
The Government considers that deprivation on ‘conducive grounds’ is an appropriate response to activities such as those involving:
• national security, including espionage and acts of terrorism directed at this country or an allied power;
• unacceptable behaviour of the kind mentioned in the then Home Secretary’s Statement of 24 August 2005 ‘glorification’ of terrorism etc 14;
• war crimes; and
• serious and organised crime.
I'm not sure that his tweets meet the standard for glorification of terrorism, though that argument might be more easily made about tweets made by his sister. And I haven't looked at the 2005 statement.
Bit last century, though.
Want Britain to be a cutting edge, happening kind of place, don’t we?
Would be shameful if we did persecution of minorities at the tech level of North Korea.
@rcs1000 be warned - they are based near you (UCLA Ronald Reagan) so I may invite you to a dinner with the director at some point…
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
I always feel a kind of bitter-sweet melancholy during the final day as the year passes before the anticipated excitement and champagne fizz of New Year's Evening itself.
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.”
“Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked.
“Yes.”
“Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.”
“Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”