Hmmm... a compromise like this might satisfy a majority of the electorate, but the Government will have to be very careful indeed to make sure that progress is seen to be made on immigration control.
One of the possible scenarios for the re-emergence of an effective Opposition is that Labour is sidelined but then, at some point in the not too distant future, a dominant Conservative Party - no longer constrained by the threat of Labour - splits over a key area of policy. Mass immigration coupled with too many compromises with the EU could be enough to do the job.
The minimum the Government needs to achieve at the end of the Brexit process is to ensure that Parliament has complete control over taxation; that future *unskilled* migration is restricted; and that the country is free to decide its own international trading arrangements. Beyond that I reckon it has room to bargain.
Says you.
In actual fact any deal will be Brexit.
People might notice immigration figures for a while but as they haven't changed materially in years I don't suppose it will make much difference either way plus as TMay has said, the transition period will mean nothing much changes for a while anyway.
It's a sensible article. The irony is that the SNP and the Tories should oddly enough have very similar aims for Brexit. A good Brexit deal that maintains free-trade, keeps an open border with Ireland etc is what we are looking for. But it will also set a precedent that if Scotland leaves the UK they could get the same as Ireland - free trade, an open border etc
The better the UK/EU (and thus Ireland) deal is, the better a future rUK/Scotland one is likely to be.
The SNP should not seek to frustrate or denigrate Brexit but instead seek to make independence a success and then seek to go a step further by getting their own exit.
Though if Brexit is a success that removes the SNP's whole reason for indyref2 in the first place
The SNP has always wanted indyref2 anyway and Brexit will still have happened even if it is a success. Even better if its a success you can argue that Project Fear has been shown to be overblown and independence works. It is win/win for the SNP.
Plus if Brexit happens in 2019, 2020 sees the SNP sweep Scotland again while the Tories win another UK majority and they put a manifesto commitment to a new indyref2 in 2021 then the SNP will have momentum on their side.
Play the long game. Don't throw it away prematurely.
The main reason the SNP have pushed for indyref2 is hard Brexit and the disaster it will be, if there is neither hard Brexit nor a disaster May will refuse any new indyref easily and with a 1/3 of SNP voters having backed Leave the Yes coalition would start to split, it would be lose/lose for the SNP
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
That is even more the case if the Russians, and therefore the Syrians, were warned the strikes would be taking place. Should that turn out to be true, it will have been nothing more than an exercise in futile willy-waving, that will actually send out a signal that the US is not at all serious about reining Assad in. At the very least, it is way, way too early to begin to talk about the emergence of any kind of Trump doctrine.
It is also worth remembering that Trump would like to ban all those on the end of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria from entering the US.
Yep. I had similar thoughts to Mr Tyndall last night as soon as saw that Tillerson said that these strikes don't signal a change to US policy on Syria.
It's a sensible article. The irony is that the SNP and the Tories should oddly enough have very similar aims for Brexit. A good Brexit deal that maintains free-trade, keeps an open border with Ireland etc is what we are looking for. But it will also set a precedent that if Scotland leaves the UK they could get the same as Ireland - free trade, an open border etc
The better the UK/EU (and thus Ireland) deal is, the better a future rUK/Scotland one is likely to be.
The SNP should not seek to frustrate or denigrate Brexit but instead seek to make independence a success and then seek to go a step further by getting their own exit.
Though if Brexit is a success that removes the SNP's whole reason for indyref2 in the first place
LOL, The impossible dream.
You should be used to them, malc.....
You should always have dreams and aspirations or you are walking dead.
Hmmm... a compromise like this might satisfy a majority of the electorate, but the Government will have to be very careful indeed to make sure that progress is seen to be made on immigration control.
One of the possible scenarios for the re-emergence of an effective Opposition is that Labour is sidelined but then, at some point in the not too distant future, a dominant Conservative Party - no longer constrained by the threat of Labour - splits over a key area of policy. Mass immigration coupled with too many compromises with the EU could be enough to do the job.
The minimum the Government needs to achieve at the end of the Brexit process is to ensure that Parliament has complete control over taxation; that future *unskilled* migration is restricted; and that the country is free to decide its own international trading arrangements. Beyond that I reckon it has room to bargain.
Hard Brexit you mean, but they plan Pretend Brexit now.
I'm not sure that the labels for 101 different flavours of Brexit are very helpful. The long and short of it is that we are going. It's just a matter of what, if any, bargain is concluded about the future relationship.
Hmmm... a compromise like this might satisfy a majority of the electorate, but the Government will have to be very careful indeed to make sure that progress is seen to be made on immigration control.
The government will be able to claim significant progress simply by 'taking control' of watching the Eurozone economy power ahead and creating more jobs.
O/T (and apologies to MalcolmG et al) - have people seen the Clinton/Sturgeon selfie doing the rounds? It's a little terrifying; looks like Tim Allen and Jim Carrey in drag together. NOT a good look.
Hmmm... a compromise like this might satisfy a majority of the electorate, but the Government will have to be very careful indeed to make sure that progress is seen to be made on immigration control.
One of the possible scenarios for the re-emergence of an effective Opposition is that Labour is sidelined but then, at some point in the not too distant future, a dominant Conservative Party - no longer constrained by the threat of Labour - splits over a key area of policy. Mass immigration coupled with too many compromises with the EU could be enough to do the job.
The minimum the Government needs to achieve at the end of the Brexit process is to ensure that Parliament has complete control over taxation; that future *unskilled* migration is restricted; and that the country is free to decide its own international trading arrangements. Beyond that I reckon it has room to bargain.
Hard Brexit you mean, but they plan Pretend Brexit now.
I'm not sure that the labels for 101 different flavours of Brexit are very helpful. The long and short of it is that we are going. It's just a matter of what, if any, bargain is concluded about the future relationship.
The long and the short of it is that we're staying in the continent of Europe and the rules will continue to be set by the EU. We have only three choices: to be a driver, to be a passenger, or to be isolated.
O/T (and apologies to MalcolmG et al) - have people seen the Clinton/Sturgeon selfie doing the rounds? It's a little terrifying; looks like Tim Allen and Jim Carrey in drag together. NOT a good look.
Hmmm... a compromise like this might satisfy a majority of the electorate, but the Government will have to be very careful indeed to make sure that progress is seen to be made on immigration control.
One of the possible scenarios for the re-emergence of an effective Opposition is that Labour is sidelined but then, at some point in the not too distant future, a dominant Conservative Party - no longer constrained by the threat of Labour - splits over a key area of policy. Mass immigration coupled with too many compromises with the EU could be enough to do the job.
The minimum the Government needs to achieve at the end of the Brexit process is to ensure that Parliament has complete control over taxation; that future *unskilled* migration is restricted; and that the country is free to decide its own international trading arrangements. Beyond that I reckon it has room to bargain.
Hard Brexit you mean, but they plan Pretend Brexit now.
I'm not sure that the labels for 101 different flavours of Brexit are very helpful. The long and short of it is that we are going. It's just a matter of what, if any, bargain is concluded about the future relationship.
Hmmm... a compromise like this might satisfy a majority of the electorate, but the Government will have to be very careful indeed to make sure that progress is seen to be made on immigration control.
The government will be able to claim significant progress simply by 'taking control' of watching the Eurozone economy power ahead and creating more jobs.
Yeah, right, whatever.
Agree but hard to see the EU being generous, anybody that believes that is fooling themselves.
Hmmm... a compromise like this might satisfy a majority of the electorate, but the Government will have to be very careful indeed to make sure that progress is seen to be made on immigration control.
One of the possible scenarios for the re-emergence of an effective Opposition is that Labour is sidelined but then, at some point in the not too distant future, a dominant Conservative Party - no longer constrained by the threat of Labour - splits over a key area of policy. Mass immigration coupled with too many compromises with the EU could be enough to do the job.
The minimum the Government needs to achieve at the end of the Brexit process is to ensure that Parliament has complete control over taxation; that future *unskilled* migration is restricted; and that the country is free to decide its own international trading arrangements. Beyond that I reckon it has room to bargain.
Hard Brexit you mean, but they plan Pretend Brexit now.
The long and short of it is that we are going. It's just a matter of what, if any, bargain is concluded about the future relationship
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
That is even more the case if the Russians, and therefore the Syrians, were warned the strikes would be taking place. Should that turn out to be true, it will have been nothing more than an exercise in futile willy-waving, that will actually send out a signal that the US is not at all serious about reining Assad in. At the very least, it is way, way too early to begin to talk about the emergence of any kind of Trump doctrine.
It is also worth remembering that Trump would like to ban all those on the end of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria from entering the US.
Yep. I had similar thoughts to Mr Tyndall last night as soon as saw that Tillerson said that these strikes don't signal a change to US policy on Syria.
Done to make it seem as though the US is 'doing something', but I doubt that Assad will stop attacking his own people in the future. Even McMaster is stating that the move isn't a policy shift, either:
The US strike on Syrian regime forces had the very limited aim of re-establishing the international red line regarding the use of chemical weapons. It has now probably achieved that and even if Assad still carries on killing his own people at least it will be with conventional weapons. Not much comfort to those victims but it hopefully provides some future constraint to wannabe dictators everywhere else.
F1: according to my F1 Twitter list (the font of all knowledge), the FIA has backed up Whiting and ruled out shifting the race to Saturday.
This does risk the race being cancelled, of course.
MD it is only scalextric
What, pray, Mr. G., do you mean "Only" Scalextric?
One of the saddest days of my life was when my son told me that actually first-person racing games on the computer were more fun than his Scalextric. I have still got his track and cars all safely boxed up in the attic just in case he changes his mind or for when, perhaps, his children come along.
F1: according to my F1 Twitter list (the font of all knowledge), the FIA has backed up Whiting and ruled out shifting the race to Saturday.
This does risk the race being cancelled, of course.
MD it is only scalextric
What, pray, Mr. G., do you mean "Only" Scalextric?
One of the saddest days of my life was when my son told me that actually first-person racing games on the computer were more fun than his Scalextric. I have still got his track and cars all safely boxed up in the attic just in case he changes his mind or for when, perhaps, his children come along.
The US strike on Syrian regime forces had the very limited aim of re-establishing the international red line regarding the use of chemical weapons. It has now probably achieved that and even if Assad still carries on killing his own people at least it will be with conventional weapons. Not much comfort to those victims but it hopefully provides some future constraint to wannabe dictators everywhere else.
I'll read the Rory Stewart link later, thanks for that. He's one of the few Conservative MPs who I do like.
I think the time for strikes with such a limited impact was years ago. Sadly, Obama was very ineffective re Syria, it'll be one area of his Presidency where he'll be judged very negatively. We've moved way past the time for limited action, given that this isn't the first (and most likely won't be the last) time Assad attacks his own people. It also doesn't help that Trump's Travel Ban means that he wants to turn away the very people being affected by Assad's attacks. I think that this man has it right: https://twitter.com/20committee/with_replies
I don't think the crazy fat kid in North Korea (as John McCain called him) will be deterred as a result of the strikes. He doesn't come across as a very reflective thinker.
I try to walk against traffic on Waterloo Bridge, though I reckon the City side of that bridge is more vulnerable as the Westminster side is cluttered with signs for the Strand Underpass so that might be safer.
F1: according to my F1 Twitter list (the font of all knowledge), the FIA has backed up Whiting and ruled out shifting the race to Saturday.
This does risk the race being cancelled, of course.
MD it is only scalextric
What, pray, Mr. G., do you mean "Only" Scalextric?
One of the saddest days of my life was when my son told me that actually first-person racing games on the computer were more fun than his Scalextric. I have still got his track and cars all safely boxed up in the attic just in case he changes his mind or for when, perhaps, his children come along.
Hurst , the real thing was far superior to computer stuff for sure.
I try to walk against traffic on Waterloo Bridge, though I reckon the City side of that bridge is more vulnerable as the Westminster side is cluttered with signs for the Strand Underpass so that might be safer.
I'm amazed there weren't bollards along the lengths and end of the pavement on Westminster bridge. Even some relatively low profile ones would stop a car getting onto the pavement or limit the speed it could attain.
A primary school near me has had bollards like that for years to protect from accidental car crashes.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
That is even more the case if the Russians, and therefore the Syrians, were warned the strikes would be taking place. Should that turn out to be true, it will have been nothing more than an exercise in futile willy-waving, that will actually send out a signal that the US is not at all serious about reining Assad in. At the very least, it is way, way too early to begin to talk about the emergence of any kind of Trump doctrine.
It is also worth remembering that Trump would like to ban all those on the end of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria from entering the US.
Yep. I had similar thoughts to Mr Tyndall last night as soon as saw that Tillerson said that these strikes don't signal a change to US policy on Syria.
Done to make it seem as though the US is 'doing something', but I doubt that Assad will stop attacking his own people in the future. Even McMaster is stating that the move isn't a policy shift, either:
The US strike on Syrian regime forces had the very limited aim of re-establishing the international red line regarding the use of chemical weapons. It has now probably achieved that and even if Assad still carries on killing his own people at least it will be with conventional weapons. Not much comfort to those victims but it hopefully provides some future constraint to wannabe dictators everywhere else.
The question I would ask, Mr. D, is what will the USA do if Assad again uses gas against his perceived opponents? Of those supporting this latest strike I have not seen any comments about what should be done if Assad ignores it.
Getting into a war is easy. Western politicians seem very reluctant to think about how to get out of one.
If Corbyn ever became PM....I'd actually lose all hope and faith about Britain's future. The Conservative Party are doing well because they are the only tolerable option right now, although I wouldn't vote for them (I will probably spoil my ballot at this rate). Re May's influence on Trump, if Trump's foreign policy becomes more conventional, I'd say it's much more likely that it is a result of Mattis' and McMaster's influence than May's. Mattis came into office with a pro-NATO view, and we are already starting to see how McMaster is influencing things re Bannon no longer being on the National Security Council.
Currently we appear to be having a soft Brexit week in fast-moving, bipolar Brexit world. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us how if that continues, the UKIPs will be BACK!
That's heartening news. Everyone sensible wants a Mr Whippy soft Brexit - full membership of the whole alphabet soup of EFTA, EEA, ECJ, ECHR etc. Immigration as it was. Full adherence to EU trading standards and workers rights. Full adherence to EU environmental guidelines. (We'll give the Leavers a blue passport as a token gesture of our good will, and they'll be content with that.)
Nope only lunatics and fanatics want that solution. Now I know you actually qualify in both those categories so I understand your confusion but if you think that is what is going to happen and that it will be accepted then your mental faculties are even more damaged than we first suspected.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
It is also worth remembering that Trump would like to ban all those on the end of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria from entering the US.
Yep. I had similar thoughts to Mr Tyndall last night as soon as saw that Tillerson said that these strikes don't signal a change to US policy on Syria.
Done to make it seem as though the US is 'doing something', but I doubt that Assad will stop attacking his own people in the future. Even McMaster is stating that the move isn't a policy shift, either:
The US strike on Syrian regime forces had the very limited aim of re-establishing the international red line regarding the use of chemical weapons. It has now probably achieved that and even if Assad still carries on killing his own people at least it will be with conventional weapons. Not much comfort to those victims but it hopefully provides some future constraint to wannabe dictators everywhere else.
The question I would ask, Mr. D, is what will the USA do if Assad again uses gas against his perceived opponents? Of those supporting this latest strike I have not seen any comments about what should be done if Assad ignores it.
Getting into a war is easy. Western politicians seem very reluctant to think about how to get out of one.
They would again target the air base where the attack was launched from. In some ways the choice is easier now as Assad is winning the conventional war and so the loss of an air base or two should not lead to success for ISIS.
This action isn't about shifting the balance of power, its simply about making sure chemical weapons have too high a price to be used.
Do not forget that Jolyon is a tax specialist, not a European Law specialist, or even an Economist. He had demonstrated his lack of relevant specialism a couple of times already imo.
Corbyn is the first leader who has led to me truly understanding the desire to 'vote against' a party, rather than merely not vote for them. Ed M, Gordon, Hague, Howard, IDS, none made me feel so.
Corbyn is the first leader who has led to me truly understanding the desire to 'vote against' a party, rather than merely not vote for them. Ed M, Gordon, Hague, Howard, IDS, none made me feel so.
That's rather unfair, because Ed M, Gordon, Hague, Howard, and IDS could all make a plausible claim to speak for a reasonably united party, whereas Corbyn clearly cannot.
Mr. kle4, can't recall any leader, during my lifetime, as horrendous as Corbyn.
But things can always get worse. If Labour just assume things will get better, that complacency may do for them, either by getting overtaken by an external party or having the rulebook rewritten to favour the far left.
Corbyn is the first leader who has led to me truly understanding the desire to 'vote against' a party, rather than merely not vote for them. Ed M, Gordon, Hague, Howard, IDS, none made me feel so.
I've written not one, but two, pro Corbyn pieces this weekend.
I consider my second piece one of my all time best pieces for PB.
Currently we appear to be having a soft Brexit week in fast-moving, bipolar Brexit world. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us how if that continues, the UKIPs will be BACK!
That's heartening news. Everyone sensible wants a Mr Whippy soft Brexit - full membership of the whole alphabet soup of EFTA, EEA, ECJ, ECHR etc. Immigration as it was. Full adherence to EU trading standards and workers rights. Full adherence to EU environmental guidelines. (We'll give the Leavers a blue passport as a token gesture of our good will, and they'll be content with that.)
Nope only lunatics and fanatics want that solution. Now I know you actually qualify in both those categories so I understand your confusion but if you think that is what is going to happen and that it will be accepted then your mental faculties are even more damaged than we first suspected.
Corbyn is the first leader who has led to me truly understanding the desire to 'vote against' a party, rather than merely not vote for them. Ed M, Gordon, Hague, Howard, IDS, none made me feel so.
That's rather unfair, because Ed M, Gordon, Hague, Howard, and IDS could all make a plausible claim to speak for a reasonably united party, whereas Corbyn clearly cannot.
His inability to overcome the divisions and unite the party, while still, theoretically, being the policy decider should he get into power, is not a point in his favour. That Labour's messes are not all of his making does not make the fact of the mess under his reign any less true, and therefore a reason not to vote for them.
Corbyn is the first leader who has led to me truly understanding the desire to 'vote against' a party, rather than merely not vote for them. Ed M, Gordon, Hague, Howard, IDS, none made me feel so.
I've written not one, but two, pro Corbyn pieces this weekend.
I consider my second piece one of my all time best pieces for PB.
Hmm. Time for the Labour moderates to get behind Corbyns, the most consistent and popular Labour politician?
Do not forget that Jolyon is a tax specialist, not a European Law specialist, or even an Economist. He had demonstrated his lack of relevant specialism a couple of times already imo.
To be fair he's only quoting an article written by Simon Nixon.
The Conservative candidate , Obaid Khan , for the Birmingham Hall Green by election on May 4th has been dropped by his party for making anti Jewish tweets
The Conservative candidate , Obaid Khan , for the Birmingham Hall Green by election on May 4th has been dropped by his party for making anti Jewish tweets
It's remarkable how some candidates for political offices just can't help themselves.
F1: according to my F1 Twitter list (the font of all knowledge), the FIA has backed up Whiting and ruled out shifting the race to Saturday.
This does risk the race being cancelled, of course.
MD it is only scalextric
What, pray, Mr. G., do you mean "Only" Scalextric?
One of the saddest days of my life was when my son told me that actually first-person racing games on the computer were more fun than his Scalextric. I have still got his track and cars all safely boxed up in the attic just in case he changes his mind or for when, perhaps, his children come along.
One day he'll surprise you.
My intermittently grown-up son still gets out his Thomas the Tank engine themed Tomy railway out from time to time. Though I'm not allowed to alter his layouts any more.
I am going to go out on a limb here and predict Trump might have something say on twitter about the attack in Sweden (even before those who was behind it have been revealed).
Do not forget that Jolyon is a tax specialist, not a European Law specialist, or even an Economist. He had demonstrated his lack of relevant specialism a couple of times already imo.
To be fair he's only quoting an article written by Simon Nixon.
Also he's not representing himself in the case brought in Ireland, is he? If money was raised to hire lawyers who understand EU law, they'll make the arguments
The Lib Dems used the "Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party" line in their Witney by-election literature.
A good rule of thumb is that, when the opposition literature mentions your name more often than your own does, you really ought to revise your career plans. People don't, of course, but they really ought to.
Even if it was true that he had signed for a club, it should not have altered the judgement. That's what's so off about the whole thing IMO: the judge got it utterly wrong.
I find it utterly extraordinary that a potential contract of employment could alter a sentence so much. 18 months is a bit more like it, I assume it'll be 9 in then 9 out on tag ?
I suspect the sentence now is harsher than it would have been had he not made the claim. Not sure why he isn't also being prosecuted for perjury.
The sentence was always 18 months which is in line with the sentencing guidelines for a first conviction for ABH. What has changed is that the sentence is no longer suspended.
It won't be perjury as he didn't make any statement about the alleged contract with Leicestershire under oath. However, he could face a charge of perverting the course of justice.
Our Ken must be tired, as he is now sending Ken Loach out to do extended interviews about Hitler, Jews, Hitler and Jews. 20 more unhelpful minutes just finished on LBC.
Even if it was true that he had signed for a club, it should not have altered the judgement. That's what's so off about the whole thing IMO: the judge got it utterly wrong.
I find it utterly extraordinary that a potential contract of employment could alter a sentence so much. 18 months is a bit more like it, I assume it'll be 9 in then 9 out on tag ?
I suspect the sentence now is harsher than it would have been had he not made the claim. Not sure why he isn't also being prosecuted for perjury.
The sentence was always 18 months which is in line with the sentencing guidelines for a first conviction for ABH. What has changed is that the sentence is no longer suspended.
It won't be perjury as he didn't make any statement about the alleged contract with Leicestershire under oath. However, he could face a charge of perverting the course of justice.
On topic, I suspect (anecdotally) that UKIP council election wins are often driven by finding a strong local "character" to stand. They have less of a machine, and less experience of what makes for an effective campaign. The "character" stands down or passes away, and they are immediately on the back foot.
That's not to say next month won't be terrible for them. They were a very, very close third in 2013 on vote share (29/25/22/14 was the Lab/Con/Kip/Dem split, and that inevitably yields council seats). They won't be this time. Just it might not be quite as awful as the experts are predicting - some of the big local characters are still there, and some have kept themselves busy in their divisions.
Even if it was true that he had signed for a club, it should not have altered the judgement. That's what's so off about the whole thing IMO: the judge got it utterly wrong.
Exactly , the judge should be picking up JSA by now.
Maybe the CPS should as well: they charged him with ABH not GBH.
There are a number of things about this case that make me think a plea deal was done whereby the accused agreed to plea guilty to ABH in return for more serious charges being dropped. This could happen if the CPS was uncertain that the more serious charges would stick or if the victim wanted to avoid having to give evidence.
Our Ken must be tired, as he is now sending Ken Loach out to do extended interviews about Hitler, Jews, Hitler and Jews. 20 more unhelpful minutes just finished on LBC.
The European Commission has 'approved unconditionally' 21st Century Fox's planned takeover of Sky PLC, the owner of Sky News.
It will be interesting how Sky News journalists come to terms with Rupert in charge, on the assumption it passes UK regulations which seems inevitable
I thought the plan was that the takeover is conditional on Sky News being spun off from the rest of Sky with it an independent board/chairman.
European Commission approval of the Sky deal is totally unsurprising. They look at cross-border economic competition concerns over (principally) Fox and Sky... which basically operate in different markets.
The issue (potentially) will be media plurality within the UK, and whether Sky remains "fit and proper" given very strong criticism of James Murdoch by Ofcom over hacking, and the fact they were partially saved by arguing that James was constrained by the existence of a large minority shareholding and board involvement. Europe has never had any involvement or jurisdiction on that matter.
The European Commission has 'approved unconditionally' 21st Century Fox's planned takeover of Sky PLC, the owner of Sky News.
It will be interesting how Sky News journalists come to terms with Rupert in charge, on the assumption it passes UK regulations which seems inevitable
I thought the plan was that the takeover is conditional on Sky News being spun off from the rest of Sky with it an independent board/chairman.
I thought that was the last takeover bid but I am not sure
Correct. My understanding is that their position at the moment is that they aren't offering it this time. Whether that is tactical, though, time will tell - it's wise in negotiations to hold back some concessions and make them later as required.
Our Ken must be tired, as he is now sending Ken Loach out to do extended interviews about Hitler, Jews, Hitler and Jews. 20 more unhelpful minutes just finished on LBC.
I've always had a feeling our Roger is a Ken Loach wannabe? Though would Ken Loach be able to afford six homes on the Cote D'Azur?
Very sad.. looks like this is becoming the new thing. Very hard to defend against.
Almost impossible to defend against, unless we start encircling whole cities with barriers or fitting remote kill switches on trucks. Meanwhile the bad guys will be doing the same thing somewhere else next week.
I do not know if Bannon's removal from the NSC has been covered here or not. Since the chemical attack incident took place on Tuesday and he was removed on Wednesday, I am beginning to think the two are linked.
Could it be the Military insisted that they would not discuss sensitive operational matters in his presence ? I cannot understand why should such a "trusted" advisor would be removed suddenly just before such an important decision.
Does EU support imply the support of the four neutral EU countries? My guess is that Sweden, Ireland, Austria and Finland wouldn't dream of supporting an attack on another sovereign state without lawful authority. That means a UN resolution.
Also, when they say UK Navy they mean US Navy, right? Do we even have such a capability? I thought our armed forces was basically a core of very good men (and some women), some very expensive equipment white elephants, and a handful of other stuff?
But if contingent on a resolution it's a non starter anyway, clearly the Russians would never agree to that. Gaddafi only found himself on the end of one because he had no international friends.
So Marine Le Pen has been shocked by the US attacks on Syria, while François Fillon finds them understandable. It seems the Russophiles in France are split on the subject.
I do not know if Bannon's removal from the NSC has been covered here or not. Since the chemical attack incident took place on Tuesday and he was removed on Wednesday, I am beginning to think the two are linked.
Could it be the Military insisted that they would not discuss sensitive operational matters in his presence ? I cannot understand why should such a "trusted" advisor would be removed suddenly just before such an important decision.
I believe he was removed before the attack took place.
Interestingly Swedish security expert they had when asked if the authorities or the public were ready for a terrorist attack replied that the general perception is that it shouldn't happen to us.
Comments
In actual fact any deal will be Brexit.
People might notice immigration figures for a while but as they haven't changed materially in years I don't suppose it will make much difference either way plus as TMay has said, the transition period will mean nothing much changes for a while anyway.
Done to make it seem as though the US is 'doing something', but I doubt that Assad will stop attacking his own people in the future. Even McMaster is stating that the move isn't a policy shift, either: https://twitter.com/ColinKahl/status/850276147027861504
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/850177474365448196
That's the real test of international significance.
Surely a 13% notional LibDem swing is bollocks, isn't it Harry?!
(Maximum stake: 1p)
PS: mine is the penny
I'd be inclined to avoid that. It's eminently possible, if the race actually starts, but there's also a dry period so it's far from certain.
eg. http://www.rorystewart.co.uk/herald-column-publ-31st-august-2013/
One of the saddest days of my life was when my son told me that actually first-person racing games on the computer were more fun than his Scalextric. I have still got his track and cars all safely boxed up in the attic just in case he changes his mind or for when, perhaps, his children come along.
yeah, right
Scene at @HurstLlama's house:
Q: Where's daddy?
A: Oh, he's up in the attic, tidying up...
[faint sound of motorised toy cars emerge from upstairs]
I think the time for strikes with such a limited impact was years ago. Sadly, Obama was very ineffective re Syria, it'll be one area of his Presidency where he'll be judged very negatively. We've moved way past the time for limited action, given that this isn't the first (and most likely won't be the last) time Assad attacks his own people. It also doesn't help that Trump's Travel Ban means that he wants to turn away the very people being affected by Assad's attacks. I think that this man has it right: https://twitter.com/20committee/with_replies
I don't think the crazy fat kid in North Korea (as John McCain called him) will be deterred as a result of the strikes. He doesn't come across as a very reflective thinker.
I try to walk against traffic on Waterloo Bridge, though I reckon the City side of that bridge is more vulnerable as the Westminster side is cluttered with signs for the Strand Underpass so that might be safer.
I'm amazed there weren't bollards along the lengths and end of the pavement on Westminster bridge. Even some relatively low profile ones would stop a car getting onto the pavement or limit the speed it could attain.
A primary school near me has had bollards like that for years to protect from accidental car crashes.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/850340274329006080
Getting into a war is easy. Western politicians seem very reluctant to think about how to get out of one.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/128833/saturday-race-in-china-ruled-out-by-fia
Ms. Apocalypse, Corbyn as PM would be horrendous.
This action isn't about shifting the balance of power, its simply about making sure chemical weapons have too high a price to be used.
But things can always get worse. If Labour just assume things will get better, that complacency may do for them, either by getting overtaken by an external party or having the rulebook rewritten to favour the far left.
I consider my second piece one of my all time best pieces for PB.
The Swedish intelligence agency also described the truck crash as an attack not an accident.
http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/15211048.Mass_Morris_dance_celebration_set_for_town/?ref=mr&lp=7
My intermittently grown-up son still gets out his Thomas the Tank engine themed Tomy railway out from time to time. Though I'm not allowed to alter his layouts any more.
Just hope there isn't some professionally offended buffoon there who starts throwing his weight around.
It will be interesting how Sky News journalists come to terms with Rupert in charge, on the assumption it passes UK regulations which seems inevitable
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-ireland-irish-high-court-article-50-jo-maugham-a7468081.html
It won't be perjury as he didn't make any statement about the alleged contract with Leicestershire under oath. However, he could face a charge of perverting the course of justice.
Macron 23.5% (-2.5)
Le Pen 23% (-2)
Fillon 18.5% (+1.5)
Mélenchon 18% (+2)
Hamon 9% (+1)
Biggish movements, although the absolute figures are similar to other polls.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/04/07/97001-20170407FILWWW00195-sondage-fillon-et-melenchon-progressent.php
That's not to say next month won't be terrible for them. They were a very, very close third in 2013 on vote share (29/25/22/14 was the Lab/Con/Kip/Dem split, and that inevitably yields council seats). They won't be this time. Just it might not be quite as awful as the experts are predicting - some of the big local characters are still there, and some have kept themselves busy in their divisions.
The issue (potentially) will be media plurality within the UK, and whether Sky remains "fit and proper" given very strong criticism of James Murdoch by Ofcom over hacking, and the fact they were partially saved by arguing that James was constrained by the existence of a large minority shareholding and board involvement. Europe has never had any involvement or jurisdiction on that matter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/truck-crashes-crowd-people-stockholm/
(please don't google)
I've always had a feeling our Roger is a Ken Loach wannabe? Though would Ken Loach be able to afford six homes on the Cote D'Azur?
In favour:
Uk, France, Germany, EU
Against:
Putin, Corbyn, SNP, Farage, Banks, Hopkins, Coulter.....
AN independent Scotland would not have rejected the prospect of military intervention in Syria like the UK has done, Alex Salmond said.....
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/syria-action-backed-under-independence-salmond-1-3071423
I also wonder how they're meant to tell if the planes are dropping illegal weapons.
"I say, old chap, wold you mind just stopping your Tu-160 in mid-air so we can just inspect your weapons? Ta."
(Though the helicopters dropping barrel bombs might be another issue).
Could it be the Military insisted that they would not discuss sensitive operational matters in his presence ? I cannot understand why should such a "trusted" advisor would be removed suddenly just before such an important decision.
ISIS
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/07/heres-how-isis-used-the-us-military-strike-to-its-advantage-6559333/
But if contingent on a resolution it's a non starter anyway, clearly the Russians would never agree to that. Gaddafi only found himself on the end of one because he had no international friends.
https://twitter.com/ANTENNEBAYERN/status/850378368013017088
BBC R5 describe him as simply man in green hoodie with blue mobile phone.
Tbh reading that there are a number of his arguments that I find to be on pretty shaky ground.