politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tyranny of Low Expectations

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tyranny of Low Expectations

It is generally a good idea, when facing severe criticism from an inquiry, to concede with as much good grace as possible, to keep your immediate thoughts about the idiocy of the judge to yourself and not to try and justify the behaviour which has been criticised. No good will come of it: you will look like someone paying lip service to the findings who really thinks you’ve done nothing wrong.

Read the full story here

Benpointer

First!

malcolmg

second like Noo

malcolmg

FPT
Noo said:

» show previous quotes
Is that why he's full of shit?

Dear Dear diddums is really losing it, no doubt a spotty 16 year old thinking they are clever.

eristdoof

FTP

blueblue said:

Noo said:

Charles said:

Noo said:

kle4 said:

I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?

For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.

It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important.
It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed:
"My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..."
"My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..."
I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.

Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government

You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.

What you call "discrimination", centuries of civic theory and practice call good sense.

Handing out the right to vote any resident will enormously incentivise large numbers of people to move here and vote for the nation's wealth to be "redistributed" in their direction...

This is rubbish. As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote. They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one.

Only once you have been living in that new country for a few years do you start wanting to have your small influence in how that country is run.

Morris_Dancer

Very good article, Miss Cyclefree, with which I agree entirely.

The notion that an accuser should be automatically believed correspondingly requires a belief that the accused is guilty until proven innocent, the antithesis of how our justice system is supposed to work.

Peter_the_Punter

Excellent piece, CF. Thank you.

Might I ask your opinion about the setting up of the investigation into Carl Beech's accusations, and related matters? It appears to me to have had all the hallmarks of one set up to fail deliberately.

Harsh?

blueblue

eristdoof said:

FTP

blueblue said:

Noo said:

Charles said:

Noo said:

kle4 said:

I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?

For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.

It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important.
It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed:
"My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..."
"My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..."
I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.

Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government

You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.

What you call "discrimination", centuries of civic theory and practice call good sense.

Handing out the right to vote any resident will enormously incentivise large numbers of people to move here and vote for the nation's wealth to be "redistributed" in their direction...

This is rubbish. As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote. They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one.

Only once you have been living in that new country for a few years do you start wanting to have your small influence in how that country is run.

"As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote."

In which case, they should be perfectly happy not to get one, no?

"They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one."

And if they come from a very poor country to a very rich one, they will vote in their interests - namely for whichever party will redistribute as much of the country's existing resources to them as possible.

GIN1138

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

Beibheirli_C

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

EPG

Why should the public have had any faith in policing to begin with? There have been reports about travesties like this since the 80s - albeit this time prominent Conservatives were wrongly targetted, and so many finally woke up to it.

rcs1000

PrinceofTaranto said:

rcs1000 said:

PrinceofTaranto said:

rcs1000 said:

PrinceofTaranto said:

O/T as I predicted last night the Democrats got a bit of a shellacking across the board last night in the Louisiana elections (although the popular Dem Governor Edwards might still win in the Governor run-off in November).
Interestingly exit polls showed 47 per cent of Independents voted a straight Republican ticket ,which is pretty unheard of in these types of election when so many different offices are up for grabs.This is a very strong indicator that Trump is polling very well with Indies at least in the South.

47.4% for Bel Edwards is almost eight points more than he got in the 2015 primary. (And the other Dems in 2015 only got 1.8% between them in '15).

So I think that's a very strong finish for him that pretty much guarantees him the Governorship.

He did ok but is a popular incumbent.The rest of the Dem performance was appalling.

I'm just scanning the raw numbers and the results seem almost identical to 2015. So, in both the Attorney General and Leuitenant Governor races the Dems got almost exactly the same vote share as last time around.

In the state Senate, did any seats even change hands? It seems so gerrymandered that the number of competitive seats seems close to zero. (Which also makes real analysis of the results difficult.)

Looking purely at the state wide races, the Dems have done no worse than 2015 anywhere, and substantial better in the Governor's race.

Dem Losses at local level were huge.

In the Senate, it looks like the the make-up will remain 25:14, with an outside chance of it going 26:13.

In the House of Representatives, so few seats are contested (see: https://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2019_), it's hard to see a clear picture.

Scanning the list, the Republicans gain the 1st from an Independent who was term limited.

The 19th is a Democrat gain from the Republicans. The 22nd is another Republican gain from an Independent.

The 28th and 30th are Republican gains from the Democrats.

The 39th is a Democrat gain from the Republicans.

The 50th is probably an Independent gain from the Democrats.

The 54th is a Republican gain from the Democrats.

The 70th is a probably Democrat gain from the Republicans

So, the Republicans have gained from Independents, and (net) the Dems have lost one to the Republicans and one to the Independents.

So, not a great result but hardly "Dem losses at the local level were huge"

Sandpit

Another fantastic piece from Ms @Cyclefree. Can we recommend her to sit on the board of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary?

Omnium

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Is there a reciprocal arrangement in Ireland?

It does seem something of an oddity, however I guess there's a good argument that whether we like it or not our fates as nations are quite intertwined. (We might even consider uniting.. in about a million years' time)

I wonder how many Irish people actually take up that right - I think if I lived in Ireland I would, but only if I felt that I was in Ireland for a longish stay.

ydoethur

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

Noo

Thanks for another really good article @Cyclefree
Can I ask to what extent you think a good investigator should test people involved in an alleged crime by portraying scepticism? It's obviously the job of an investigator to spot vexatious claims as well as false alibis, which would indicate to me some place for displaying that scepticism to the person making a statement.
Nobody likes to be disbelieved, but at the same time, I'd hate to be accused of something that was obviously totally flimsy and for it to have to go all the way to trial before someone tested the accuser at all. Feels like the police might be in a situation where they can't win either way?

Noo

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

I think he's been on the buckie after Scotland got trounced by Japan.

EPG

Trusting the police is more naive than trusting politicians. At least I suspect that politicians' agendas can be readily identified by pointing to their funders: hedge funds, or unions, or businessmen, or Scottish gamblers. And they try to expose each others' collusion. By contrast, my personal belief is that police agendas are inscrutable, and we all know the role of certain mens' clubs that keep secrets.

Beibheirli_C

Omnium said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Is there a reciprocal arrangement in Ireland?

It does seem something of an oddity, however I guess there's a good argument that whether we like it or not our fates as nations are quite intertwined. (We might even consider uniting.. in about a million years' time)

I wonder how many Irish people actually take up that right - I think if I lived in Ireland I would, but only if I felt that I was in Ireland for a longish stay.

Yes there is. Also note that the UK version applies to some Commonwealth citizens too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Eligibility_to_vote

SirNorfolkPassmore

blueblue said:

"As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote."

In which case, they should be perfectly happy not to get one, no?

"They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one."

And if they come from a very poor country to a very rich one, they will vote in their interests - namely for whichever party will redistribute as much of the country's existing resources to them as possible.

On your first point, it doesn't logically follow at all. People do not move countries specifically in order to play the lottery, or to have the Police investigate if they are mugged, or to benefit from an increase in tax thresholds at a particular budget. But it's not unreasonable for them to expect to get any of those things on the same basis as an existing citizen, and to be miffed if they don't.

On your second point, it's a VERY questionable argument that people necessarily vote to redistribute resources to their current selves. Not only does it assume people are overwhelmingly selfish, but also that they are too dim to realise that they or their children may well be in a different position in a period of time. For example, lots of well off people vote for generous social provision either because they think it's a good thing notwithstanding that it'll cost them, or because they fear they may one day fall on hard times. Similarly, many less well off people are optimistic about they or their children being upwardly mobile, and don't want to be greeted by high taxes when they get there (and may also feel it's important to create incentives).

Andy_JS

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Can British voters take part in Irish elections.

Cyclefree

Noo said:

Thanks for another really good article @Cyclefree
Can I ask to what extent you think a good investigator should test people involved in an alleged crime by portraying scepticism? It's obviously the job of an investigator to spot vexatious claims as well as false alibis, which would indicate to me some place for displaying that scepticism to the person making a statement.
Nobody likes to be disbelieved, but at the same time, I'd hate to be accused of something that was obviously totally flimsy and for it to have to go all the way to trial before someone tested the accuser at all. Feels like the police might be in a situation where they can't win either way?

You absolutely have to probe what the complainant says and long before the matter comes to any sort of hearing. But probing - even tough probing - does not require you to display scepticism or disbelief. In fact, it is better if you keep your thoughts to yourself. Displaying scepticism openly can make it harder to get the information you need.

It’s a question of finding the right balance between toughness and sufficient empathy to get people to talk openly. Not easy of course - which is why interviewing effectively involves considerably more skill than simply turning up with a list of questions.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Andy_JS said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Can British voters take part in Irish elections.

Yes. It's reciprocal.

Peter_the_Punter

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat.

The Menezes inquiry established that somebody at the Met must have lied and it could only have been Ms Dick or the Surveillance Team which was informing her of the suspect's movements in the crucial minutes preceding the shooting. It concluded it was not possible to determine who had lied.

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

Gallowgate

Andy_JS said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Can British voters take part in Irish elections.

Yes.

rpjs

Gallowgate said:

Andy_JS said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Can British voters take part in Irish elections.

Yes.

But not Presidential elections and constitutional referendums.

Cyclefree

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

Well, quite. And it’s not as if they’ve got a load of politicians setting them a good example or insisting on honourable behaviour.

Noo

blueblue said:

"As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote."

In which case, they should be perfectly happy not to get one, no?

"They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one."

And if they come from a very poor country to a very rich one, they will vote in their interests - namely for whichever party will redistribute as much of the country's existing resources to them as possible.

In my experience, people who've moved here from poorer countries tend to be more right wing. I know some people from Venezuela and Lithuania who are very keen to talk about socialism, and not in a positive way. They are certainly not interested in redistributing anything, other than redistributing themselves away from the socialism they knew in their former countries.

malcolmg

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

He/she lost the plot, I was just chuckling at the insecurity. Toys were being thrown out of pram big time.
PS Evening GIN.

viewcode

rpjs said:

Gallowgate said:

Andy_JS said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Can British voters take part in Irish elections.

Yes.

But not Presidential elections and constitutional referendums.

Well, to be fair, Irish citizens can't vote in UK Presidential elections either.

Ah, my crown. So kind...

malcolmg

Noo said:

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

I think he's been on the buckie after Scotland got trounced by Japan.

Oh dear , you really are a lowlife. Afraid I am a bit more intelligent and cultured than you. However I would be very happy to arrange a meeting and explain the meaning of life to you , arseholes tend to get what they deserve, especially cowardly internet ones.

PS: Calibre of people posting on the site is dropping , seem to be attracting more cockroach lowlifes nowadays, think you should return to whatever cesspit you previously cluttered.

rpjs

Omnium said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Is there a reciprocal arrangement in Ireland?

It does seem something of an oddity, however I guess there's a good argument that whether we like it or not our fates as nations are quite intertwined. (We might even consider uniting.. in about a million years' time)

I wonder how many Irish people actually take up that right - I think if I lived in Ireland I would, but only if I felt that I was in Ireland for a longish stay.

My wife certainly did when we lived in the UK, but then Irish and Commonwealth citizens residing in the UK are required to register to vote, just like British citizens are. They’re also liable for jury duty, and my wife did so.

Cyclefree

Peter_the_Punter said:

Excellent piece, CF. Thank you.

Might I ask your opinion about the setting up of the investigation into Carl Beech's accusations, and related matters? It appears to me to have had all the hallmarks of one set up to fail deliberately.

Harsh?

Do you mean the one set up by Mrs May - of which little has been heard for some time now? Or the Henriques report - only commissioned under pressure? Or the one which Ms Patel is reportedly setting up?

I think they all fall within my definition of “Inquiry” here - “A process by which an embarrassing story disappears from public view.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/06/the-pb-cynics-dictionary-especially-complied-for-the-times/

So not harsh. Cynical, certainly, but probably also fair.

ydoethur

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat.

The Menezes inquiry established that somebody at the Met must have lied and it could only have been Ms Dick or the Surveillance Team which was informing her of the suspect's movements in the crucial minutes preceding the shooting. It concluded it was not possible to determine who had lied.

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

While I would agree with you the likelihood is the surveillance team lied, as the operational commander she was still responsible for their actions.

Really, from the point of view of accountability, it didn't matter who lied, Dick was still the one who must shoulder the blame.

But she hasn't.

blueblue

Noo said:

blueblue said:

"As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote."

In which case, they should be perfectly happy not to get one, no?

"They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one."

And if they come from a very poor country to a very rich one, they will vote in their interests - namely for whichever party will redistribute as much of the country's existing resources to them as possible.

In my experience, people who've moved here from poorer countries tend to be more right wing. I know some people from Venezuela and Lithuania who are very keen to talk about socialism, and not in a positive way. They are certainly not interested in redistributing anything, other than redistributing themselves away from the socialism they knew in their former countries.

I know some very similar people, but it's still optimistic in the extreme to believe that they would be the majority. Opening up the vote to all residents would be the most colossal pull factor for those who have no such motives.

Benpointer

What chance does the Queen's Speech have of passing this week?

And what happens if it does not pass?

Beibheirli_C

As a follow-up to my earlier post showing that non-UK citizens CAN vote here, I looked at what is a "Qualifying Commonwealth Citizen". It is "... s someone who has leave to enter or remain in the UK, or does not require such leave."

The list of countries that count are below. It seems that citizens from across the planet can qualify for UK vote here as long as they have leave to enter the UK

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/register-vote-and-update-your-details

Antigua and Barbuda Kiribati Sierra Leone
Australia Lesotho Singapore
The Bahamas Malawi Solomon Islands
Bangladesh Malaysia South Africa
Barbados Malta* Sri Lanka
Belize Mauritius Swaziland
Botswana Mozambique The Gambia
Brunei Darussalam Namibia Tonga
Cameroon Nauru Trinidad and Tobago
Canada New Zealand Tuvalu
Cyprus* Nigeria Uganda
Dominica Pakistan United Kingdom
Fiji Islands** Papua New Guinea United Republic of Tanzania
Ghana Rwanda Vanuatu
Grenada St Kitts & Nevis Zambia
Guyana St Lucia Zimbabwe
India St Vincent & The Grenadines
Jamaica Samoa
Kenya Seychelles

*Although also EU member states, citizens of Cyprus and Malta are eligible to be registered to vote in all elections held in the UK.

**Citizens of Fiji and Zimbabwe retain their voting rights despite the countries having been suspended from the Commonwealth.

British crown dependencies
Isle of Man
The Channel Islands (including Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney, Herm and the other inhabited Channel Islands).

British overseas territories
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn Island
St Helena and dependencies (Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha)
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Sovereign base areas on Cyprus
Turks and Caicos Islands

Noo

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

I think he's been on the buckie after Scotland got trounced by Japan.

Oh dear , you really are a lowlife. Afraid I am a bit more intelligent and cultured than you. However I would be very happy to arrange a meeting and explain the meaning of life to you , arseholes tend to get what they deserve, especially cowardly internet ones.

Haha, are we now at the level of "you. Me. Playing fields after school"?
You don't frighten me you little twerp.

As for you being "more intelligent" than me, you may be right for all I know. Why not try to use that intelligence and chip in something better than "get off your high horse"? You can't go around starting a ruck and then complain about the rucking. It makes you look a little silly. Try a little harder next time. If you defeated my opinions in the court of your own head, perhaps you have something to contribute to the discussion in real life. Other people did, and they made some good points.
Now run along and calm down, dearest.

malcolmg

Beibheirli_C said:

As a follow-up to my earlier post showing that non-UK citizens CAN vote here, I looked at what is a "Qualifying Commonwealth Citizen". It is "... s someone who has leave to enter or remain in the UK, or does not require such leave."

The list of countries that count are below. It seems that citizens from across the planet can qualify for UK vote here as long as they have leave to enter the UK

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/register-vote-and-update-your-details

Antigua and Barbuda Kiribati Sierra Leone
Australia Lesotho Singapore
The Bahamas Malawi Solomon Islands
Bangladesh Malaysia South Africa
Barbados Malta* Sri Lanka
Belize Mauritius Swaziland
Botswana Mozambique The Gambia
Brunei Darussalam Namibia Tonga
Cameroon Nauru Trinidad and Tobago
Canada New Zealand Tuvalu
Cyprus* Nigeria Uganda
Dominica Pakistan United Kingdom
Fiji Islands** Papua New Guinea United Republic of Tanzania
Ghana Rwanda Vanuatu
Grenada St Kitts & Nevis Zambia
Guyana St Lucia Zimbabwe
India St Vincent & The Grenadines
Jamaica Samoa
Kenya Seychelles

*Although also EU member states, citizens of Cyprus and Malta are eligible to be registered to vote in all elections held in the UK.

**Citizens of Fiji and Zimbabwe retain their voting rights despite the countries having been suspended from the Commonwealth.

British crown dependencies
Isle of Man
The Channel Islands (including Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney, Herm and the other inhabited Channel Islands).

British overseas territories
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn Island
St Helena and dependencies (Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha)
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Sovereign base areas on Cyprus
Turks and Caicos Islands

LOL, that thick commie will still be waving his red flag and claiming discrimination

Beibheirli_C

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

I think he's been on the buckie after Scotland got trounced by Japan.

Oh dear , you really are a lowlife. Afraid I am a bit more intelligent and cultured than you. However I would be very happy to arrange a meeting and explain the meaning of life to you , arseholes tend to get what they deserve, especially cowardly internet ones.

PS: Calibre of people posting on the site is dropping , seem to be attracting more cockroach lowlifes nowadays, think you should return to whatever cesspit you previously cluttered.

Get some circus performers to join. You will have plenty of clowns, but the Human Cannonballs will be men of calibre.

Hat and coat please....

Omnium

rpjs said:

Omnium said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Is there a reciprocal arrangement in Ireland?

It does seem something of an oddity, however I guess there's a good argument that whether we like it or not our fates as nations are quite intertwined. (We might even consider uniting.. in about a million years' time)

I wonder how many Irish people actually take up that right - I think if I lived in Ireland I would, but only if I felt that I was in Ireland for a longish stay.

My wife certainly did when we lived in the UK, but then Irish and Commonwealth citizens residing in the UK are required to register to vote, just like British citizens are. They’re also liable for jury duty, and my wife did so.

Ah yes, jury duty. I've been caught on that hook twice. The first time was grim, but I was interested to see the process from the inside. The second didn't have any upside, and I thank my lucky stars I was excluded from a super-long trial because of my prior employment in the city. It does seem quite odd mind you that I was excluded from a trial because I had substantial expertise in the subject. Absolutely delighted that it was the case though.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Noo said:

blueblue said:

"As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote."

In which case, they should be perfectly happy not to get one, no?

"They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one."

And if they come from a very poor country to a very rich one, they will vote in their interests - namely for whichever party will redistribute as much of the country's existing resources to them as possible.

In my experience, people who've moved here from poorer countries tend to be more right wing. I know some people from Venezuela and Lithuania who are very keen to talk about socialism, and not in a positive way. They are certainly not interested in redistributing anything, other than redistributing themselves away from the socialism they knew in their former countries.

It varies a good deal, I suppose. But it's certainly not uncommon for poorer countries (i) to have recent and unsuccessful experience of radical socialism; (ii) to be relatively socially conservative (often on religious grounds); and (iii) to have experience of rampant corruption by public officials.

That is indeed not a recipe for left leaning, big government voting.

I'd add that those leaving the poorest countries have sufficient get up and go to, well, get up and go. Again, that tends towards a relative lack of sympathy for those perceived as expecting favours or hand-outs.

Cyclefree

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat.

The Menezes inquiry established that somebody at the Met must have lied and it could only have been Ms Dick or the Surveillance Team which was informing her of the suspect's movements in the crucial minutes preceding the shooting. It concluded it was not possible to determine who had lied.

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

Even taking all that into account, appointing as Met Commissioner someone about whom you could not confidently say that they had not lied does not suggest high expectations.

Peter_the_Punter

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat.

The Menezes inquiry established that somebody at the Met must have lied and it could only have been Ms Dick or the Surveillance Team which was informing her of the suspect's movements in the crucial minutes preceding the shooting. It concluded it was not possible to determine who had lied.

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

While I would agree with you the likelihood is the surveillance team lied, as the operational commander she was still responsible for their actions.

Really, from the point of view of accountability, it didn't matter who lied, Dick was still the one who must shoulder the blame.

But she hasn't.

Let me have a wild guess.

The ST were larking about when they should have had eyes firmly fixed on a dangerous suspect. As a result, when he slipped out of the building they were watching they didn't notice until it was a bit too late. As a result, then then had to pursue him through busy London streets whilst informing the commanding officer, Ms Dick, of their progress. She asked for a clear identification and got evasive and provocative replies, but on balance enough to suggest that the suspect they were tailing was the right man, and a very dangerous one indeed.

She now had a very difficult call to make - authorise lethal force, or hold back and risk a terrorist incident and the likelihood of a large number of casualties.

Glad it wasn't up to me.

philiph

Good header

Very questionable of the police are fit for purpose.

I don't know how you fix the issues, training, moving officers out of comfortable peer groups, restructuring on a local, county and regional basis.

When someone like me has a long and firm belief that the police are not to be trusted, (which I realise is an unwarranted sweeping generalisation) are lacking competence and skills it is likely they are held in low regard by many % of the population.

malcolmg

Noo said:

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

I think he's been on the buckie after Scotland got trounced by Japan.

Oh dear , you really are a lowlife. Afraid I am a bit more intelligent and cultured than you. However I would be very happy to arrange a meeting and explain the meaning of life to you , arseholes tend to get what they deserve, especially cowardly internet ones.

Haha, are we now at the level of "you. Me. Playing fields after school"?
You don't frighten me you little twerp.

As for you being "more intelligent" than me, you may be right for all I know. Why not try to use that intelligence and chip in something better than "get off your high horse"? You can't go around starting a ruck and then complain about the rucking. It makes you look a little silly. Try a little harder next time. If you defeated my opinions in the court of your own head, perhaps you have something to contribute to the discussion in real life. Other people did, and they made some good points.
Now run along and calm down, dearest.

On your bike lowlife, you lost your argument and chose the gutter. I have better things to do than spend time on thickheads.
Fact you were talking carp and that just about everybody and their dog
can vote says it all. Go and get educated.

Stereotomy

blueblue said:

eristdoof said:

FTP

blueblue said:

Noo said:

Charles said:

Noo said:

kle4 said:

I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?

For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.

It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important.
It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed:
"My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..."
"My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..."
I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.

Because only citizens are allowed to vote and if they choose to become a citizen they too can participate in the choice of the country’s government

You're just restating the issue, not justifying the discrimination.

What you call "discrimination", centuries of civic theory and practice call good sense.

Handing out the right to vote any resident will enormously incentivise large numbers of people to move here and vote for the nation's wealth to be "redistributed" in their direction...

This is rubbish. As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote. They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one.

Only once you have been living in that new country for a few years do you start wanting to have your small influence in how that country is run.

"As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote."

In which case, they should be perfectly happy not to get one, no?

I don't go to a restaurant to get oxygen, but I'd be somewhat unhappy if there wasn't any

Yorkcity

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat.

The Menezes inquiry established that somebody at the Met must have lied and it could only have been Ms Dick or the Surveillance Team which was informing her of the suspect's movements in the crucial minutes preceding the shooting. It concluded it was not possible to determine who had lied.

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

I thought she had to make a decision, on the information she was passed in gold command ?
In real time , she believed that the threat was imminent danger.

Beibheirli_C

Later peeps!

Noo

blueblue said:

Noo said:

blueblue said:

"As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote."

In which case, they should be perfectly happy not to get one, no?

"They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one."

And if they come from a very poor country to a very rich one, they will vote in their interests - namely for whichever party will redistribute as much of the country's existing resources to them as possible.

In my experience, people who've moved here from poorer countries tend to be more right wing. I know some people from Venezuela and Lithuania who are very keen to talk about socialism, and not in a positive way. They are certainly not interested in redistributing anything, other than redistributing themselves away from the socialism they knew in their former countries.

I know some very similar people, but it's still optimistic in the extreme to believe that they would be the majority. Opening up the vote to all residents would be the most colossal pull factor for those who have no such motives.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this unless someone has some evidence either way. I can only speak from my own experience of being, and knowing immigrants (both Brits abroad and immigrants to the UK) that they're often reasonably indifferent about voting. And most people are generally not that politically active.
Even someone like me who is very politically active -- I had to think twice and three times about whether I "should" vote when it came to local elections in my adopted country (in which I was allowed to vote). In the end I was encouraged by a local who said to me what I'm saying here today: you live here, why shouldn't you vote? So I did.

Oh, and for the benefit of malcolm, I voted for a centrist party, like I normally do. "Communist" is a bit of a weird description for me as I'm always defending capitalism. Although I did vote Green in the European elections, so you can hang me for that one if you must.

malcolmg

Beibheirli_C said:

Later peeps!

Have fun

Yorkcity

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat.

The Menezes inquiry established that somebody at the Met must have lied and it could only have been Ms Dick or the Surveillance Team which was informing her of the suspect's movements in the crucial minutes preceding the shooting. It concluded it was not possible to determine who had lied.

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

While I would agree with you the likelihood is the surveillance team lied, as the operational commander she was still responsible for their actions.

Really, from the point of view of accountability, it didn't matter who lied, Dick was still the one who must shoulder the blame.

But she hasn't.

Let me have a wild guess.

The ST were larking about when they should have had eyes firmly fixed on a dangerous suspect. As a result, when he slipped out of the building they were watching they didn't notice until it was a bit too late. As a result, then then had to pursue him through busy London streets whilst informing the commanding officer, Ms Dick, of their progress. She asked for a clear identification and got evasive and provocative replies, but on balance enough to suggest that the suspect they were tailing was the right man, and a very dangerous one indeed.

She now had a very difficult call to make - authorise lethal force, or hold back and risk a terrorist incident and the likelihood of a large number of casualties.

Glad it wasn't up to me.

I agree.

malcolmg

Noo said:

blueblue said:

Noo said:

blueblue said:

"As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote."

In which case, they should be perfectly happy not to get one, no?

"They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one."

And if they come from a very poor country to a very rich one, they will vote in their interests - namely for whichever party will redistribute as much of the country's existing resources to them as possible.

In my experience, people who've moved here from poorer countries tend to be more right wing. I know some people from Venezuela and Lithuania who are very keen to talk about socialism, and not in a positive way. They are certainly not interested in redistributing anything, other than redistributing themselves away from the socialism they knew in their former countries.

I know some very similar people, but it's still optimistic in the extreme to believe that they would be the majority. Opening up the vote to all residents would be the most colossal pull factor for those who have no such motives.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this unless someone has some evidence either way. I can only speak from my own experience of being, and knowing immigrants (both Brits abroad and immigrants to the UK) that they're often reasonably indifferent about voting. And most people are generally not that politically active.
Even someone like me who is very politically active -- I had to think twice and three times about whether I "should" vote when it came to local elections in my adopted country (in which I was allowed to vote). In the end I was encouraged by a local who said to me what I'm saying here today: you live here, why shouldn't you vote? So I did.

Oh, and for the benefit of malcolm, I voted for a centrist party, like I normally do. "Communist" is a bit of a weird description for me as I'm always defending capitalism. Although I did vote Green in the European elections, so you can hang me for that one if you must.

Too many lentils and quinoa, rots the brain. Bet you have a Che Guevara tee-shirt as well.

Noo

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

I think he's been on the buckie after Scotland got trounced by Japan.

Oh dear , you really are a lowlife. Afraid I am a bit more intelligent and cultured than you. However I would be very happy to arrange a meeting and explain the meaning of life to you , arseholes tend to get what they deserve, especially cowardly internet ones.

Haha, are we now at the level of "you. Me. Playing fields after school"?
You don't frighten me you little twerp.

As for you being "more intelligent" than me, you may be right for all I know. Why not try to use that intelligence and chip in something better than "get off your high horse"? You can't go around starting a ruck and then complain about the rucking. It makes you look a little silly. Try a little harder next time. If you defeated my opinions in the court of your own head, perhaps you have something to contribute to the discussion in real life. Other people did, and they made some good points.
Now run along and calm down, dearest.

On your bike lowlife, [...] Go and get educated.

Clearly not being as clever as you, I think cycling and getting educated at the same time might be a little beyond me. Do you mind if I do them one after another? Awaiting your beneficent judgment, oh great and noble laird.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Benpointer said:

What chance does the Queen's Speech have of passing this week?

And what happens if it does not pass?

I think it has a reasonable chance of passing. Certainly not a given that recently expelled Tory MPs will vote against.

When Baldwin lost a Queen's Speech vote, he resigned. Doesn't look likely that Johnson would - it isn't technically a vote of no confidence, and Number 10 sources have suggested that he'd even sit out a vote of no confidence unless and until a vote of confidence was passed in another named individual.

What is interesting is if the Queen's Speech is voted down but no vote of no confidence is passed. You then have a Government whose agenda for the session has not been approved, and that has to weaken their control over the business of Parliament (dependent on the new Speaker and his/her approach). The basis for Government's fairly strong control over Parliamentary business is the Queen's Speech vote which allows them to manage proceedings to bring the legislation contained therein (consistent with adequate debate on the detail etc). Once outside that mandate, it becomes trickier.

malcolmg

Noo said:

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

I think he's been on the buckie after Scotland got trounced by Japan.

Oh dear , you really are a lowlife. Afraid I am a bit more intelligent and cultured than you. However I would be very happy to arrange a meeting and explain the meaning of life to you , arseholes tend to get what they deserve, especially cowardly internet ones.

Haha, are we now at the level of "you. Me. Playing fields after school"?
You don't frighten me you little twerp.

As for you being "more intelligent" than me, you may be right for all I know. Why not try to use that intelligence and chip in something better than "get off your high horse"? You can't go around starting a ruck and then complain about the rucking. It makes you look a little silly. Try a little harder next time. If you defeated my opinions in the court of your own head, perhaps you have something to contribute to the discussion in real life. Other people did, and they made some good points.
Now run along and calm down, dearest.

On your bike lowlife, [...] Go and get educated.

Clearly not being as clever as you, I think cycling and getting educated at the same time might be a little beyond me. Do you mind if I do them one after another? Awaiting your beneficent judgment, oh great and noble laird.

How very droll

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

She has considered her position:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/04/operation-midland-met-police-boss-urged-to-consider-her-position

And is quite satisfied with it for now, thank you very much. Though I’m sure there’s a well paid sinecure or four ahead of her.

Noo

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Noo said:

blueblue said:

"As Noo said, people do not move countries to get a vote."

In which case, they should be perfectly happy not to get one, no?

"They move country because they can get a better job, or because the life in their last country was bad, or to move near to a loved one."

And if they come from a very poor country to a very rich one, they will vote in their interests - namely for whichever party will redistribute as much of the country's existing resources to them as possible.

In my experience, people who've moved here from poorer countries tend to be more right wing. I know some people from Venezuela and Lithuania who are very keen to talk about socialism, and not in a positive way. They are certainly not interested in redistributing anything, other than redistributing themselves away from the socialism they knew in their former countries.

It varies a good deal, I suppose. But it's certainly not uncommon for poorer countries (i) to have recent and unsuccessful experience of radical socialism; (ii) to be relatively socially conservative (often on religious grounds); and (iii) to have experience of rampant corruption by public officials.

That is indeed not a recipe for left leaning, big government voting.

I'd add that those leaving the poorest countries have sufficient get up and go to, well, get up and go. Again, that tends towards a relative lack of sympathy for those perceived as expecting favours or hand-outs.

I'm thinking a little wider at the other people I've worked with... Romania, Czech Republic, Hungary. They were all centre-right or right wing. The people I've worked with who have been openly socialist have been Portuguese and Swedish. Plus, of course, people from left to right from these islands too, but just thinking about immigrants.

ydoethur

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat.

The Menezes inquiry established that somebody at the Met must have lied and it could only have been Ms Dick or the Surveillance Team which was informing her of the suspect's movements in the crucial minutes preceding the shooting. It concluded it was not possible to determine who had lied.

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

While I would agree with you the likelihood is the surveillance team lied, as the operational commander she was still responsible for their actions.

Really, from the point of view of accountability, it didn't matter who lied, Dick was still the one who must shoulder the blame.

But she hasn't.

Let me have a wild guess.

The ST were larking about when they should have had eyes firmly fixed on a dangerous suspect. As a result, when he slipped out of the building they were watching they didn't notice until it was a bit too late. As a result, then then had to pursue him through busy London streets whilst informing the commanding officer, Ms Dick, of their progress. She asked for a clear identification and got evasive and provocative replies, but on balance enough to suggest that the suspect they were tailing was the right man, and a very dangerous one indeed.

She now had a very difficult call to make - authorise lethal force, or hold back and risk a terrorist incident and the likelihood of a large number of casualties.

Glad it wasn't up to me.

So what you're saying is, she wasn't in control of one surveillance team.

How then is she capable of controlling the entire Metropolitan Police Service?

AlastairMeeks

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1183448798770683904?s=21

AlastairMeeks

On topic, great article.

Nigelb

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Excellent piece, CF. Thank you.

Might I ask your opinion about the setting up of the investigation into Carl Beech's accusations, and related matters? It appears to me to have had all the hallmarks of one set up to fail deliberately.

Harsh?

Do you mean the one set up by Mrs May - of which little has been heard for some time now? Or the Henriques report - only commissioned under pressure? Or the one which Ms Patel is reportedly setting up?

I think they all fall within my definition of “Inquiry” here - “A process by which an embarrassing story disappears from public view.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/06/the-pb-cynics-dictionary-especially-complied-for-the-times/

So not harsh. Cynical, certainly, but probably also fair.

I thought the Henriques report pretty good - it was utterly scathing about police behaviour. Safe in the knowledge that only a handful of people will ever bother to read it, those in authority seem to be ignoring its conclusions.

ydoethur

Noo said:

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

I think he's been on the buckie after Scotland got trounced by Japan.

Oh dear , you really are a lowlife. Afraid I am a bit more intelligent and cultured than you. However I would be very happy to arrange a meeting and explain the meaning of life to you , arseholes tend to get what they deserve, especially cowardly internet ones.

Haha, are we now at the level of "you. Me. Playing fields after school"?
You don't frighten me you little twerp.

As for you being "more intelligent" than me, you may be right for all I know. Why not try to use that intelligence and chip in something better than "get off your high horse"? You can't go around starting a ruck and then complain about the rucking. It makes you look a little silly. Try a little harder next time. If you defeated my opinions in the court of your own head, perhaps you have something to contribute to the discussion in real life. Other people did, and they made some good points.
Now run along and calm down, dearest.

On your bike lowlife, [...] Go and get educated.

Clearly not being as clever as you, I think cycling and getting educated at the same time might be a little beyond me. Do you mind if I do them one after another? Awaiting your beneficent judgment, oh great and noble laird.

I've got children as young as eleven at my school can do both at once.

Admittedly it is about cycling.

We call it Bikeability.

AlastairMeeks

https://twitter.com/tconnellyrte/status/1183450505940480002?s=21

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

She has considered her position:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/04/operation-midland-met-police-boss-urged-to-consider-her-position

And is quite satisfied with it for now, thank you very much. Though I’m sure there’s a well paid sinecure or four ahead of her.

I'm less bothered about her failing to consider her position than the fact she has this position to consider.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat.

The Menezes inquiry established that somebody at the Met must have lied and it could only have been Ms Dick or the Surveillance Team which was informing her of the suspect's movements in the crucial minutes preceding the shooting. It concluded it was not possible to determine who had lied.

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

While I would agree with you the likelihood is the surveillance team lied, as the operational commander she was still responsible for their actions.

Really, from the point of view of accountability, it didn't matter who lied, Dick was still the one who must shoulder the blame.

But she hasn't.

Water off Cressida Duck’s back....

Noo

ydoethur said:

Noo said:

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

I think he's been on the buckie after Scotland got trounced by Japan.

Oh dear , you really are a lowlife. Afraid I am a bit more intelligent and cultured than you. However I would be very happy to arrange a meeting and explain the meaning of life to you , arseholes tend to get what they deserve, especially cowardly internet ones.

Haha, are we now at the level of "you. Me. Playing fields after school"?
You don't frighten me you little twerp.

As for you being "more intelligent" than me, you may be right for all I know. Why not try to use that intelligence and chip in something better than "get off your high horse"? You can't go around starting a ruck and then complain about the rucking. It makes you look a little silly. Try a little harder next time. If you defeated my opinions in the court of your own head, perhaps you have something to contribute to the discussion in real life. Other people did, and they made some good points.
Now run along and calm down, dearest.

On your bike lowlife, [...] Go and get educated.

Clearly not being as clever as you, I think cycling and getting educated at the same time might be a little beyond me. Do you mind if I do them one after another? Awaiting your beneficent judgment, oh great and noble laird.

I've got children as young as eleven at my school can do both at once.

Admittedly it is about cycling.

We call it Bikeability.

Ah, to be eleven again. Before my brain was rotted by quinoa and lentils.

Nigelb

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1183448798770683904?s=21

As the saying goes, that’s a feature, not a bug ?

TGOHF2

malc has the age, experience and the turnips.

Noo has the unshaking belief in the socialist dream and that the workers will prevail.

4/6 Malc, 7/5 Noo.

ydoethur

Of course, even allowing for her many and egregious faults and the general malaise this enquiry reveals about the MPS, what happenedto de Menezes and the subsequent coverup was not nearly as shocking as this:

Black woman shot dead by Texas police through bedroom window
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50032290

But neither should have happened.

Andy_JS

Polls about to close in Poland.

https://wybory.gov.pl/sejmsenat2019/en

ydoethur

TGOHF2 said:

malc has the age, experience and the turnips.

Noo has the unshaking belief in the socialist dream and that the workers will prevail.

4/6 Malc, 7/5 Noo.

Is that the first time you've ever rooted for the Scottish Nats' side, Mr Flashman (deceased)?

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1183457489154707458?s=20

ydoethur

Andy_JS said:

Polls about to close in Poland.

https://wybory.gov.pl/sejmsenat2019/en

Is the electorate Poles apart, the way we are?

Noo

TGOHF2 said:

malc has the age, experience and the turnips.

Noo has the unshaking belief in the socialist dream and that the workers will prevail.

4/6 Malc, 7/5 Noo.

If I'm being asked to fight for socialism, I'll take a tenner on Malc please.

Gallowgate

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1183457489154707458?s=20

Not like you to get excited about a regressive right-wing victory.

Yorkcity

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat.

The Menezes inquiry established that somebody at the Met must have lied and it could only have been Ms Dick or the Surveillance Team which was informing her of the suspect's movements in the crucial minutes preceding the shooting. It concluded it was not possible to determine who had lied.

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

While I would agree with you the likelihood is the surveillance team lied, as the operational commander she was still responsible for their actions.

Really, from the point of view of accountability, it didn't matter who lied, Dick was still the one who must shoulder the blame.

But she hasn't.

Let me have a wild guess.

The ST were larking about when they should have had eyes firmly fixed on a dangerous suspect. As a result, when he slipped out of the building they were watching they didn't notice until it was a bit too late. As a result, then then had to pursue him through busy London streets whilst informing the commanding officer, Ms Dick, of their progress. She asked for a clear identification and got evasive and provocative replies, but on balance enough to suggest that the suspect they were tailing was the right man, and a very dangerous one indeed.

She now had a very difficult call to make - authorise lethal force, or hold back and risk a terrorist incident and the likelihood of a large number of casualties.

Glad it wasn't up to me.

So what you're saying is, she wasn't in control of one surveillance team.

How then is she capable of controlling the entire Metropolitan Police Service?

She had to act on the information passed in real time.
I think you minimise the reality of the situation and the decision to be made.

HYUFD

Polish exit polls suggest a clear win for the nationalist and socially conservative governing Law and Justice (ZP) party over the opposition liberal Civic Platform (KO)

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1183457913056169984?s=20

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1183457489154707458?s=20

Looks like I'll have to save the PiS-poor gag until next time.

TGOHF2

Noo said:

TGOHF2 said:

malc has the age, experience and the turnips.

Noo has the unshaking belief in the socialist dream and that the workers will prevail.

4/6 Malc, 7/5 Noo.

If I'm being asked to fight for socialism, I'll take a tenner on Malc please.

True to SNP form - even if you win by ko , malc will claim victory 😉

Noo

TGOHF2 said:

Noo said:

TGOHF2 said:

malc has the age, experience and the turnips.

Noo has the unshaking belief in the socialist dream and that the workers will prevail.

4/6 Malc, 7/5 Noo.

If I'm being asked to fight for socialism, I'll take a tenner on Malc please.

True to SNP form - even if you win by ko , malc will claim victory 😉

The irony here is that I voted SNP in last election.
EDIT: the last general election

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1183458631632732160?s=20

Stereotomy

Yorkcity said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Cressida Dick herself has a pretty miserable record when it comes to incompetence, suspected coverups and taking responsibility. The death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of officers under her command, coupled with the very pointed comments of the jury at the inquest, should have seen her instantly sacked. Her appointment as Commissioner, in a field of stiff competition, remains Theresa May's most egregious mistake.

But sadly the police don't seem to do accountability.

I've commented on this before here, but I'll repeat.

The Menezes inquiry established that somebody at the Met must have lied and it could only have been Ms Dick or the Surveillance Team which was informing her of the suspect's movements in the crucial minutes preceding the shooting. It concluded it was not possible to determine who had lied.

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

While I would agree with you the likelihood is the surveillance team lied, as the operational commander she was still responsible for their actions.

Really, from the point of view of accountability, it didn't matter who lied, Dick was still the one who must shoulder the blame.

But she hasn't.

Let me have a wild guess.

The ST were larking about when they should have had eyes firmly fixed on a dangerous suspect. As a result, when he slipped out of the building they were watching they didn't notice until it was a bit too late. As a result, then then had to pursue him through busy London streets whilst informing the commanding officer, Ms Dick, of their progress. She asked for a clear identification and got evasive and provocative replies, but on balance enough to suggest that the suspect they were tailing was the right man, and a very dangerous one indeed.

She now had a very difficult call to make - authorise lethal force, or hold back and risk a terrorist incident and the likelihood of a large number of casualties.

Glad it wasn't up to me.

I agree.

But it's not like at the same time they were killing him, somewhere else the man they mistook him for was committing another act of terrorism.

ydoethur

Yorkcity said:

She had to act on the information passed in real time.
I think you minimise the reality of the situation and the decision to be made.

You're a policeman, I believe, or were.

So let me ask you this.

How often, in your experience, do police officers shoot a man under restraint and then repeatedly lie about what happened? (Which is effectively the ruling as to the course of events by the jury at the inquest.)

Because if the answer is 'frequently,' as a country we have a big problem.

And if the answer is, 'that shouldn't happen,' then I am afraid all excuses are rendered meaningless.

Having been in London myself that day and remembering how tense it was I can forgive a lapse of judgement at the time. What bothers me is the very clear implication there was massive dishonesty on the part of the police across a number of different teams to cover up very serious avoidable mistakes that had lethal consequences, with her the common factor among them.

At the very least, I would suggest that shows she is not a strong or effective leader.

Sunil_Prasannan

viewcode said:

Charles said:

Anabobazina said:

Danny565 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Danny565 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.

OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?

Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through.
Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election

And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").

I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!

Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.

Because they are kids

People are adults at 16. Or have I missed something?

"Looked after" children are "looked after" till the age of 18.

Philip_Thompson

Sunil_Prasannan said:

viewcode said:

Charles said:

Anabobazina said:

Danny565 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Danny565 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.

OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?

Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through.
Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election

And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").

I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!

Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.

Because they are kids

People are adults at 16. Or have I missed something?

"Looked after" children are "looked after" till the age of 18.

That's because they're children. People are adults at 18.

Cyclefree

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Excellent piece, CF. Thank you.

Might I ask your opinion about the setting up of the investigation into Carl Beech's accusations, and related matters? It appears to me to have had all the hallmarks of one set up to fail deliberately.

Harsh?

Do you mean the one set up by Mrs May - of which little has been heard for some time now? Or the Henriques report - only commissioned under pressure? Or the one which Ms Patel is reportedly setting up?

I think they all fall within my definition of “Inquiry” here - “A process by which an embarrassing story disappears from public view.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/06/the-pb-cynics-dictionary-especially-complied-for-the-times/

So not harsh. Cynical, certainly, but probably also fair.

I thought the Henriques report pretty good - it was utterly scathing about police behaviour. Safe in the knowledge that only a handful of people will ever bother to read it, those in authority seem to be ignoring its conclusions.

It is a very good report. What is depressing is the way that even when their failings are pointed out to them before the report is published the police simply refuse to accept any criticism. Or, indeed, refuse to understand why belief in a victim is tantamount to reversing the burden of proof. They give the impression of simply refusing to learn about the law from those who have greater knowledge of it than they do.

It is a frightening mix of both arrogance and incompetence and will certainly mean there will be future miscarriages of justice similar to the Beech case. Not one of us is safe if something is not done about this.

Chris

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1183448798770683904?s=21

"Baffled" doesn't sound very promising.

Nigelb

Yorkcity said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Personally I'd be inclined to believe Ms Dick, if only because she kept notes and the account given by the ST creaked a bit. The fact she was subsequently promoted suggests this was a view taken by the Home Office too. Truth is however that nobody knows.

I should add that my opinion is colored by comments from friends who have suggested to me that the ST were a rather cocky bunch and they didn't like Ms Dick much, so I'm not in a great position to be objective here.

While I would agree with you the likelihood is the surveillance team lied, as the

Really, from the point of view of accountability, it didn't matter who lied, Dick was still the one who must shoulder the blame.

But she hasn't.

Let me have a wild guess.

The ST were larking about when they should have had eyes firmly fixed on a dangerous suspect. As a result, when he slipped out of the building they were watching they didn't notice until it was a bit too late. As a result, then then had to pursue him through busy London streets whilst informing the commanding officer, Ms Dick, of their progress. She asked for a clear identification and got evasive and provocative replies, but on balance enough to suggest that the suspect they were tailing was the right man, and a very dangerous one indeed.

She now had a very difficult call to make - authorise lethal force, or hold back and risk a terrorist incident and the likelihood of a large number of casualties.

Glad it wasn't up to me.

So what you're saying is, she wasn't in control of one surveillance team.

How then is she capable of controlling the entire Metropolitan Police Service?

She had to act on the information passed in real time.
I think you minimise the reality of the situation and the decision to be made.

Balls. She is a serial apologist for police malfeasance.

The Henriques report was pretty damn clear in implying the police had broken the law by deliberately misleading judges when applying for warrants.

Here is Dick:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-49988067/cressida-dick-of-course-i-take-notice-of-henriques-report-findings
She said she took notice of his findings, and there was clearly 'something not right' with what the Met did. But officers acted with propriety and not misconduct...

It is utterly clear from the report that police at the most senior level acted with impropriety, and ignorance of the law.

StuartDickson

Omnium said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Is there a reciprocal arrangement in Ireland?

It does seem something of an oddity, however I guess there's a good argument that whether we like it or not our fates as nations are quite intertwined. (We might even consider uniting.. in about a million years' time)

I wonder how many Irish people actually take up that right - I think if I lived in Ireland I would, but only if I felt that I was in Ireland for a longish stay.

It is so that Irish citizens in Ulster are not disenfranchised. NI people get to choose if the want UK or Irish citizenship.

FrancisUrquhart

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1183458631632732160?s=20

How have they gone up 6% in vote share and down in seats?

Nigelb

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Excellent piece, CF. Thank you.

Might I ask your opinion about the setting up of the investigation into Carl Beech's accusations, and related matters? It appears to me to have had all the hallmarks of one set up to fail deliberately.

Harsh?

Do you mean the one set up by Mrs May - of which little has been heard for some time now? Or the Henriques report - only commissioned under pressure? Or the one which Ms Patel is reportedly setting up?

I think they all fall within my definition of “Inquiry” here - “A process by which an embarrassing story disappears from public view.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/06/the-pb-cynics-dictionary-especially-complied-for-the-times/

So not harsh. Cynical, certainly, but probably also fair.

I thought the Henriques report pretty good - it was utterly scathing about police behaviour. Safe in the knowledge that only a handful of people will ever bother to read it, those in authority seem to be ignoring its conclusions.

It is a very good report. What is depressing is the way that even when their failings are pointed out to them before the report is published the police simply refuse to accept any criticism. Or, indeed, refuse to understand why belief in a victim is tantamount to reversing the burden of proof. They give the impression of simply refusing to learn about the law from those who have greater knowledge of it than they do.

It is a frightening mix of both arrogance and incompetence and will certainly mean there will be future miscarriages of justice similar to the Beech case. Not one of us is safe if something is not done about this.

Agreed.
The police are necessarily entrusted with great power over the individual - that of life and death, on occasion. That most of us will never be touched by it should not be a reason for lack of concern that it be exercised lawfully and competently.

Carnyx

EPG said:

Trusting the police is more naive than trusting politicians. At least I suspect that politicians' agendas can be readily identified by pointing to their funders: hedge funds, or unions, or businessmen, or Scottish gamblers. And they try to expose each others' collusion. By contrast, my personal belief is that police agendas are inscrutable, and we all know the role of certain mens' clubs that keep secrets.

Why Scottish gamblers, please? I'm intrigued!

Cyclefree

ydoethur said:

Yorkcity said:

She had to act on the information passed in real time.
I think you minimise the reality of the situation and the decision to be made.

You're a policeman, I believe, or were.

So let me ask you this.

How often, in your experience, do police officers shoot a man under restraint and then repeatedly lie about what happened? (Which is effectively the ruling as to the course of events by the jury at the inquest.)

Because if the answer is 'frequently,' as a country we have a big problem.

And if the answer is, 'that shouldn't happen,' then I am afraid all excuses are rendered meaningless.

Having been in London myself that day and remembering how tense it was I can forgive a lapse of judgement at the time. What bothers me is the very clear implication there was massive dishonesty on the part of the police across a number of different teams to cover up very serious avoidable mistakes that had lethal consequences, with her the common factor among them.

At the very least, I would suggest that shows she is not a strong or effective leader.

Look at her response on Beech. When the senior officer said his allegations were “true” she said that she thought at the time that he shouldn’t have said that, not what he meant, blah, blah. But then did the square root of fuck all about it. And as it turned out he did mean it. He intended to say this. He didn’t mis-speak because that’s the training the police are given. And Cressida Dick would have known that.

So even in relation to this she was being utterly disingenuous - or lying, in other words.

Simply. Not. Good. Enough.

viewcode

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1183448798770683904?s=21

The odds on departure about 30 minutes ago are:

No Deal
=====
* PP: Yes (UK leave the EU in 2019 without Withdrawal Agreement) 4/2
* CO: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019 with no deal) 8/1
* WH: Yes (UK leave the EU in 2019 with No Deal) 9/2
* LA: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019 with no deal) 8/1
* BF: Yes (UK leave the EU in 2019 with No Deal) 9/2

Leave on/before 31st
=============
* PP: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019) 9/4
* CO: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019 with no deal) 8/1
* WH: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019) 5/2
* LA: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019 with no deal) 8/1
* BF: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019) 11/4

Key
===
* PP: Paddy Power
* CO: Coral
* WH: William Hill
* LA: Ladbrokes
* BF: Betfair

Links
====
* PP: https://www.paddypower.com/politics
* CO: https://sports.coral.co.uk/event/politics/politics-uk/uk-politics/eu-specials/7430657/main-markets
* WH: https://sports.williamhill.com/betting/en-gb/politics
* LA: https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/
* BF: https://www.betfred.com/sports/vote

In the last 30 minutes, WH have suspended their Brexit specials.

Noo

viewcode said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1183448798770683904?s=21

The odds on departure about 30 minutes ago are:

No Deal
=====
* PP: Yes (UK leave the EU in 2019 without Withdrawal Agreement) 4/2
* CO: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019 with no deal) 8/1
* WH: Yes (UK leave the EU in 2019 with No Deal) 9/2
* LA: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019 with no deal) 8/1
* BF: Yes (UK leave the EU in 2019 with No Deal) 9/2

Leave on/before 31st
=============
* PP: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019) 9/4
* CO: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019 with no deal) 8/1
* WH: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019) 5/2
* LA: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019 with no deal) 8/1
* BF: Yes (UK leave the EU by 31 Oct 2019) 11/4

Key
===
* PP: Paddy Power
* CO: Coral
* WH: William Hill
* LA: Ladbrokes
* BF: Betfair

Links
====
* PP: https://www.paddypower.com/politics
* CO: https://sports.coral.co.uk/event/politics/politics-uk/uk-politics/eu-specials/7430657/main-markets
* WH: https://sports.williamhill.com/betting/en-gb/politics
* LA: https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/
* BF: https://www.betfred.com/sports/vote

In the last 30 minutes, WH have suspended their Brexit specials.

The PP No Deal odds look a bit weird. Typo?

Sunil_Prasannan

ydoethur said:

Andy_JS said:

Polls about to close in Poland.

https://wybory.gov.pl/sejmsenat2019/en

Is the electorate Poles apart, the way we are?

Have you been up since the Krakow dawn?

Sunil_Prasannan

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

viewcode said:

Charles said:

Anabobazina said:

Danny565 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Danny565 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.

OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?

Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through.
Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election

And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").

I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!

Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.

Because they are kids

People are adults at 16. Or have I missed something?

"Looked after" children are "looked after" till the age of 18.

That's because they're children. People are adults at 18.

Which was my point.

viewcode

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

viewcode said:

Charles said:

Anabobazina said:

Danny565 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Danny565 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Clearly if wrecking amendments are passed the bill falls and there is no election. The LDs and SNP arent going to go for an election and deliberately stop it with amendments. I dont think either are cavalier enough to gerrymander the constitution like that either, it's a labour sort of thing to do.

OK, "wrecking amendments" probably wasn't the right choice of words. I meant that votes at 16, or votes for EU citizens would be "wrecking amendments" (i.e. disadvantageous) from the Tories' perspective; from the Lib Dems' perspective, an early election in which 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens can vote would be the best case scenario, so why would they not vote to allow both things to happen?

Because if they vote for votes at 16 the whole bill will be canned/voted down by the government and they wont get the election they were voting for in the first place. That's why they dont attach ridiculous amendments to everything in sight, the bills dont get through.
Any change made in haste like that btw would be very unlikely to be in place or make a difference to 'this' election

And now maybe you see the problem: the Tories' strategy for getting an election on their preferred terms is reliant on their opponents not doing things that harm the Tories' chances ("if the Lib Dems try to ensure more LibDem voters are enfranchised, then there won't be an election at all, mwahaha!!").

I would've thought the last few weeks would've shown that there's no reason on earth why the Tories' opponents would feel obliged to do things that are only in the Tories' interests, but it seems not!

Can someone explain to me the root of the opposition to votes at 16? It seems a wise move to me, if we are to encourage young people’s interest in politics.

Because they are kids

People are adults at 16. Or have I missed something?

"Looked after" children are "looked after" till the age of 18.

That's because they're children. People are adults at 18.

I meant legally (I genuinely don't know the answer to this, and it's probably not the kind of thing one wants to google)

Theuniondivvie

Beibheirli_C said:

malcolmg said:

Noo said:

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

second like Noo

Evening Malc. Are you and @Noo having a bust up?

I think he's been on the buckie after Scotland got trounced by Japan.

Oh dear , you really are a lowlife. Afraid I am a bit more intelligent and cultured than you. However I would be very happy to arrange a meeting and explain the meaning of life to you , arseholes tend to get what they deserve, especially cowardly internet ones.

PS: Calibre of people posting on the site is dropping , seem to be attracting more cockroach lowlifes nowadays, think you should return to whatever cesspit you previously cluttered.

Get some circus performers to join. You will have plenty of clowns, but the Human Cannonballs will be men of calibre.

Hat and coat please....

Smooth bores..

Carnyx

StuartDickson said:

Omnium said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Just an update for all those experts who say that ONLY British citizens can vote in UK elections.

The govt. disagrees with you

"To vote in a General Election you must:

- be registered to vote
- be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
- be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
- be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
- not be legally excluded from voting"

https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk

Is there a reciprocal arrangement in Ireland?

It does seem something of an oddity, however I guess there's a good argument that whether we like it or not our fates as nations are quite intertwined. (We might even consider uniting.. in about a million years' time)

I wonder how many Irish people actually take up that right - I think if I lived in Ireland I would, but only if I felt that I was in Ireland for a longish stay.

It is so that Irish citizens in Ulster are not disenfranchised. NI people get to choose if the want UK or Irish citizenship.

Not nowadays, it seems, according to the Home Office. But the test case is still ongoing:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/09/11/the-de-souza-case-has-major-constitutional-ramifications-for-citizens-rights-in-northern-irelandbeyond-right-of-entry/

https://medium.com/@ecklewchuk/desouza-case-summary-and-timeline-9deb6fb17402

https://twitter.com/emmandjdesouza?lang=en