I was interested by this post from Alex Liang, a British Singaporean.
"Allow me to wade in as someone who knows the story - I'm from Singapore (and now hold a British passport, gave up my Singaporean passport years ago - Singapore does not allow dual nationality).
1. She qualified for a UK passport years ago but for some reason, she did not apply for one despite the fact that it would have been merely paperwork. She decided to hold on to her Singaporean passport when she had indefinite leave to remain (ILTR)
2. The ILTR comes with terms & conditions - ie. you cannot spend more than 2 years away from the UK. Many people flout this rule anyway by simply returning to the UK for a short while (say a couple of days, a week) just to stay on the right side of the law before departing again each time she got close to the 2 year limit. For just the cost of a return flight to the UK, she could have avoided breaking the law.
3. She made a hideously bad decision to hold on to her Singaporean passport for yet another reason: Singapore is extremely welcoming to British expatriates and if she wanted to spend an extended period in Singapore caring for her elderly parents, then she could have done so as a British expatriate (several visas available for her to do that with) rather than as a Singaporean. I stress, she had ZERO incentive to hold on to her Singaporean nationality, NONE whatsoever but for some bizarre reason decided to do so despite the fact that she doesn't even have anyone to stay if now that she is deported there. That's the part that even us in the Singaporean diaspora can't figure out - it 's a bizarre and shockingly bad, almost inexplicable decision on her part. Why the hell would she want a Singaporean passport? (Sorry I am biased, I couldn't wait to get rid of mine and celebrated when I naturalized as British.)
4. Ironically, there's little sympathy for her amongst the British-Singaporean community because we feel that rules are rules: Singaporeans are very law-abiding folks! We felt that if she wasn't clear of the rules, she could have verified them, asked for help before breaking them and finding them on the wrong side of the law and getting deported like that. It's not like you have to spending millions engaging an immigration lawyer - most of us who have spent time working/living in another country with a visa understand that we have to follow the rules. She broke the rules and pleaded ignorance. Nobody shifted the goalposts whilst she was away - she just didn't bother looking at where they were.
5. The home office could have made an exception and shown mercy but they didn't. It's not like they are deporting her to Syria or Afghanistan, after all."
You are right.. if there is one place in the world i wouldnt mind being deported to its Singapore.. Low tax rates, a hub for Asia and Australasia and pretty much full employment. Ok its an autocracy but you cant have everything.
There has to date only been one unsuccessful prosecution and that was of a doctor prosecuted in relation to some surgery he performed on a woman after childbirth.
As I've argued before on here FGM should be made a strict liability offence. If a child is found to have been cut, her parents are liable and the child - and other children in the family - should be made wards of court so that no decisions can be taken about the childrens' future without the court agreeing.
There has always seemed a hell of a lot of barristers and lawyers amongst MPs. Could do with a few more scientists.
• A quarter of all MPs have a occupational background in politics (the largest of any occupational group) highlighting the professionalisation of politics. The occupational background of MPs continues to be ever more biased toward business and the ‘metropolitan professions’, particularly finance, law, public affairs, and politics.
However, there are major disparities between • the parties. For example, 4% of Labour MPs have at some point worked in finance as compared with 25% for Conservatives. An alternative trend emerges with the public and voluntary sector, which is dominated by Labour MPs. As to be expected most of the blue collar and trade union occupations are with Labour MPs
I've always gotten the impression there are quite a lot of lawyers and journalists in politics. Blair and Umunna were both lawyers I think, prior to becoming MPs. Gordon Brown, George Osborne, and Michael Gove were all previously journalists as well. I also recall reading Ed Balls had a stint at writing for the FT.
...we've ended up with something which is both remote, has a democratic deficit, ludicrously interfering and powerful where it does not need to be and weak and feeble where it ought to be stronger. The idea is in many ways a noble one. The execution has been a mess.
I agree with you that the EU ended up with a mess - or more charitably a half-measure. The reason is a simple one. Despite the rhetoric about it in the UK, no-one wants an EU superstate of the kind the United States of America ended up being. The USA dealt with a similar issue, only finally resolving it as a powerful centralised state one hundred years after independence and following the Civil War. Going back to the EU, it's what it is because that's what's possible and somewhat necessary if you are going to have that powerful an institution. Whether it is good enough is a matter of opinion. Whether it will even work is a matter of time.
What is the difference between 1. A state with devolved governance 2. A federation 3. A confederation?
A confederation contains independent states coming together for extensive cooperation but not to form a country. I believe Switzerland was one until the mid 19th.C, then it federated.
I don't know if there's any difference between 1 and 2. Federal republics like Canada and US devolve certain things to the states and provinces. For instance Louisiana and Quebec have French law, other places use English-type law. But Austria has provinces with devolved powers and I don't think it calls itself federal (Germany does.) A historian or lawyer might need to correct me slightly ...
My guess would be that in a federal system the split of powers is defined in the constitution and hence can only be altered by constitutional amendment requiring the acquiescence of the provinces, whereas in a state with devolved governance the degree is devolution is decided by, and hence can be withdrawn unilaterally, by the national government.
Re the 447 flight: it is just as well that my longhaul flight to Vancouver over lots of ocean is not until September and is not with Air France.
Incidentally thanks to all for their Canada tips: I have booked what looks to be a barnstorming trip round Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Jasper National Park this autumn for a luxurious three weeks.
I never normally book holidays: my preference is to wake up one day and just go where the fancy takes me, which is what my pilot friend and I did last autumn. But now that I've handed my life savings over I'm so looking forward to it! All I need to do now is get fit enough for all those mountain walks.
I was about to post this: Showing that commercial air travel is getting safer every year.
As they used to say at the end of Crimewatch, don't have nightmares and enjoy your holiday!
That's 'absolute number' of accidents - I guess 'fatalities per million passenger km flown looks very different'?
Re the 447 flight: it is just as well that my longhaul flight to Vancouver over lots of ocean is not until September and is not with Air France.
Incidentally thanks to all for their Canada tips: I have booked what looks to be a barnstorming trip round Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Jasper National Park this autumn for a luxurious three weeks.
I never normally book holidays: my preference is to wake up one day and just go where the fancy takes me, which is what my pilot friend and I did last autumn. But now that I've handed my life savings over I'm so looking forward to it! All I need to do now is get fit enough for all those mountain walks.
I was about to post this: Showing that commercial air travel is getting safer every year.
As they used to say at the end of Crimewatch, don't have nightmares and enjoy your holiday!
That's 'absolute number' of accidents - I guess 'fatalities per million passenger km flown looks very different'?
That's the graph I was looking for but couldn't find. Yes, flight numbers and miles have risen dramatically while absolute numbers of deaths have fallen.
Also remember that the global accident stats include planes in Africa, Russia and Indonesia, where old planes with poor maintainance and equally poor training are SOP.
I agree with a lot of what you say. Subsidiarity (and proportionality) were fine in principle, but people certainly didn't feel it. Same with NCAs, etc. Of course much of this was our "fault" - not knowing or caring about this construction that rose up, with the consent of successive elected governments, to the point whereby we became irritated by and eventually rejected it.
The issues on defence, intelligence, health, intellectual property, and any number of other areas are, I fear for many interested Leavers, going to be a source of frustration. The Treaties refer to it as "pooling sovereignty" for a greater good and I rather think that in these areas, such pooling of sovereignty will be seen as a betrayal. Perhaps not; everyone has their red lines, but the thought that we will not, in the strictest terms, give up some form of sovereignty in any negotiated outcome with the EU is a fantasy.
To take an example you know well - that of equivalence. You will know that the discussion centres around Day One equivalence and then the mechanism to ensure that equivalence is maintained in the months and years ahead. Well there is only one party which will be able to grant equivalence periodically to those countries which adhere to and replicate EU law in financial services, and it won't be the Bank of England or the FCA.
Giving up sovereignty? I would say so. Necessary for the continued health of our financial services? Yes also.
Indeed. What I've found interesting in recent weeks have been some of the smoke signals coming from German finance people about the need not to mess with the City of London. Another one was it this morning. Behind the scenes I suspect the discussions are focusing on the issue of financial stability, so hard won since the crises of 2007/8 and thereafter, and the need not to make changes which put that at unnecessary risk.
Re the 447 flight: it is just as well that my longhaul flight to Vancouver over lots of ocean is not until September and is not with Air France.
Incidentally thanks to all for their Canada tips: I have booked what looks to be a barnstorming trip round Vancouver, Vancouver Island and the Jasper National Park this autumn for a luxurious three weeks.
I never normally book holidays: my preference is to wake up one day and just go where the fancy takes me, which is what my pilot friend and I did last autumn. But now that I've handed my life savings over I'm so looking forward to it! All I need to do now is get fit enough for all those mountain walks.
You will have a great time.
Vancouver Island is a good place to be. Victoria harbour is a place to see and be seen, Saw some very odd sights there, but it was a few years ago. On the flight over we saw the mountains of S. Greenland. Not to be missed.
There has to date only been one unsuccessful prosecution and that was of a doctor prosecuted in relation to some surgery he performed on a woman after childbirth.
To clarify I believe its the case that there has only ever been one prosecution for FGM in total, and that was unsuccessful. Your choice of words could imply that only one case had been unsuccessful and by implication others may have succeeded.
As I've argued before on here FGM should be made a strict liability offence. If a child is found to have been cut, her parents are liable and the child - and other children in the family - should be made wards of court so that no decisions can be taken about the childrens' future without the court agreeing.
I agree with this completely. I would go further, since this on its own might lead parents involved in this behavior to not taking their daughters to see the doctor for fear of being prosecuted. I would mandate a full medical checkup for all children when they enter the school system, where the doctor would check for this amongst other standard conditions that it would be best to know about and may have been "overlooked".
What is the difference between 1. A state with devolved governance 2. A federation 3. A confederation?
A confederation contains independent states coming together for extensive cooperation but not to form a country. I believe Switzerland was one until the mid 19th.C, then it federated.
I don't know if there's any difference between 1 and 2. Federal republics like Canada and US devolve certain things to the states and provinces. For instance Louisiana and Quebec have French law, other places use English-type law. But Austria has provinces with devolved powers and I don't think it calls itself federal (Germany does.) A historian or lawyer might need to correct me slightly ...
My guess would be that in a federal system the split of powers is defined in the constitution and hence can only be altered by constitutional amendment requiring the acquiescence of the provinces, whereas in a state with devolved governance the degree is devolution is decided by, and hence can be withdrawn unilaterally, by the national government.
Re Article 1 - there is an inherent contradiction in it. A Federal Superstate - even if you are in favour of it - is rarely the kind of political entity where decisions are taken "as closely as possible to the citizen". Indeed, that was one of the criticisms made of the EU - that for all the talk about famed "subsidiarity" - decisions were taken remotely and the process - let alone accountability - was an impenetrable mystery.
When drafting the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty a humbler and more intelligent EU would have learnt much from how the US Founding Fathers debated and sought to resolve very similar issues. In their arrogance they did not, which is why we've ended up with something which is both remote, has a democratic deficit, ludicrously interfering and powerful where it does not need to be and weak and feeble where it ought to be stronger. The idea is in many ways a noble one. The execution has been a mess.
Sorry, Cyclefree, did not see this before posting my own response to the same effect. Agree 100%
...we've ended up with something which is both remote, has a democratic deficit, ludicrously interfering and powerful where it does not need to be and weak and feeble where it ought to be stronger. The idea is in many ways a noble one. The execution has been a mess.
I agree with you that the EU ended up with a mess - or more charitably a half-measure. The reason is a simple one. Despite the rhetoric about it in the UK, no-one wants an EU superstate of the kind the United States of America ended up being.
...we've ended up with something which is both remote, has a democratic deficit, ludicrously interfering and powerful where it does not need to be and weak and feeble where it ought to be stronger. The idea is in many ways a noble one. The execution has been a mess.
I agree with you that the EU ended up with a mess - or more charitably a half-measure. The reason is a simple one. Despite the rhetoric about it in the UK, no-one wants an EU superstate of the kind the United States of America ended up being.
There has to date only been one unsuccessful prosecution and that was of a doctor prosecuted in relation to some surgery he performed on a woman after childbirth.
As I've argued before on here FGM should be made a strict liability offence. If a child is found to have been cut, her parents are liable and the child - and other children in the family - should be made wards of court so that no decisions can be taken about the childrens' future without the court agreeing.
Absolutely. When the British had trouble stamping out suttee, it threatened imprisonment for all family members. They worked
There has to date only been one unsuccessful prosecution and that was of a doctor prosecuted in relation to some surgery he performed on a woman after childbirth.
As I've argued before on here FGM should be made a strict liability offence. If a child is found to have been cut, her parents are liable and the child - and other children in the family - should be made wards of court so that no decisions can be taken about the childrens' future without the court agreeing.
Stretching back to my diversity training, isn't the problem with such a proposal, indirect discrimination? A decision, law or policy, which applies unduly to one section of society is de facto illegal. Making it a strict liability offence would be in breach of that principle.
Much better to have a policy that says the prosecutions will only take place when such would be in the interest of the child. As the damage has already been done and it is seldom if ever in the interest of a child to see their parents prosecuted (think of the damage to family relations) prosecutions never happen. So everyone is happy, the politicians can make grand speeches and set up initiatives, the plod and social services can conduct pointless investigations and the people that want this thing for their daughters can carry on.
We are a multicultural community, Mrs. Free, and no one community has principles or practices superior to any other. Furthermore the law must be upheld but only in a way that is sensitive to the cultural norms of the person in question.
There has to date only been one unsuccessful prosecution and that was of a doctor prosecuted in relation to some surgery he performed on a woman after childbirth.
To clarify I believe its the case that there has only ever been one prosecution for FGM in total, and that was unsuccessful. Your choice of words could imply that only one case had been unsuccessful and by implication others may have succeeded.
As I've argued before on here FGM should be made a strict liability offence. If a child is found to have been cut, her parents are liable and the child - and other children in the family - should be made wards of court so that no decisions can be taken about the childrens' future without the court agreeing.
I agree with this completely. I would go further, since this on its own might lead parents involved in this behavior to not taking their daughters to see the doctor for fear of being prosecuted. I would mandate a full medical checkup for all children when they enter the school system, where the doctor would check for this amongst other standard conditions that it would be best to know about and may have been "overlooked".
To violate someone by a compulsory test would be unacceptable and furthermore the social implications of getting the police involved in what is likely to be a closely knit religious family could be devastating. I'm afraid however much people think it's a crime that deserves punishment the best way of dealing with it is by an intense publicity campaign.
Mr. Roger, there was some information (no link to hand, alas, it was a couple of months ago) indicating more than one case of FGM in the UK per hour in 2016. So, there's clearly *some* level of knowledge. And still zero successful prosecutions.
Dr Liam Fox, Surgeon Commander Andrew Murrison, Dr Phillip Lee, Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Dr Caroline Johnson, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Dr Tania Mathias, Dr Daniel Poulter, Dr Philippa Whitford and Dr Sarah Wollaston.
There has to date only been one unsuccessful prosecution and that was of a doctor prosecuted in relation to some surgery he performed on a woman after childbirth.
To clarify I believe its the case that there has only ever been one prosecution for FGM in total, and that was unsuccessful. Your choice of words could imply that only one case had been unsuccessful and by implication others may have succeeded.
As I've argued before on here FGM should be made a strict liability offence. If a child is found to have been cut, her parents are liable and the child - and other children in the family - should be made wards of court so that no decisions can be taken about the childrens' future without the court agreeing.
I agree with this completely. I would go further, since this on its own might lead parents involved in this behavior to not taking their daughters to see the doctor for fear of being prosecuted. I would mandate a full medical checkup for all children when they enter the school system, where the doctor would check for this amongst other standard conditions that it would be best to know about and may have been "overlooked".
To violate someone by a compulsory test would be unacceptable and furthermore the social implications of getting the police involved in what is likely to be a closely knit religious family could be devastating. I'm afraid however much people think it's a crime that deserves punishment the best way of dealing with it is by an intense publicity campaign.
There has to date only been one unsuccessful prosecution and that was of a doctor prosecuted in relation to some surgery he performed on a woman after childbirth.
To clarify I believe its the case that there has only ever been one prosecution for FGM in total, and that was unsuccessful. Your choice of words could imply that only one case had been unsuccessful and by implication others may have succeeded.
As I've argued before on here FGM should be made a strict liability offence. If a child is found to have been cut, her parents are liable and the child - and other children in the family - should be made wards of court so that no decisions can be taken about the childrens' future without the court agreeing.
I agree with this completely. I would go further, since this on its own might lead parents involved in this behavior to not taking their daughters to see the doctor for fear of being prosecuted. I would mandate a full medical checkup for all children when they enter the school system, where the doctor would check for this amongst other standard conditions that it would be best to know about and may have been "overlooked".
To violate someone by a compulsory test would be unacceptable and furthermore the social implications of getting the police involved in what is likely to be a closely knit religious family could be devastating. I'm afraid however much people think it's a crime that deserves punishment the best way of dealing with it is by an intense publicity campaign.
Do you believe the same to be true about BCG tests ? Headlice inspections ? Health visitors make routine inspections of infants in the first year for defects and mistreatment and are backed by the force of law, in what way do you feel this is different ?
...we've ended up with something which is both remote, has a democratic deficit, ludicrously interfering and powerful where it does not need to be and weak and feeble where it ought to be stronger. The idea is in many ways a noble one. The execution has been a mess.
I agree with you that the EU ended up with a mess - or more charitably a half-measure. The reason is a simple one. Despite the rhetoric about it in the UK, no-one wants an EU superstate of the kind the United States of America ended up being.
A hundred quid for a book on Amazon, with no cheap used ones on offer is a good sign that no-one bought or read it.
The blurb says: The Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt does not mince his words. He wishes to create a 'United States of Europe,' with all member states of the European Union participating if possible, with a group of 'pioneers' if necessary. His book is required reading for anyone who cares about Europe.
We are always being told that no-one cares about Europe!
Mr. Roger, there was some information (no link to hand, alas, it was a couple of months ago) indicating more than one case of FGM in the UK per hour in 2016. So, there's clearly *some* level of knowledge. And still zero successful prosecutions.
If only. The UK is a destination for FGM tourism. Think about that for a moment.
There has to date only been one unsuccessful prosecution and that was of a doctor prosecuted in relation to some surgery he performed on a woman after childbirth.
To clarify I believe its the case that there has only ever been one prosecution for FGM in total, and that was unsuccessful. Your choice of words could imply that only one case had been unsuccessful and by implication others may have succeeded.
As I've argued before on here FGM should be made a strict liability offence. If a child is found to have been cut, her parents are liable and the child - and other children in the family - should be made wards of court so that no decisions can be taken about the childrens' future without the court agreeing.
I agree with this completely. I would go further, since this on its own might lead parents involved in this behavior to not taking their daughters to see the doctor for fear of being prosecuted. I would mandate a full medical checkup for all children when they enter the school system, where the doctor would check for this amongst other standard conditions that it would be best to know about and may have been "overlooked".
To violate someone by a compulsory test would be unacceptable and furthermore the social implications of getting the police involved in what is likely to be a closely knit religious family could be devastating. I'm afraid however much people think it's a crime that deserves punishment the best way of dealing with it is by an intense publicity campaign.
But why should FGM be treated any different to any other sexual abuse of a child by family members? Turning a blind eye for "cultural reasons" is what lead us to 1400 abused children in Rotherham.
Comments
I was interested by this post from Alex Liang, a British Singaporean.
"Allow me to wade in as someone who knows the story - I'm from Singapore (and now hold a British passport, gave up my Singaporean passport years ago - Singapore does not allow dual nationality).
1. She qualified for a UK passport years ago but for some reason, she did not apply for one despite the fact that it would have been merely paperwork. She decided to hold on to her Singaporean passport when she had indefinite leave to remain (ILTR)
2. The ILTR comes with terms & conditions - ie. you cannot spend more than 2 years away from the UK. Many people flout this rule anyway by simply returning to the UK for a short while (say a couple of days, a week) just to stay on the right side of the law before departing again each time she got close to the 2 year limit. For just the cost of a return flight to the UK, she could have avoided breaking the law.
3. She made a hideously bad decision to hold on to her Singaporean passport for yet another reason: Singapore is extremely welcoming to British expatriates and if she wanted to spend an extended period in Singapore caring for her elderly parents, then she could have done so as a British expatriate (several visas available for her to do that with) rather than as a Singaporean. I stress, she had ZERO incentive to hold on to her Singaporean nationality, NONE whatsoever but for some bizarre reason decided to do so despite the fact that she doesn't even have anyone to stay if now that she is deported there. That's the part that even us in the Singaporean diaspora can't figure out - it 's a bizarre and shockingly bad, almost inexplicable decision on her part. Why the hell would she want a Singaporean passport? (Sorry I am biased, I couldn't wait to get rid of mine and celebrated when I naturalized as British.)
4. Ironically, there's little sympathy for her amongst the British-Singaporean community because we feel that rules are rules: Singaporeans are very law-abiding folks! We felt that if she wasn't clear of the rules, she could have verified them, asked for help before breaking them and finding them on the wrong side of the law and getting deported like that. It's not like you have to spending millions engaging an immigration lawyer - most of us who have spent time working/living in another country with a visa understand that we have to follow the rules. She broke the rules and pleaded ignorance. Nobody shifted the goalposts whilst she was away - she just didn't bother looking at where they were.
5. The home office could have made an exception and shown mercy but they didn't. It's not like they are deporting her to Syria or Afghanistan, after all."
You are right.. if there is one place in the world i wouldnt mind being deported to its Singapore..
Low tax rates, a hub for Asia and Australasia and pretty much full employment.
Ok its an autocracy but you cant have everything.
As I've argued before on here FGM should be made a strict liability offence. If a child is found to have been cut, her parents are liable and the child - and other children in the family - should be made wards of court so that no decisions can be taken about the childrens' future without the court agreeing.
I'd like see more MPs from a medical background.
But that is just a guess.
Also remember that the global accident stats include planes in Africa, Russia and Indonesia, where old planes with poor maintainance and equally poor training are SOP.
On the flight over we saw the mountains of S. Greenland. Not to be missed.
Much better to have a policy that says the prosecutions will only take place when such would be in the interest of the child. As the damage has already been done and it is seldom if ever in the interest of a child to see their parents prosecuted (think of the damage to family relations) prosecutions never happen. So everyone is happy, the politicians can make grand speeches and set up initiatives, the plod and social services can conduct pointless investigations and the people that want this thing for their daughters can carry on.
We are a multicultural community, Mrs. Free, and no one community has principles or practices superior to any other. Furthermore the law must be upheld but only in a way that is sensitive to the cultural norms of the person in question.
Dr Liam Fox, Surgeon Commander Andrew Murrison, Dr Phillip Lee, Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Dr Caroline Johnson, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Dr Tania Mathias, Dr Daniel Poulter, Dr Philippa Whitford and Dr Sarah Wollaston.
So not bad.
Closely knit criminal family.
https://twitter.com/GrandPrixDiary/status/836275438410481664
The Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt does not mince his words. He wishes to create a 'United States of Europe,' with all member states of the European Union participating if possible, with a group of 'pioneers' if necessary. His book is required reading for anyone who cares about Europe.
We are always being told that no-one cares about Europe!