Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
.
I don't think it's right that everyone detected is almost certainly infectious?
If you use Abbott figures of: sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (98.5%) on a population of 500k and assume 1% of population actually has the disease...
Then you get 4,855 true positives and 7,425 false positives = 40% chance person testing positive actually has disease.
It's clearly great news that you've got a big proportion of the infected into isolation, but you are probably falsely isolating a reasonable number of people.
Then test all those people with a positive with a PCR, and release them if it comes out negative.
"Release" ... yes
How much do you want to bet that the only way to get 90% isolation involves dragging people off the streets?
I guess those old plans fro interment without trial that Blair was interested in might come in handy.
Now that Boris Johnson has screwed over the Northern Irish I can think of no better way of him showing his love for Northern Ireland by introducing internment in Great Britain for those people who don't self isolate.
A week on Monday I am going onto a UK government webinar to explain what my company must do to prepare for transition exit 6 weeks later. Currently the UK government hasn't established what the trading arrangements will be, hasn't built the computer system we will need to use nor hired the customs and standards officials required. So I have no idea what they will tell us because they themselves have no idea.
You can imagine my bemusement when I see millions spaffed up against the wall on adverts telling me TIME IS RUNNING OUT and that I need to Check & Change arrangements that haven't yet been made. Not that it will be physically possible to switch said arrangements on should they unveil them tomorrow.
The pharmaceutical safety regulations are still outstanding for NI. The pharmaceutical companies are sitting there pulling their hair out currently. I imagine it is now too late to meet them even if decided today. Every time I see those bloody adverts I shout at the television how are they supposed to prepare?
Which is why despite the protests from hard Brexit frothers we will get a deal which continues along with the current open border arrangements we have now. It simply isn't possible to go WTO / Australia and the EU have known this for months.
They will create a compromise name for it - "UKEA Free Trade Area" or something, let Shagger choose his pig lipstick colour, and then we carry on as defacto members of the EEA/CU
So you're suggesting we will get free trade with Europe but without free movement, without paying membership subscriptions, without being tied down as members - but trade will continue uninterrupted?
Sounds like a tremendous "cake and eat it" arrangement if so. Completely dividing the EU's "four freedoms" and cherrypicking.
Are you that confident?
No, I'm suggesting that we will carry on as we are now. That means paying. Whats more our subs as UKEA members will look like a bargain compared to the disruption costs of trying to crash out in 2 months with literally no prep at all.
We have zero options. We carry on as we are. Or we don't carry on. WTO or indeed ANY change to current arrangements is impossible to implement.
Should be very easy to see if you're right or wrong then - if we are paying membership subs still post-transition then you're right on that. I would be very annoyed if we are.
What about free movement?
Same issue the US has. Most illegal immigration isn't people sneaking over borders, it's people coming in through normal channels and (shocked gasp) lying about their intentions.
(SCENE: Luton airport, early Monday morning. Flight from somewhere Eastern European has landed.)
Border official: Good morning Sir. Are you here to work, that isn't allowed any more?
Eastern European gentleman: No Sir. I am here for a holiday. A painting holiday. Look at my many paintbrushes. I love to paint. I come to England as often as I can to paint.
Border official: Very good. Remember what the rules about employment are.
Now, it's possible to clamp down on undocumented, cash in hand work. Of course, it's possible, But it's not very likely, is it?
Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
.
I don't think it's right that everyone detected is almost certainly infectious?
If you use Abbott figures of: sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (98.5%) on a population of 500k and assume 1% of population actually has the disease...
Then you get 4,855 true positives and 7,425 false positives = 40% chance person testing positive actually has disease.
It's clearly great news that you've got a big proportion of the infected into isolation, but you are probably falsely isolating a reasonable number of people.
Then test all those people with a positive with a PCR, and release them if it comes out negative.
"Release" ... yes
How much do you want to bet that the only way to get 90% isolation involves dragging people off the streets?
I guess those old plans fro interment without trial that Blair was interested in might come in handy.
Now that Boris Johnson has screwed over the Northern Irish I can think of no better way of him showing his love for Northern Ireland by introducing internment in Great Britain for those people who don't self isolate.
A week on Monday I am going onto a UK government webinar to explain what my company must do to prepare for transition exit 6 weeks later. Currently the UK government hasn't established what the trading arrangements will be, hasn't built the computer system we will need to use nor hired the customs and standards officials required. So I have no idea what they will tell us because they themselves have no idea.
You can imagine my bemusement when I see millions spaffed up against the wall on adverts telling me TIME IS RUNNING OUT and that I need to Check & Change arrangements that haven't yet been made. Not that it will be physically possible to switch said arrangements on should they unveil them tomorrow.
The pharmaceutical safety regulations are still outstanding for NI. The pharmaceutical companies are sitting there pulling their hair out currently. I imagine it is now too late to meet them even if decided today. Every time I see those bloody adverts I shout at the television how are they supposed to prepare?
Which is why despite the protests from hard Brexit frothers we will get a deal which continues along with the current open border arrangements we have now. It simply isn't possible to go WTO / Australia and the EU have known this for months.
They will create a compromise name for it - "UKEA Free Trade Area" or something, let Shagger choose his pig lipstick colour, and then we carry on as defacto members of the EEA/CU
So you're suggesting we will get free trade with Europe but without free movement, without paying membership subscriptions, without being tied down as members - but trade will continue uninterrupted?
Sounds like a tremendous "cake and eat it" arrangement if so. Completely dividing the EU's "four freedoms" and cherrypicking.
Are you that confident?
No, I'm suggesting that we will carry on as we are now. That means paying. Whats more our subs as UKEA members will look like a bargain compared to the disruption costs of trying to crash out in 2 months with literally no prep at all.
We have zero options. We carry on as we are. Or we don't carry on. WTO or indeed ANY change to current arrangements is impossible to implement.
Should be very easy to see if you're right or wrong then - if we are paying membership subs still post-transition then you're right on that. I would be very annoyed if we are.
What about free movement?
Same issue the US has. Most illegal immigration isn't people sneaking over borders, it's people coming in through normal channels and (shocked gasp) lying about their intentions.
(SCENE: Luton airport, early Monday morning. Flight from somewhere Eastern European has landed.)
Border official: Good morning Sir. Are you here to work, that isn't allowed any more?
Eastern European gentleman: No Sir. I am here for a holiday. A painting holiday. Look at my many paintbrushes. I love to paint. I come to England as often as I can to paint.
Border official: Very good. Remember what the rules about employment are.
Now, it's possible to clamp down on undocumented, cash in hand work. Of course, it's possible, But it's not very likely, is it?
That's the point though, the border has never been the place where the rules are enforced. The rules are enforced by demanding employers maintain proof of right to work in the UK, by fining or imprisoning employers who break these laws etc
That is how the issue has been addressed for decades already. The system already exists.
Commanding lead in Wales, I guess Drakeford isn't a disaster as many here claimed
At Westminster Starmer is the Labour leader and making gains in Wales relative to Corbyn in 2019, in Cardiff Bay Drakeford is Labour leader and projected to lose seats at the Assembly elections next year compared to what Carwyn Jones got in 2016 on the same poll
At the 2016 Welsh Assembly elections Labour got 29 seats and the Tories 11, on that link the Tories will get 16 seats in the 2021 elections ie up 5 on 2016 and Labour 28 ie down 1 on 2016 so the Tories will make gains next year at the Assembly elections and Labour under Drakeford will make a loss
Ah, so we're back to picking out parts of a poll you like.
At Westminster 43 to 30 something is a landslide
You are confusing Wales with the UK. In the former Labour have nearly always had quite large leads which have not been matched in England. This poll shows a swing back to Labour in Wales but not a large one and in fact if replicated in the Welsh elections next year would see gains for the Tories. Even looking at the UK GE potential gains for Labour of 5 would just be reversing most but not all of the gains made last year.
True. But a couple of caveats. 3 of the Tory holds are by fewer than 200 votes off that poll. Aberconwy, Wrexham and Vale of Glamorgan. Make it 8 and it is a bit more than reverting to 2017. And, of course, apart from Ynys Mon, none of these constituencies will exist come 2024 anyways.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Funny how the same people defending releasing this bloke couldn't help contain their glee when Tommy Robinson was arrested for no reason at all the other day.
So starter for 10 - do you think everyone on the security services' watch list should be in jail?
Next - as well as those, who else would you bang up?
TIA
Do you think he should have been in jail?
Clearly you don't, as you said he should have remained in prison until he was deemed no longer a danger to the public. He was deemed not a danger to the public.
Obviously that was wrong, but in your view, he should have been released.
Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
.
I don't think it's right that everyone detected is almost certainly infectious?
If you use Abbott figures of: sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (98.5%) on a population of 500k and assume 1% of population actually has the disease...
Then you get 4,855 true positives and 7,425 false positives = 40% chance person testing positive actually has disease.
It's clearly great news that you've got a big proportion of the infected into isolation, but you are probably falsely isolating a reasonable number of people.
Then test all those people with a positive with a PCR, and release them if it comes out negative.
"Release" ... yes
How much do you want to bet that the only way to get 90% isolation involves dragging people off the streets?
I guess those old plans fro interment without trial that Blair was interested in might come in handy.
Now that Boris Johnson has screwed over the Northern Irish I can think of no better way of him showing his love for Northern Ireland by introducing internment in Great Britain for those people who don't self isolate.
A week on Monday I am going onto a UK government webinar to explain what my company must do to prepare for transition exit 6 weeks later. Currently the UK government hasn't established what the trading arrangements will be, hasn't built the computer system we will need to use nor hired the customs and standards officials required. So I have no idea what they will tell us because they themselves have no idea.
You can imagine my bemusement when I see millions spaffed up against the wall on adverts telling me TIME IS RUNNING OUT and that I need to Check & Change arrangements that haven't yet been made. Not that it will be physically possible to switch said arrangements on should they unveil them tomorrow.
The pharmaceutical safety regulations are still outstanding for NI. The pharmaceutical companies are sitting there pulling their hair out currently. I imagine it is now too late to meet them even if decided today. Every time I see those bloody adverts I shout at the television how are they supposed to prepare?
Which is why despite the protests from hard Brexit frothers we will get a deal which continues along with the current open border arrangements we have now. It simply isn't possible to go WTO / Australia and the EU have known this for months.
They will create a compromise name for it - "UKEA Free Trade Area" or something, let Shagger choose his pig lipstick colour, and then we carry on as defacto members of the EEA/CU
So you're suggesting we will get free trade with Europe but without free movement, without paying membership subscriptions, without being tied down as members - but trade will continue uninterrupted?
Sounds like a tremendous "cake and eat it" arrangement if so. Completely dividing the EU's "four freedoms" and cherrypicking.
Are you that confident?
Erm... no.
We can have an open border, provided the rules of business and trade are the same on each side. Otherwise, how can you enforce different rules? How can the UK ever have higher standards than the EU on anything? You have to check somewhere, and checking anywhere other than the border is much more intrusive and bureaucratic.
So open border = we're going to be following EEA rules. Without direct input. Maybe the EU will offer a joint consultative panel- 27 EU nations, 1 UK? Or 45:7, with 1 member per 10 million population.
And obviously the UK isn't a nation of freeloaders, so it seems fair that we contribute to the costs of the trade area. If I were trolling, I'd suggest £300 million a week- that's a saving on before, isn't it?
And, naturlich, the UK can walk out on this arrangement at any time. It just needs to work out how it will manage its borders and put the systems in place.
Not such a deal would be terrible, and I'm not expecting anything that blatant. But it would very probably cost the UK less than what we're likely to end up with and be better for the British economy.
And the lack of booths in Dover is still a massive giveaway.
We have already left the EU. But afeared of the Farage Tories persuaded people that the EU was the EEA. We have spent years trying to negotiate ourselves out of the EEA/CU without spending any money or time on the stuff needed to be out like a border and customs infrastructure.
What is going to happen is exactly what happened to Norniron. Shagger will declare victory. Declare that we will no longer pay money to the EU and are free to do trade deals. Instead we will pay money to the UKEU FTA who will forward our money to the EU. We won't have free movement we will have reciprocal arrangements with a new much harsher 90 day window after which we can deport scroungers.
Everyone's a winner.
Johnson and Gove both explicitly said before the EU Referendum that we would leave the Single Market.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
.
I don't think it's right that everyone detected is almost certainly infectious?
If you use Abbott figures of: sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (98.5%) on a population of 500k and assume 1% of population actually has the disease...
Then you get 4,855 true positives and 7,425 false positives = 40% chance person testing positive actually has disease.
It's clearly great news that you've got a big proportion of the infected into isolation, but you are probably falsely isolating a reasonable number of people.
Then test all those people with a positive with a PCR, and release them if it comes out negative.
"Release" ... yes
How much do you want to bet that the only way to get 90% isolation involves dragging people off the streets?
I guess those old plans fro interment without trial that Blair was interested in might come in handy.
Now that Boris Johnson has screwed over the Northern Irish I can think of no better way of him showing his love for Northern Ireland by introducing internment in Great Britain for those people who don't self isolate.
A week on Monday I am going onto a UK government webinar to explain what my company must do to prepare for transition exit 6 weeks later. Currently the UK government hasn't established what the trading arrangements will be, hasn't built the computer system we will need to use nor hired the customs and standards officials required. So I have no idea what they will tell us because they themselves have no idea.
You can imagine my bemusement when I see millions spaffed up against the wall on adverts telling me TIME IS RUNNING OUT and that I need to Check & Change arrangements that haven't yet been made. Not that it will be physically possible to switch said arrangements on should they unveil them tomorrow.
The pharmaceutical safety regulations are still outstanding for NI. The pharmaceutical companies are sitting there pulling their hair out currently. I imagine it is now too late to meet them even if decided today. Every time I see those bloody adverts I shout at the television how are they supposed to prepare?
Which is why despite the protests from hard Brexit frothers we will get a deal which continues along with the current open border arrangements we have now. It simply isn't possible to go WTO / Australia and the EU have known this for months.
They will create a compromise name for it - "UKEA Free Trade Area" or something, let Shagger choose his pig lipstick colour, and then we carry on as defacto members of the EEA/CU
So you're suggesting we will get free trade with Europe but without free movement, without paying membership subscriptions, without being tied down as members - but trade will continue uninterrupted?
Sounds like a tremendous "cake and eat it" arrangement if so. Completely dividing the EU's "four freedoms" and cherrypicking.
Are you that confident?
Erm... no.
We can have an open border, provided the rules of business and trade are the same on each side. Otherwise, how can you enforce different rules? How can the UK ever have higher standards than the EU on anything? You have to check somewhere, and checking anywhere other than the border is much more intrusive and bureaucratic.
So open border = we're going to be following EEA rules. Without direct input. Maybe the EU will offer a joint consultative panel- 27 EU nations, 1 UK? Or 45:7, with 1 member per 10 million population.
And obviously the UK isn't a nation of freeloaders, so it seems fair that we contribute to the costs of the trade area. If I were trolling, I'd suggest £300 million a week- that's a saving on before, isn't it?
And, naturlich, the UK can walk out on this arrangement at any time. It just needs to work out how it will manage its borders and put the systems in place.
Not such a deal would be terrible, and I'm not expecting anything that blatant. But it would very probably cost the UK less than what we're likely to end up with and be better for the British economy.
And the lack of booths in Dover is still a massive giveaway.
Hmm, what about the lorry park?
The booths could be put in very quickly.After all, they'd just get in the way at present. And it's not as if there will be any computer systems to wire them up to.
We've tarmaced over a few fields - its hardly the same as border infrastructure. As for putting booths in, how does that work? You pre-clear trucks at Ashford and then don't check them when they cross the border - so is all of Kent a bonded warehouse?
Its no deal to No Deal. Can't be done. Which leaves deal - and that requires the continuation along the exact same basis as we already have. We will loudly champion our Sovereign Right to negotiate variance trade deals to the EU. And then tell people they take years and years, start discussions and quietly let it drop.
You don't need booths, nothing gets checked at booths. Look across the world, booths aren't how the world operates in 2020.
Ok guys so what do we think explains the big overnight Trump move on the market? Was about 2.98 late last night, into 2.68 this lunchtime, now back to 2.78.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Funny how the same people defending releasing this bloke couldn't help contain their glee when Tommy Robinson was arrested for no reason at all the other day.
So starter for 10 - do you think everyone on the security services' watch list should be in jail?
Next - as well as those, who else would you bang up?
TIA
Do you think he should have been in jail?
No. Do you think everyone on the security services' watchlist should be in jail?
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
Deport them where?
The highlands of Peru perhaps. I know some people who would teach them how to behave......
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
Deport them where?
His country of origin of course, if they won't take him then he can stay in jail.
Actually a good solution would be to rent some land off a country in North Africa and put them in there.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Funny how the same people defending releasing this bloke couldn't help contain their glee when Tommy Robinson was arrested for no reason at all the other day.
So starter for 10 - do you think everyone on the security services' watch list should be in jail?
Next - as well as those, who else would you bang up?
TIA
Do you think he should have been in jail?
No. Do you think everyone on the security services' watchlist should be in jail?
No?
Definitely not.
But people who have been caught trying to run off to join ISIS....yes.
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Funny how the same people defending releasing this bloke couldn't help contain their glee when Tommy Robinson was arrested for no reason at all the other day.
So starter for 10 - do you think everyone on the security services' watch list should be in jail?
Next - as well as those, who else would you bang up?
TIA
Do you think he should have been in jail?
No. Do you think everyone on the security services' watchlist should be in jail?
No?
Definitely not.
But people who have been caught trying to run off to join ISIS....yes.
I'm over on the other thread! Let's catch up there although I have a meeting shortly.
Commanding lead in Wales, I guess Drakeford isn't a disaster as many here claimed
At Westminster Starmer is the Labour leader and making gains in Wales relative to Corbyn in 2019, in Cardiff Bay Drakeford is Labour leader and projected to lose seats at the Assembly elections next year compared to what Carwyn Jones got in 2016 on the same poll
At the 2016 Welsh Assembly elections Labour got 29 seats and the Tories 11, on that link the Tories will get 16 seats in the 2021 elections ie up 5 on 2016 and Labour 28 ie down 1 on 2016 so the Tories will make gains next year at the Assembly elections and Labour under Drakeford will make a loss
Ah, so we're back to picking out parts of a poll you like.
At Westminster 43 to 30 something is a landslide
You are confusing Wales with the UK. In the former Labour have nearly always had quite large leads which have not been matched in England. This poll shows a swing back to Labour in Wales but not a large one and in fact if replicated in the Welsh elections next year would see gains for the Tories. Even looking at the UK GE potential gains for Labour of 5 would just be reversing most but not all of the gains made last year.
True. But a couple of caveats. 3 of the Tory holds are by fewer than 200 votes off that poll. Aberconwy, Wrexham and Vale of Glamorgan. Make it 8 and it is a bit more than reverting to 2017. And, of course, apart from Ynys Mon, none of these constituencies will exist come 2024 anyways.
Make it 8 and you are going beyond what the poll suggests. Which negates the exercise completely to something akin to a wishlist. I agree on the last point and overall the boundary changes actually make the Labour task a bit harder most likely - both in Wales and in the UK.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
Lol you're trying to shame me for noticing he has a foreign background.
He has Pakistani parents and ethnically Pakistanis are allowed to relocate back there.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
Lol you're trying to shame me for noticing he has a foreign background.
He has Pakistani parents and ethnically Pakistanis are allowed to relocate back there.
You are saying that people whose parents were not born here can legitimately be deported back to the place of their parents' birth? And are not English?
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
Lol you're trying to shame me for noticing he has a foreign background.
He has Pakistani parents and ethnically Pakistanis are allowed to relocate back there.
You are saying that people whose parents were not born here can legitimately be deported back to the place of their parents' birth? And are not English?
What is Dominic Cummings' opinion on Scottish Independence? If he wanted to push people towards it, that's a great way to go about it.
The PM's position is there will be no indyref2 allowed while he is PM, in any case they are still getting their furlough although in my view if Sturgeon or Drakeford do not impose a lockdown at the same time as the rest of the UK they should raise Scottish or Welsh taxes to pay for it
Furlough is a reserved matter. Why should Scottish or Welsh taxes go to subsidise an Enbglish lockdown when the reverse is not permitted?
Why should English taxpayers pay for Scottish and Welsh furlough when England is not in lockdown?
Because the money is UK money. Not English. You're confusing the UK and England yet again.
Quite. If parts of the UK are not willing to support other parts in their time of need what's the point of it? I have no concern there.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
Lol you're trying to shame me for noticing he has a foreign background.
He has Pakistani parents and ethnically Pakistanis are allowed to relocate back there.
You are saying that people whose parents were not born here can legitimately be deported back to the place of their parents' birth? And are not English?
If they are convicted terrorists then yes.
Where do you want to draw the line; parents, grandparents, great grandparents .... Are you going to deport people back to Normandy?
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
Lol you're trying to shame me for noticing he has a foreign background.
He has Pakistani parents and ethnically Pakistanis are allowed to relocate back there.
You are saying that people whose parents were not born here can legitimately be deported back to the place of their parents' birth? And are not English?
If they are convicted terrorists then yes.
Where do you want to draw the line; parents, grandparents, great grandparents .... Are you going to deport people back to Normandy?
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
Equally my wife’s first name is Amanda which, coupled with my name (my real name, nor Seal) makes her sound like a shoe in for a Tory PPC in the Home Counties. She’s American and would be deeply offended if you described her as English.
I've just been taking a look at the final POTUS election forecast from Trafalgar Group who, alone, were spot on in 2016 when they predicted a comfortable win for Trump against Clinton. As then, they are again claiming to have identified a clear and significant proportion of "shy trumpsters" who, they claim, will deliver a second term in office for the incumbent as a result of him winning 306 ECVs compared with only 232 for Biden. The half-hour video accompanying their forecast which is in long, laboured and very muddled is intended to impress the viewer with its so-called methodology - but which I found it anything but impressive. Indeed, I was left with the distinct impression that it would be very difficult indeed for Biden to lose this election. This is perhaps best demonstrated by 3 states, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin which have been chalked up as being in the Trump camp, despite the fact that they are all considered to be near certain wins for Biden. These three states have a combined total of 46 Electoral College Votes. Deduct this number from the Red team and add it to the Blue team and as if by magic, Biden becomes the winner by 278 votes to 260 votes. If, by some miracle, Trump were to win one of these three states, there are at least another 4 or 5 which Trafalgar show as being Republican wins, but which virtually every other pollster shows the Democrats winning. God help the U.S. polling industry is all I would add were Trafalgar, against all the odds, to be proved right yet again!
Comments
That is how the issue has been addressed for decades already. The system already exists.
And, of course, apart from Ynys Mon, none of these constituencies will exist come 2024 anyways.
Obviously that was wrong, but in your view, he should have been released.
NEW THREAD
That's nothing to do with Farage.
Surely not the results from the NH hamlets?
Thoughts (ideally serious ones!)
Thanks!
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
Consistently adding 2000 votes every 10 minutes atm.
Split of those is also consistent: 50% rep 25% dem 25% npa
Actually a good solution would be to rent some land off a country in North Africa and put them in there.
What would your preferred solution be?
Definitely not.
But people who have been caught trying to run off to join ISIS....yes.
Assuming:
People vote according to their registrations
The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden
The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%)
then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split.
Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump)
Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
He has Pakistani parents and ethnically Pakistanis are allowed to relocate back there.
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
As then, they are again claiming to have identified a clear and significant proportion of "shy trumpsters" who, they claim, will deliver a second term in office for the incumbent as a result of him winning 306 ECVs compared with only 232 for Biden.
The half-hour video accompanying their forecast which is in long, laboured and very muddled is intended to impress the viewer with its so-called methodology - but which I found it anything but impressive.
Indeed, I was left with the distinct impression that it would be very difficult indeed for Biden to lose this election.
This is perhaps best demonstrated by 3 states, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin which have been chalked up as being in the Trump camp, despite the fact that they are all considered to be near certain wins for Biden. These three states have a combined total of 46 Electoral College Votes. Deduct this number from the Red team and add it to the Blue team and as if by magic, Biden becomes the winner by 278 votes to 260 votes. If, by some miracle, Trump were to win one of these three states, there are at least another 4 or 5 which Trafalgar show as being Republican wins, but which virtually every other pollster shows the Democrats winning.
God help the U.S. polling industry is all I would add were Trafalgar, against all the odds, to be proved right yet again!