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.
Labelling things isn't really a good way of making an argument. There are rights and responsibilities we grant people at 16, and there are those we withhold until 18. If you want to argue that voting should in be in latter group (or the former, for that matter), come up with a reason. Arguing semantics about whether they're children or adults is meaningless.
Leaving on 31/10 do or die is a very clear narrative. We want a deal is a very clear narrative. Talks are progressing is a clear narrative.
We want a deal, talks are progressing but we've decided to die not do but our arbitery deadline might slip by a month isn't a clear narrative.
I just *do not* understand what Boris has done in narrative terms. Getting the EU to engage on complex, last minute, new proposals but then still insisting on the deadline seems absolutely the worst way to sell the necessity of No Deal.
The briefing tonight the talks are getting bogged down in detail as both sides think it might be possible to deal eventually is fatal to Boris' Comms strategy.
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.
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.
Yes retired after 30 years service. I have no knowledge of what you ask.
I have worked in control rooms , where usually the Inspector on duty , has to authorise a pursuit of a vehicle, or the use of firearms. They have to do this on the information passed to them in real time. I am defending the decision, she had to make , with all the information passed to her.
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.
I waited in vain throughout this article for the reveal that it was actually all an analogy for the Labour leadership's response to the takeover of the Labour grassoots by Antisemites.
Leaving on 31/10 do or die is a very clear narrative. We want a deal is a very clear narrative. Talks are progressing is a clear narrative.
We want a deal, talks are progressing but we've decided to die not do but our arbitery deadline might slip by a month isn't a clear narrative.
I just *do not* understand what Boris has done in narrative terms. Getting the EU to engage on complex, last minute, new proposals but then still insisting on the deadline seems absolutely the worst way to sell the necessity of No Deal.
The briefing tonight the talks are getting bogged down in detail as both sides think it might be possible to deal eventually is fatal to Boris' Comms strategy.
Ever since the ComRes poll on June 12th showed he was the only leadership candidate able to produce an overall majority for the Conservatives, Boris has been in the hot seat.
The coalition which propelled him to No.10 and which forms his 35% or so of support is made up of ardent No Dealers and those Conservatives still hoping for a WA which they can support and which will clear the Commons. We know there remains a lot of opposition within Cabinet to an outright pivot to No Deal so the line remains "Deal or No Deal" and that is the glue holding the Government together.
All we have heard since March 2017 is how much "work" needs to be done - this gets re-iterated ad infinitum but clearly somebody hasn't been putting in the hours because there still seems to be a desire for "intensive work" so I suspect this is code for "getting nowhere slowly"
While Boris's team, pace the late Dr Magnus Pyke, seem to be trying to blind the EU with science, the EU have always said it is up to the UK to provide solutions to the issues caused by our decision to leave.
Needless to say, whatever happens Boris will be fine.
Scenario A: Talks fail and Boris has to flounce. This will be positive because he can blame the perfidious Europeans.
Scenario B: We get a Deal and it gets through the Commons, This will be positive because Boris can take the credit and start on the journey to make Britain the greatest place to live on Earth as long as you don't mind waiting a month to see a doctor.
Scenario C: We get a Deal but it fails the Commons, This will be positive because Boris can then blame Parliament for defying the will of the people.
Thus is Stodge's Sixth Law of Politics observed - it states the good politician can fall into any sh1t but will come up smelling of roses.
Leaving on 31/10 do or die is a very clear narrative. We want a deal is a very clear narrative. Talks are progressing is a clear narrative.
We want a deal, talks are progressing but we've decided to die not do but our arbitery deadline might slip by a month isn't a clear narrative.
I just *do not* understand what Boris has done in narrative terms. Getting the EU to engage on complex, last minute, new proposals but then still insisting on the deadline seems absolutely the worst way to sell the necessity of No Deal.
The briefing tonight the talks are getting bogged down in detail as both sides think it might be possible to deal eventually is fatal to Boris' Comms strategy.
Ever since the ComRes poll on June 12th showed he was the only leadership candidate able to produce an overall majority for the Conservatives, Boris has been in the hot seat.
The coalition which propelled him to No.10 and which forms his 35% or so of support is made up of ardent No Dealers and those Conservatives still hoping for a WA which they can support and which will clear the Commons. We know there remains a lot of opposition within Cabinet to an outright pivot to No Deal so the line remains "Deal or No Deal" and that is the glue holding the Government together.
All we have heard since March 2017 is how much "work" needs to be done - this gets re-iterated ad infinitum but clearly somebody hasn't been putting in the hours because there still seems to be a desire for "intensive work" so I suspect this is code for "getting nowhere slowly"
While Boris's team, pace the late Dr Magnus Pyke, seem to be trying to blind the EU with science, the EU have always said it is up to the UK to provide solutions to the issues caused by our decision to leave.
Needless to say, whatever happens Boris will be fine.
Scenario A: Talks fail and Boris has to flounce. This will be positive because he can blame the perfidious Europeans.
Scenario B: We get a Deal and it gets through the Commons, This will be positive because Boris can take the credit and start on the journey to make Britain the greatest place to live on Earth as long as you don't mind waiting a month to see a doctor.
Scenario C: We get a Deal but it fails the Commons, This will be positive because Boris can then blame Parliament for defying the will of the people.
Thus is Stodge's Sixth Law of Politics observed - it states the good politician can fall into any sh1t but will come up smelling of roses.
Quite so.
Presumably, if they are following the good Dr Pyke, Mr Johnson's team aim to emd up with the UK in the middle of the Atlantic on the political equivalent of an aircraft carrier made of sawdust-reinforced ice - which rather leaves the question of what happens when the refrigeration breaks down.
The ST was under her control but what I am saying is that they didn't do their job well and were quite possibly messing her about because of hostilities between her and the Team.
If they acted like 'a bunch of cowboys' (which is one description I have heard) she could hardly do anything about it at the time. Later, perhaps, but by then there was a general closing of ranks and covering of backs.
...The briefing tonight the talks are getting bogged down in detail as both sides think it might be possible to deal eventually is fatal to Boris' Comms strategy...
I don't understand this sentence. Did you miss out a few words, or run two sentences into one?
I've just been reading the book 'The Secret Barrister'. He tells the story of the racist thug who came in front of Judge Patricia Lynch for his 9th breach of an anti social behaviour order. As she sentenced him for 18 months he said "You're a bit of a cunt" to which she replied "you're a bit of a cunt yourself". What became of the complaints against her I'll find out in the next chapter I hope.
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.
Labelling things isn't really a good way of making an argument. There are rights and responsibilities we grant people at 16, and there are those we withhold until 18. If you want to argue that voting should in be in latter group (or the former, for that matter), come up with a reason. Arguing semantics about whether they're children or adults is meaningless.
I've just been reading the book 'The Secret Barrister'. He tells the story of the racist thug who came in front of Judge Patricia Lynch for his 9th breach of an anti social behaviour order. As she sentenced him for 18 months he said "You're a bit of a cunt" to which she replied "you're a bit of a cunt yourself". What became of the complaints against her I'll find out in the next chapter I hope.
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.
The point is that we allow foriegn nationals to vote in national elections if they take British citizenship. We do this because the act of taking citizenship shows that someone is making a commitment to the country rather than staying for a few years and then going back to their country of origin.
Great article by CycleFree. The first problem is Police performance is always viewed through Culture War prisms. So on this occassion the Right has it's Knickers in a twist because the Police have buggled political charged allegations against Conservatives. Numerous marginalised groups in the UK are searching for their tiny violins. They already knew the Police can behave very badly.
Equally if we go back to the original Witch Trail environment around the allegations many on the Left were more than happy to egg on the overmighty state and trample civil liberties when they thought some sort of vast conspiracy was about to bring down the Government.
Who watches the Watchmen ? But perhaps more importantly in atomised early post-modernity what are the Watchmen watching for ? Policing oversight needs a focus on truth and power. As soon as identity politics of either sort takes over as the frame miscarriages of Justice as inevitable as the identity of the suspect is more important than whether they are guilty.
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"
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.
It was a bit more complicated than that. When Ireland formally declared itself a republic in 1949, it automatically left the Commonwealth (it was still the case that independent Commonwealth countries had to retain the Crown to be members). At that time, all Commonwealth citizens had de facto freedom of movement and to settle in the UK. Ireland leaving the Commonwealth meant that the tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people born in what was now the Republic of Ireland but living in the UK had legally become aliens with no right to remain. The Ireland Act 1949 solved this by deeming that although it was no longer in the Commonwealth, Ireland should be treated as "not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom"
Practically speaking, the problem was somewhat less in Northern Ireland as the vast majority of the Catholic/nationalist population there were born in NI and so would remain British citizens (whether they wanted to be or not!). It was Irish migrants to Great Britain that were most likely to need the relief given by the Act.
The Act essentially gave a legal basis to the modern Common Travel Area between the UK. Ireland and the Crown Dependencies (previously it'd simply been on the basis that all the inhabitants of those places shared a common status of "British subject". The CTA wasn't formalized by international agreement until I think the 90s, and of course there was a customs border on the island of Ireland until the advent of the Single Market.
The principle that people in Northern Ireland can chose to be British, Irish or both only dates to the GFA.
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.
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.
One little nugget I picked up from reading Tony Blair's autobiography was that he regarded the Police Federation as the strongest and most successful trade union in the country.
This may explain some of the phenomena we have been discussing.
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)
Legally the age of becoming an adult is 18, which is also international law with the UNCRC.
The main story on the BBC is that US forces are in retreat in the face of advancing Turkish forces.
That would be Turkey, NATO ally.
Allegedly Syria has agreed to assist the Kurds fight off Turkey.
Which I assume means Russia is on board
This is a complete disaster . Trumps action is one of the worst in recent history , utterly despicable and a shameful betrayal of the Kurds who have been instrumental in defeating ISIS.
...The briefing tonight the talks are getting bogged down in detail as both sides think it might be possible to deal eventually is fatal to Boris' Comms strategy...
I don't understand this sentence. Did you miss out a few words, or run two sentences into one?
There is probably a lot of missing punctuation. I defeated even the Special Needs unit.
The main story on the BBC is that US forces are in retreat in the face of advancing Turkish forces.
That would be Turkey, NATO ally.
Allegedly Syria has agreed to assist the Kurds fight off Turkey.
Which I assume means Russia is on board
This is a complete disaster . Trumps action is one of the worst in recent history , utterly despicable and a shameful betrayal of the Kurds who have been instrumental in defeating ISIS.
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.
Labelling things isn't really a good way of making an argument. There are rights and responsibilities we grant people at 16, and there are those we withhold until 18. If you want to argue that voting should in be in latter group (or the former, for that matter), come up with a reason. Arguing semantics about whether they're children or adults is meaningless.
And some things are withheld until 21.
Here in the US, yes, but are there so very many now in the UK? The biggies used to be age of consent for some sexual acts, and minimum age to run for Parliament. Both no longer apply.
Essentially the right to vote is the highest responsibility any citizen has in a society
It is jealously guarded because it allows an active voice in the future direction of that society. Clearly over time we have rightly understood that the franchise should be extended, from landowners to all adult men to all adults over 18.
The right to vote derives from a commitment to belong to and participate in that society and to give its wellbeing priority over any other. This is based on citizenship AND residency @edmundintokyo - although you may be a UK citizen, if you have been absent for an extended period of time you shouldn’t get to participate in day to day government (although there’s a case that you should be allowed to vote in referendums).
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K. This is a choice they have - as a US citizen my wife doesn’t have the right to vote despite being here nearly 15 years. This is because in her mind she will always be an American not a Brit.
Hope that helps explain why it matters.
(Edit: of course in the case of the Irish and some other Commonwealth countries the U.K. has extended voting rights to them. That is a choice that Westminster has made in behalf of the demos)
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.
Labelling things isn't really a good way of making an argument. There are rights and responsibilities we grant people at 16, and there are those we withhold until 18. If you want to argue that voting should in be in latter group (or the former, for that matter), come up with a reason. Arguing semantics about whether they're children or adults is meaningless.
And some things are withheld until 21.
Here in the US, yes, but are there so very many now in the UK? The biggies used to be age of consent for some sexual acts, and minimum age to run for Parliament. Both no longer apply.
I think Robert is referring to things his Dad won't let him do until he's 21.
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.
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.
One little nugget I picked up from reading Tony Blair's autobiography was that he regarded the Police Federation as the strongest and most successful trade union in the country.
This may explain some of the phenomena we have been discussing.
Mrs May tried to take them on.
The problem is deeper than that. The police have forgotten what they are there to do. And politicians and the public have asked them to do all sorts of other stuff which is either incompatible with their real task or distracts them.
Plus a lot of people in leadership roles are, frankly, second-rate. Excellence is not valued.
...The briefing tonight the talks are getting bogged down in detail as both sides think it might be possible to deal eventually is fatal to Boris' Comms strategy...
I don't understand this sentence. Did you miss out a few words, or run two sentences into one?
There is probably a lot of missing punctuation. I defeated even the Special Needs unit.
The second problem is, as an astute Chief Constable once observed to me, " no one becomes a Chief Constable by being good at solving burglaries ".
What he meant was getting to the top of professions always involved hyper-specialisation, leaving frontline practice behind and political skills. Once you are at that ascended level of course hum drum matters like the actual truth of VIP child abuse allegations or the way an investigation is carried out don't register. It's a highly complex political, social, cultural, media management issue to be navigated.
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K. This is a choice they have - as a US citizen my wife doesn’t have the right to vote despite being here nearly 15 years. This is because in her mind she will always be an American not a Brit.
Is she not aware that both countries allow dual citizenship these days?
Trump's abandonment of the Kurds in Syria is the worst US Foreign policy disaster since Iran contra / Clinton abandoning the Tutsis / Clinton in Mogadishu / GHWBush abandoning the Kurds / Obama abandoning Syria / take your pick.
Apparently this move was the only way to spare their people being slaughtered by Turkey.
I truly despise Trump , please just drop dead .
No..too good. A stroke with locked in syndrome, living and fully aware whilst his family are sent to prison for the corrupt deviants that they are
I really don’t like wishing anyone dead but Trump is a stain on humanity . The world is full of some horrible leaders but you expect so much better from allegedly a civilized western country .
Essentially the right to vote is the highest responsibility any citizen has in a society
It is jealously guarded because it allows an active voice in the future direction of that society. Clearly over time we have rightly understood that the franchise should be extended, from landowners to all adult men to all adults over 18.
The right to vote derives from a commitment to belong to and participate in that society and to give its wellbeing priority over any other. This is based on citizenship AND residency @edmundintokyo - although you may be a UK citizen, if you have been absent for an extended period of time you shouldn’t get to participate in day to day government (although there’s a case that you should be allowed to vote in referendums).
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K. This is a choice they have - as a US citizen my wife doesn’t have the right to vote despite being here nearly 15 years. This is because in her mind she will always be an American not a Brit.
Hope that helps explain why it matters.
(Edit: of course in the case of the Irish and some other Commonwealth countries the U.K. has extended voting rights to them. That is a choice that Westminster has made in behalf of the demos)
With the current voting system most votes are worthless if that’s not changed this principled view of democracy is bollocks. It’s like telling people that we are taking back control from the EU it’s crap, your vote is worth nothing unless you live in one of a small minority of constituencies. This parading of the right to vote as some wonderful right is just crap, your vote doesn’t matter.
...The briefing tonight the talks are getting bogged down in detail as both sides think it might be possible to deal eventually is fatal to Boris' Comms strategy...
I don't understand this sentence. Did you miss out a few words, or run two sentences into one?
There is probably a lot of missing punctuation. I defeated even the Special Needs unit.
Viewcode's comments were nasty...petty and stupid
Really.. You think it is unreasonable to point out that incomprehensible text? Dictionary definition.... Tyson...….. taking unnecessary offence.
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K.
This seems to be where the logic fails: any dual national, on the balance of probabilities, has a higher loyalty to one of their countries. But in any case it is not clear why multiple loyalties means one cannot be trusted, unless we accept that foreigners are bad to begin with. Finally, the critics seem to be correct that it is a policy to skew the electorate for political reasons.
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.
Labelling things isn't really a good way of making an argument. There are rights and responsibilities we grant people at 16, and there are those we withhold until 18. If you want to argue that voting should in be in latter group (or the former, for that matter), come up with a reason. Arguing semantics about whether they're children or adults is meaningless.
And some things are withheld until 21.
Here in the US, yes, but are there so very many now in the UK? The biggies used to be age of consent for some sexual acts, and minimum age to run for Parliament. Both no longer apply.
Casinos used to be 21, iirc. I don't know if that's still the case.
Essentially the right to vote is the highest responsibility any citizen has in a society
It is jealously guarded because it allows an active voice in the future direction of that society. Clearly over time we have rightly understood that the franchise should be extended, from landowners to all adult men to all adults over 18.
The right to vote derives from a commitment to belong to and participate in that society and to give its wellbeing priority over any other. This is based on citizenship AND residency @edmundintokyo - although you may be a UK citizen, if you have been absent for an extended period of time you shouldn’t get to participate in day to day government (although there’s a case that you should be allowed to vote in referendums).
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K. This is a choice they have - as a US citizen my wife doesn’t have the right to vote despite being here nearly 15 years. This is because in her mind she will always be an American not a Brit.
Hope that helps explain why it matters.
(Edit: of course in the case of the Irish and some other Commonwealth countries the U.K. has extended voting rights to them. That is a choice that Westminster has made in behalf of the demos)
With the current voting system most votes are worthless if that’s not changed this principled view of democracy is bollocks. It’s like telling people that we are taking back control from the EU it’s crap, your vote is worth nothing unless you live in one of a small minority of constituencies. This parading of the right to vote as some wonderful right is just crap, your vote doesn’t matter.
A rant that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are voting for.
Apparently this move was the only way to spare their people being slaughtered by Turkey.
I truly despise Trump , please just drop dead .
No..too good. A stroke with locked in syndrome, living and fully aware whilst his family are sent to prison for the corrupt deviants that they are
I really don’t like wishing anyone dead but Trump is a stain on humanity . The world is full of some horrible leaders but you expect so much better from allegedly a civilized western country .
The problem with Trump is that he provides the blueprint for leaders without any kind of personal integrity to use propaganda, lies and playing to the lost common denominator politics how to thrive.....step forward Boris Johnson...
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K.
This seems to be where the logic fails: any dual national, on the balance of probabilities, has a higher loyalty to one of their countries. But in any case it is not clear why multiple loyalties means one cannot be trusted, unless we accept that foreigners are bad to begin with. Finally, the critics seem to be correct that it is a policy to skew the electorate for political reasons.
Hmmmm... It's a good point. The head of my London office is Swedish and his wife is South African. His two kids are dual nationality, Swedish and South African, but are essentially British, having lived their entire lives here.
Essentially the right to vote is the highest responsibility any citizen has in a society
It is jealously guarded because it allows an active voice in the future direction of that society. Clearly over time we have rightly understood that the franchise should be extended, from landowners to all adult men to all adults over 18.
The right to vote derives from a commitment to belong to and participate in that society and to give its wellbeing priority over any other. This is based on citizenship AND residency @edmundintokyo - although you may be a UK citizen, if you have been absent for an extended period of time you shouldn’t get to participate in day to day government (although there’s a case that you should be allowed to vote in referendums).
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K. This is a choice they have - as a US citizen my wife doesn’t have the right to vote despite being here nearly 15 years. This is because in her mind she will always be an American not a Brit.
Hope that helps explain why it matters.
(Edit: of course in the case of the Irish and some other Commonwealth countries the U.K. has extended voting rights to them. That is a choice that Westminster has made in behalf of the demos)
With the current voting system most votes are worthless if that’s not changed this principled view of democracy is bollocks. It’s like telling people that we are taking back control from the EU it’s crap, your vote is worth nothing unless you live in one of a small minority of constituencies. This parading of the right to vote as some wonderful right is just crap, your vote doesn’t matter.
A rant that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are voting for.
It’s not a rant but a statement of fact, if you live in a one of a large number of constituencies the in reality your vote counts for nothing. Tell me what value a Tory vote in Bootle is worth?
Essentially the right to vote is the highest responsibility any citizen has in a society
It is jealously guarded because it allows an active voice in the future direction of that society. Clearly over time we have rightly understood that the franchise should be extended, from landowners to all adult men to all adults over 18.
The right to vote derives from a commitment to belong to and participate in that society and to give its wellbeing priority over any other. This is based on citizenship AND residency @edmundintokyo - although you may be a UK citizen, if you have been absent for an extended period of time you shouldn’t get to participate in day to day government (although there’s a case that you should be allowed to vote in referendums).
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K. This is a choice they have - as a US citizen my wife doesn’t have the right to vote despite being here nearly 15 years. This is because in her mind she will always be an American not a Brit.
Hope that helps explain why it matters.
(Edit: of course in the case of the Irish and some other Commonwealth countries the U.K. has extended voting rights to them. That is a choice that Westminster has made in behalf of the demos)
With the current voting system most votes are worthless if that’s not changed this principled view of democracy is bollocks. It’s like telling people that we are taking back control from the EU it’s crap, your vote is worth nothing unless you live in one of a small minority of constituencies. This parading of the right to vote as some wonderful right is just crap, your vote doesn’t matter.
A rant that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are voting for.
Which is what ? Full sovereignty for elective dictatorship ?
I despair tonight for so many, especially those in the middle east
I'm back in Oxford....my area is full of Americans who have escaped...they unanimously say they just cannot be in the US whilst Trump is POTUS....
I walked up Lonsdale Road, Oxford today househunting....OGH created pbCOM there whilst he worked in Oxford..I always think of him (and the site) when I am up that part of the world
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.
Makes me angry every time this case and investigation comes up, not least because my local form were involved. Even if automatically believing an allegation - rather than properly investigate them - was felt to confer some kind of benefit to encourage the genuinely affected to come forward, how they considered, and seemingly many still consider, that that supposed benefit is worth the turning of that basic point of innocent until proven guilty on its head, I do not know. It's bizarre as I know several senior police officers, who almost without fail I find to be hugely competent, but the reverse seems very common.
...The briefing tonight the talks are getting bogged down in detail as both sides think it might be possible to deal eventually is fatal to Boris' Comms strategy...
I don't understand this sentence. Did you miss out a few words, or run two sentences into one?
There is probably a lot of missing punctuation. I defeated even the Special Needs unit.
Viewcode's comments were nasty...petty and stupid
Viewcode's comments were a request to @Yellow_Submarine to rewrite his sentence so I could understand it. They were neither nasty, petty, nor stupid.
Essentially the right to vote is the highest responsibility any citizen has in a society
It is jealously guarded because it allows an active voice in the future direction of that society. Clearly over time we have rightly understood that the franchise should be extended, from landowners to all adult men to all adults over 18.
The right to vote derives from a commitment to belong to and participate in that society and to give its wellbeing priority over any other. This is based on citizenship AND residency @edmundintokyo - although you may be a UK citizen, if you have been absent for an extended period of time you shouldn’t get to participate in day to day government (although there’s a case that you should be allowed to vote in referendums).
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K. This is a choice they have - as a US citizen my wife doesn’t have the right to vote despite being here nearly 15 years. This is because in her mind she will always be an American not a Brit.
Hope that helps explain why it matters.
(Edit: of course in the case of the Irish and some other Commonwealth countries the U.K. has extended voting rights to them. That is a choice that Westminster has made in behalf of the demos)
With the current voting system most votes are worthless if that’s not changed this principled view of democracy is bollocks. It’s like telling people that we are taking back control from the EU it’s crap, your vote is worth nothing unless you live in one of a small minority of constituencies. This parading of the right to vote as some wonderful right is just crap, your vote doesn’t matter.
A rant that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are voting for.
Which is what ? Full sovereignty for elective dictatorship ?
Individual representatives who will serve their constituents. There is much reform needed to correct the problems on the system and particularly to break the power of the parties over the MPs but the idea that we should not have a principled view of democracy or should devalue the right to vote because reform is necessary is just bollocks.
Basically nichomar has no cogent answer to the point that both Charles and I made about citizenship and commitment to the country and so launches into a rant about how democracy is pointless.
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
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.
Labelling things isn't really a good way of making an argument. There are rights and responsibilities we grant people at 16, and there are those we withhold until 18. If you want to argue that voting should in be in latter group (or the former, for that matter), come up with a reason. Arguing semantics about whether they're children or adults is meaningless.
And some things are withheld until 21.
Here in the US, yes, but are there so very many now in the UK? The biggies used to be age of consent for some sexual acts, and minimum age to run for Parliament. Both no longer apply.
The right to adopt; supervise a learner driver; hold a commercial pilot’s license...
21 appears overrated, these days. Though I wouldn’t mind being 21 again.
I despair tonight for so many, especially those in the middle east
I'm back in Oxford....my area is full of Americans who have escaped...they unanimously say they just cannot be in the US whilst Trump is POTUS....
I walked up Lonsdale Road, Oxford today househunting....OGH created pbCOM there whilst he worked in Oxford..I always think of him (and the site) when I am up that part of the world
On my recent cruise on our landings in the US I detected a tide of bitterness to Trump and it is hardly surprising.
Essentially the right to vote is the highest responsibility any citizen has in a society
It is jealously guarded because it allows an active voice in the future direction of that society. Clearly over time we have rightly understood that the franchise should be extended, from landowners to all adult men to all adults over 18.
The right to vote derives from a commitment to belong to and participate in that society and to give its wellbeing priority over any other. This is based on citizenship AND residency @edmundintokyo - although you may be a UK citizen, if you have been absent for an extended period of time you shouldn’t get to participate in day to day government (although there’s a case that you should be allowed to vote in referendums).
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K. This is a choice they have - as a US citizen my wife doesn’t have the right to vote despite being here nearly 15 years. This is because in her mind she will always be an American not a Brit.
Hope that helps explain why it matters.
(Edit: of course in the case of the Irish and some other Commonwealth countries the U.K. has extended voting rights to them. That is a choice that Westminster has made in behalf of the demos)
With the current voting system most votes are worthless if that’s not changed this principled view of democracy is bollocks. It’s like telling people that we are taking back control from the EU it’s crap, your vote is worth nothing unless you live in one of a small minority of constituencies. This parading of the right to vote as some wonderful right is just crap, your vote doesn’t matter.
A rant that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are voting for.
Which is what ? Full sovereignty for elective dictatorship ?
Individual representatives who will serve their constituents. There is much reform needed to correct the problems on the system and particularly to break the power of the parties over the MPs but the idea that we should not have a principled view of democracy or should devalue the right to vote because reform is necessary is just bollocks.
Basically nichomar has no cogent answer to the point that both Charles and I made about citizenship and commitment to the country and so launches into a rant about how democracy is pointless.
Or (s)he was just pointing out your concern with form over substance.
The main story on the BBC is that US forces are in retreat in the face of advancing Turkish forces.
That would be Turkey, NATO ally.
Allegedly Syria has agreed to assist the Kurds fight off Turkey.
Which I assume means Russia is on board
This is a complete disaster . Trumps action is one of the worst in recent history , utterly despicable and a shameful betrayal of the Kurds who have been instrumental in defeating ISIS.
GOP: hang your heads in utter shame.
I’ve been ranting about this for days. It might well be the end of Trump, even as he survives everything else.
He has brought shame on the American military, and dishonored America itself, his patriotic base will hate this.
The main story on the BBC is that US forces are in retreat in the face of advancing Turkish forces.
That would be Turkey, NATO ally.
Allegedly Syria has agreed to assist the Kurds fight off Turkey.
Which I assume means Russia is on board
This is a complete disaster . Trumps action is one of the worst in recent history , utterly despicable and a shameful betrayal of the Kurds who have been instrumental in defeating ISIS.
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall seeing a rational, reasonable explanation for Trump's decision, other than a trite 'not being involved in wars anymore' line which is not particularly persuasive. What policy gains were expected to come from this?
The main story on the BBC is that US forces are in retreat in the face of advancing Turkish forces.
That would be Turkey, NATO ally.
Allegedly Syria has agreed to assist the Kurds fight off Turkey.
Which I assume means Russia is on board
This is a complete disaster . Trumps action is one of the worst in recent history , utterly despicable and a shameful betrayal of the Kurds who have been instrumental in defeating ISIS.
GOP: hang your heads in utter shame.
I’ve been ranting about this for days. It might well be the end of Trump, even as he survives everything else.
He has brought shame on the American military, and dishonored America itself, his patriotic base will hate this.
Well said Sir.
GOP must be bonkers to keep hugging this imbecile. Where do they think their party will be once he has finally gone?
The main story on the BBC is that US forces are in retreat in the face of advancing Turkish forces.
That would be Turkey, NATO ally.
Allegedly Syria has agreed to assist the Kurds fight off Turkey.
Which I assume means Russia is on board
This is a complete disaster . Trumps action is one of the worst in recent history , utterly despicable and a shameful betrayal of the Kurds who have been instrumental in defeating ISIS.
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall seeing a rational, reasonable explanation for Trump's decision, other than a trite 'not being involved in wars anymore' line which is not particularly persuasive. What policy gains were expected to come from this?
Difficult to say, as the policy making institutions of the US were entirely unaware of Trump’s action beforehand, and appear either unwilling to justify, or opposed to it.
Britain and US should have followed the lead of France and Russia and drawn up list of the most dangerous individuals and had them nullified before they had chance to become a prisoner.
BBC News reports the Kurds have agreed an alliance with the Syrian Government against the Turks and Syrian government forces are now heading for Northern Syria
Britain and US should have followed the lead of France and Russia and drawn up list of the most dangerous individuals and had them nullified before they had chance to become a prisoner.
I despair tonight for so many, especially those in the middle east
I'm back in Oxford....my area is full of Americans who have escaped...they unanimously say they just cannot be in the US whilst Trump is POTUS....
I walked up Lonsdale Road, Oxford today househunting....OGH created pbCOM there whilst he worked in Oxford..I always think of him (and the site) when I am up that part of the world
On my recent cruise on our landings in the US I detected a tide of bitterness to Trump and it is hardly surprising.
Good luck on your househunting Tyson
Thanks BiG G...I think you may well be proven right on TM...she wasn't that bad after all
The main story on the BBC is that US forces are in retreat in the face of advancing Turkish forces.
That would be Turkey, NATO ally.
Allegedly Syria has agreed to assist the Kurds fight off Turkey.
Which I assume means Russia is on board
This is a complete disaster . Trumps action is one of the worst in recent history , utterly despicable and a shameful betrayal of the Kurds who have been instrumental in defeating ISIS.
GOP: hang your heads in utter shame.
I’ve been ranting about this for days. It might well be the end of Trump, even as he survives everything else.
He has brought shame on the American military, and dishonored America itself, his patriotic base will hate this.
They won't , they don't want any more body bags of American servicemen coming from the Middle East and given the British have withdrawn forces from Iraq and Syria we can hardly criticise
“They trusted us and we broke that trust,” an Army officer who has worked alongside Kurdish forces told the Times on condition of anonymity. “It’s a stain on the American conscience.”
Shervan Darwish, an official allied with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, expressed similar sentiments, telling the newspaper, “The worst thing in military logic and comrades in the trench is betrayal.”
Other members of the U.S. military have made similar comments. “I am ashamed for the first time in my career,” a U.S. Special Forces soldier told Fox News Thursday after Turkish forces advanced across the border into the northeast.
“Turkey is not doing what it agreed to. It’s horrible,” the soldier said. “We met every single security agreement. The Kurds met every single agreement [with the Turks]. There was no threat to the Turks — none — from this side of the border.”...
I despair tonight for so many, especially those in the middle east
I'm back in Oxford....my area is full of Americans who have escaped...they unanimously say they just cannot be in the US whilst Trump is POTUS....
I walked up Lonsdale Road, Oxford today househunting....OGH created pbCOM there whilst he worked in Oxford..I always think of him (and the site) when I am up that part of the world
On my recent cruise on our landings in the US I detected a tide of bitterness to Trump and it is hardly surprising.
Good luck on your househunting Tyson
Thanks BiG G...I think you may well be proven right on TM...she wasn't that bad after all
TM had the deal and it is still the best deal to leave
BBC News reports the Kurds have agreed an alliance with the Syrian Government against the Turks and Syrian government forces are now heading for Northern Syria
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.
It goes back to Blair’s* politicisation of the police force
Latest opinion poll from Spain ahead of next month’s election. Yet another hung Parliament beckons, but note the collapse of the Ciudadanos vote. Just a few months ago C’s was looking like it could become Spain’s second party, but a disastrous lurch to the right has brought it to the verge of extinction. It’s truly extraordinary. https://twitter.com/electograph/status/1183466282684948480?s=21
The main story on the BBC is that US forces are in retreat in the face of advancing Turkish forces.
That would be Turkey, NATO ally.
Allegedly Syria has agreed to assist the Kurds fight off Turkey.
Which I assume means Russia is on board
This is a complete disaster . Trumps action is one of the worst in recent history , utterly despicable and a shameful betrayal of the Kurds who have been instrumental in defeating ISIS.
GOP: hang your heads in utter shame.
I’ve been ranting about this for days. It might well be the end of Trump, even as he survives everything else.
He has brought shame on the American military, and dishonored America itself, his patriotic base will hate this.
They won't , they don't want any more body bags of American servicemen coming from the Middle East and given the British have withdrawn forces from Iraq and Syria we can hardly criticise
Dear me is there anything Trump could do that you’d disagree with . Your attempts to spin this are now embarrassing.
The main story on the BBC is that US forces are in retreat in the face of advancing Turkish forces.
That would be Turkey, NATO ally.
Allegedly Syria has agreed to assist the Kurds fight off Turkey.
Which I assume means Russia is on board
This is a complete disaster . Trumps action is one of the worst in recent history , utterly despicable and a shameful betrayal of the Kurds who have been instrumental in defeating ISIS.
GOP: hang your heads in utter shame.
I’ve been ranting about this for days. It might well be the end of Trump, even as he survives everything else.
He has brought shame on the American military, and dishonored America itself, his patriotic base will hate this.
They won't , they don't want any more body bags of American servicemen coming from the Middle East and given the British have withdrawn forces from Iraq and Syria we can hardly criticise
We most certainly can attack Trump for the idiot he is
BBC News reports the Kurds have agreed an alliance with the Syrian Government against the Turks and Syrian government forces are now heading for Northern Syria
Your man Trump is a disaster of untold dimensions
Did Trump invade Iraq? No, he opposed the war.
Did Trump back rebel forces against Assad in Syria? No.
Trump is just doing what the left wanted the USA to do a decade ago and withdrawing US troops from the Middle East
I despair tonight for so many, especially those in the middle east
I'm back in Oxford....my area is full of Americans who have escaped...they unanimously say they just cannot be in the US whilst Trump is POTUS....
I walked up Lonsdale Road, Oxford today househunting....OGH created pbCOM there whilst he worked in Oxford..I always think of him (and the site) when I am up that part of the world
On my recent cruise on our landings in the US I detected a tide of bitterness to Trump and it is hardly surprising.
Good luck on your househunting Tyson
Thanks BiG G...I think you may well be proven right on TM...she wasn't that bad after all
TM had the deal and it is still the best deal to leave
And she operated with a level of integrity and probity which I miss....
Comments
We want a deal, talks are progressing but we've decided to die not do but our arbitery deadline might slip by a month isn't a clear narrative.
I just *do not* understand what Boris has done in narrative terms. Getting the EU to engage on complex, last minute, new proposals but then still insisting on the deadline seems absolutely the worst way to sell the necessity of No Deal.
The briefing tonight the talks are getting bogged down in detail as both sides think it might be possible to deal eventually is fatal to Boris' Comms strategy.
I have no knowledge of what you ask.
I have worked in control rooms , where usually the Inspector on duty , has to authorise a pursuit of a vehicle, or the use of firearms.
They have to do this on the information passed to them in real time.
I am defending the decision, she had to make , with all the information passed to her.
I would not defend any cover up you describe.
The coalition which propelled him to No.10 and which forms his 35% or so of support is made up of ardent No Dealers and those Conservatives still hoping for a WA which they can support and which will clear the Commons. We know there remains a lot of opposition within Cabinet to an outright pivot to No Deal so the line remains "Deal or No Deal" and that is the glue holding the Government together.
All we have heard since March 2017 is how much "work" needs to be done - this gets re-iterated ad infinitum but clearly somebody hasn't been putting in the hours because there still seems to be a desire for "intensive work" so I suspect this is code for "getting nowhere slowly"
While Boris's team, pace the late Dr Magnus Pyke, seem to be trying to blind the EU with science, the EU have always said it is up to the UK to provide solutions to the issues caused by our decision to leave.
Needless to say, whatever happens Boris will be fine.
Scenario A: Talks fail and Boris has to flounce. This will be positive because he can blame the perfidious Europeans.
Scenario B: We get a Deal and it gets through the Commons, This will be positive because Boris can take the credit and start on the journey to make Britain the greatest place to live on Earth as long as you don't mind waiting a month to see a doctor.
Scenario C: We get a Deal but it fails the Commons, This will be positive because Boris can then blame Parliament for defying the will of the people.
Thus is Stodge's Sixth Law of Politics observed - it states the good politician can fall into any sh1t but will come up smelling of roses.
That would be Turkey, NATO ally.
Presumably, if they are following the good Dr Pyke, Mr Johnson's team aim to emd up with the UK in the middle of the Atlantic on the political equivalent of an aircraft carrier made of sawdust-reinforced ice - which rather leaves the question of what happens when the refrigeration breaks down.
No, you've misunderstood.
The ST was under her control but what I am saying is that they didn't do their job well and were quite possibly messing her about because of hostilities between her and the Team.
If they acted like 'a bunch of cowboys' (which is one description I have heard) she could hardly do anything about it at the time. Later, perhaps, but by then there was a general closing of ranks and covering of backs.
Guesswork, as I say, but plausible.
Which I assume means Russia is on board
(Btw Lodz is pronounced "Woodge" 🙂 )
Equally if we go back to the original Witch Trail environment around the allegations many on the Left were more than happy to egg on the overmighty state and trample civil liberties when they thought some sort of vast conspiracy was about to bring down the Government.
Who watches the Watchmen ? But perhaps more importantly in atomised early post-modernity what are the Watchmen watching for ? Policing oversight needs a focus on truth and power. As soon as identity politics of either sort takes over as the frame miscarriages of Justice as inevitable as the identity of the suspect is more important than whether they are guilty.
Practically speaking, the problem was somewhat less in Northern Ireland as the vast majority of the Catholic/nationalist population there were born in NI and so would remain British citizens (whether they wanted to be or not!). It was Irish migrants to Great Britain that were most likely to need the relief given by the Act.
The Act essentially gave a legal basis to the modern Common Travel Area between the UK. Ireland and the Crown Dependencies (previously it'd simply been on the basis that all the inhabitants of those places shared a common status of "British subject". The CTA wasn't formalized by international agreement until I think the 90s, and of course there was a customs border on the island of Ireland until the advent of the Single Market.
The principle that people in Northern Ireland can chose to be British, Irish or both only dates to the GFA.
This may explain some of the phenomena we have been discussing.
https://twitter.com/rafsanchez/status/1183458445112086535
One of them holds the post that used to be known as the leader of the free world.
I truly despise Trump , please just drop dead .
Voting rights
Essentially the right to vote is the highest responsibility any citizen has in a society
It is jealously guarded because it allows an active voice in the future direction of that society. Clearly over time we have rightly understood that the franchise should be extended, from landowners to all adult men to all adults over 18.
The right to vote derives from a commitment to belong to and participate in that society and to give its wellbeing priority over any other. This is based on citizenship AND residency @edmundintokyo - although you may be a UK citizen, if you have been absent for an extended period of time you shouldn’t get to participate in day to day government (although there’s a case that you should be allowed to vote in referendums).
If someone is resident in the UK but has not opted to become a citizen then they implicitly have a higher loyalty to another entity and hence they can’t be “trusted” with setting the direction of the U.K. This is a choice they have - as a US citizen my wife doesn’t have the right to vote despite being here nearly 15 years. This is because in her mind she will always be an American not a Brit.
Hope that helps explain why it matters.
(Edit: of course in the case of the Irish and some other Commonwealth countries the U.K. has extended voting rights to them. That is a choice that Westminster has made in behalf of the demos)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50036173
The problem is deeper than that. The police have forgotten what they are there to do. And politicians and the public have asked them to do all sorts of other stuff which is either incompatible with their real task or distracts them.
Plus a lot of people in leadership roles are, frankly, second-rate. Excellence is not valued.
What he meant was getting to the top of professions always involved hyper-specialisation, leaving frontline practice behind and political skills. Once you are at that ascended level of course hum drum matters like the actual truth of VIP child abuse allegations or the way an investigation is carried out don't register. It's a highly complex political, social, cultural, media management issue to be navigated.
Trump's abandonment of the Kurds in Syria is the worst US Foreign policy disaster since Iran contra / Clinton abandoning the Tutsis / Clinton in Mogadishu / GHWBush abandoning the Kurds / Obama abandoning Syria / take your pick.
Here's why you should pick Rwanda: https://mobile.twitter.com/JessRobeson/status/1150308745630629888
Dictionary definition.... Tyson...….. taking unnecessary offence.
"We are now standing with our chests bare to face the Turkish knives."
Heartbreaking.
Thanks for all your comments.
Nite nite, and play nicely.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49983767
Metro stations explained in the last paragraph.
I despair tonight for so many, especially those in the middle east
It's always the edge cases that get you.
I walked up Lonsdale Road, Oxford today househunting....OGH created pbCOM there whilst he worked in Oxford..I always think of him (and the site) when I am up that part of the world
Basically nichomar has no cogent answer to the point that both Charles and I made about citizenship and commitment to the country and so launches into a rant about how democracy is pointless.
21 appears overrated, these days. Though I wouldn’t mind being 21 again.
Good luck on your househunting Tyson
He has brought shame on the American military, and dishonored America itself, his patriotic base will hate this.
I hope to God they impeach the SOB, but if not then take him down in the worst loss in US presidential history.
GOP must be bonkers to keep hugging this imbecile. Where do they think their party will be once he has finally gone?
Apart from Sen. Rand Paul, I think.
And possibly Tulsi Gabbard ?
Coming to Iraq soon Al-Qaida's / ISIS mk3.
Night all...
..
Well apart from the small.garage at one end
https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/465609-army-officer-calls-syria-pullback-a-stain-on
Special Forces officers who served with Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria expressed remorse to the New York Times over the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from the region, with one calling it "a stain on the American conscience."
“They trusted us and we broke that trust,” an Army officer who has worked alongside Kurdish forces told the Times on condition of anonymity. “It’s a stain on the American conscience.”
Shervan Darwish, an official allied with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, expressed similar sentiments, telling the newspaper, “The worst thing in military logic and comrades in the trench is betrayal.”
Other members of the U.S. military have made similar comments. “I am ashamed for the first time in my career,” a U.S. Special Forces soldier told Fox News Thursday after Turkish forces advanced across the border into the northeast.
“Turkey is not doing what it agreed to. It’s horrible,” the soldier said. “We met every single security agreement. The Kurds met every single agreement [with the Turks]. There was no threat to the Turks — none — from this side of the border.”...
* Ian Blair
https://twitter.com/electograph/status/1183466282684948480?s=21
Did Trump back rebel forces against Assad in Syria? No.
Trump is just doing what the left wanted the USA to do a decade ago and withdrawing US troops from the Middle East