I assume your statement is in surprised admiration. I was impressed.
I would like to say how impressed I am with the dignified way the England players have dealt with everything. Very impressed indeed.
Baker finding an interesting point of differentiation in his leadership campaign. He might consider himself a hardman, but was actually one of the very few ERG who (on the whole) behaved politely and reasonably during Brexit so not surprised he is polite and reasonable on footballer knees as well.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
Bullshit.
Give a citation please that the government wants that, given they've said the exact opposite. Rather than that you're deliberately misinterpreting what a proposed law to tackle evil people traffickers means.
The law as it was originally presented....
And you've proved the point yourself - if the desire was to tackle evil people traffickers the "for profit" motive within the current law would have been kept in place and not explicitly removed.
No. Tackling evil people traffickers should be able to be done by proving they trafficked people - even if the sums of money changing hands is murky and can't be proven.
Rescuing drowning people from the water is not that, and its a lie to say that is what people want prosecuting.
It's not a lie - it's a consequence of the law as it is now written.
That is the point you don't see - by using for profit it allowed all niche cases (including RNLI landing in a UK port) to be excluded, now they need to be explicitly defined and the legislation modified to ensure all such niche cases are covered.
Because all the Government wants to do is score right wing "virtue" points it doesn't bother to think why was that phrased this way.
And it wouldn't be so bad but this is a continual issue, you would have hoped after similar issues had been pointed out before that they wouldn't need to point them out again.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
Are you a QC? I accept that QCs job is to interpret the law, but that is the heart of our legal system. Its just that there are QCs lining up pointing out the stupidity of this bill, with you, Big_G and the press officer at the Home Office saying "no it's fine".
This would hardly be the first time that a piece of legislation has directly classed with other legislation. As I said in my original post on this, the government would be happy with the clash between this law and the Human Rights Act going to court. We know which of the two they would be attacking.
I cannot recall a time when we had a government so keen to trash British values. The re-toxification of the Nasty Party is in full swing.
It will not happen just yet, but when this government falls, it is going to be remembered as one of the worst in modern British history.
The triple lock and high house prices seal in a very large demographic for the Tories. The challenge the opposition parties have is to get turnouts among younger age groups higher. That said, I think that tactical voting - especially in the south - is on course to return to 1990s levels. Current Tory retoxification will have electoral consequences.
I think that Tory reliance on the grey vote is increasingly going to corrode the British economy. Policies will be dictated by a leisure class that do not work*, paid for by those who do. The young are so screwed in this country.
* though I am not far off joining them!
Going to?
Britain has underperformed its peers since 2015, and the trajectory is worsening. Covid masks all for the moment, although the top line looks even worse for us.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
I assume your statement is in surprised admiration. I was impressed.
I would like to say how impressed I am with the dignified way the England players have dealt with everything. Very impressed indeed.
Baker finding an interesting point of differentiation in his leadership campaign. He might consider himself a hardman, but was actually one of the very few ERG who (on the whole) behaved politely and reasonably during Brexit so not surprised he is polite and reasonable on footballer knees as well.
Baker is literally the only Brexiter I can think of who has come through the shitshow with his reputation intact.
The Nationality and Borders Bill does indeed make it an offence to help an asylum seeker enter the country regardless of whether you are doing it for reward. However, it excludes people acting on behalf of organisations that aim to assist asylum seekers and do not charge for their services. Whilst it is not the primary aim of either RNLI or HM Coastguard, that description appears to cover both. In any event, the chances of the courts convicting a member of either organisation for helping asylum seekers in distress at sea is nil. Interpreting the legislation in that way would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. Under that Act, the ECHR must be used to interpret UK law and the right to live is one of the central rights. A law that required RNLI to leave people to drown would clearly be incompatible with the HRA so, even if this bill did that (which I don't think it does), the courts would not accept such an interpretation. Whilst it would not harm the bill to add wording to specifically protect RNLI and HM Coatsguard, the reality is that such wording is not required. The Home Office is correct.
Sticking to that bill, clause 23 does NOT say that late evidence must be given minimal weight regardless of the reason. It says that late evidence must be given minimal weight "unless there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late" (clause 23(2)). Cyclefree's arguments on this clause therefore fail as they are based on something the bill categorically does not say. If you have a good reason for supplying evidence late, the evidence must be given weight.
Finally, the actual wording of the Online Safety Bill (which is only in draft form at the moment) requires removal of content where the service provider has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a material risk of "significant" psychological harm. So not "may cause psychological harm". but "a material risk of significant psychological harm", which is rather different. Yes, there is a possibility that pressure groups may seek to misuse this bill if it is introduced and becomes law, but that is a risk with any legislation that seeks to make service providers liable for failure to remove content that is harmful to children (something covered by the bill that Cyclefree chooses to ignore) or adults.
Thanks, good to get a balanced view on the proposals.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
Whoever becomes the first RNLI volunteer imprisoned as a result of Patel's law will not have imagined that it could have happened to them.
The issue isn't whether any RNLI volunteers will be prosecuted because they almost certainly won't be. The really interesting development is that the government has allowed this issue to develop.
The only guiding political or philosophical principle the tories have is how something focus groups with thick chavs. So it's interesting that they get caught on the wrong side of a question to third sector megafaunae like the RNLI.
Only "almost certainly" ? They might prefer certainly certainly.
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
As I said, if I am misrepresenting your position, I apologise. I am describing you as self-professedly “on the fence”, but effectively wearing a peek-a-boo “own the libs” outfit.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
Bullshit.
Give a citation please that the government wants that, given they've said the exact opposite. Rather than that you're deliberately misinterpreting what a proposed law to tackle evil people traffickers means.
The law as it was originally presented....
And you've proved the point yourself - if the desire was to tackle evil people traffickers the "for profit" motive within the current law would have been kept in place and not explicitly removed.
No. Tackling evil people traffickers should be able to be done by proving they trafficked people - even if the sums of money changing hands is murky and can't be proven.
Rescuing drowning people from the water is not that, and its a lie to say that is what people want prosecuting.
It's not a lie - it's a consequence of the law as it is now written.
That is the point you don't see - by using for profit it allowed all niche cases (including RNLI landing in a UK port) to be excluded, now they need to be explicitly defined and the legislation modified to ensure all such niche cases are covered.
Because all the Government wants to do is score right wing "virtue" points it doesn't bother to think why was that phrased this way.
And it wouldn't be so bad but this is a continual issue, you would have hoped after similar issues had been pointed out before that they wouldn't need to point them out again.
It was phrased that way because there is a real problem of evil people traffickers that needs dealing with.
There is not a problem with lifesaving, which is protected under other laws, and clearly not the intent of this law. Plus it still has to go through Committee, Commons and Lords were it can be amended if there are niche issues that need dealing with.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
I have not heard of any objection to the clarification of the position with the RNL
One of the arguments against iSAGE's view that we should remain locked down until everyone has been vaccinated, which they claim needs just a few more weeks through summer, is the young are just not coming forward in the numbers required to be vaccinated.
I don't think the media have pressed Pagel and co on this.
What will they do to get young people to the vaccination centres even if we did decide to hold off unlifting restrictions?
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
Well said.
I am not sure how true that is. I am no lawyer BUT I am involved in trying to get the law changed for exactly this type of reason (completely unrelated). We had a 10 min bill to do so which died because of the last general election. We have another in a few weeks. It has cross party support in particular with many Conservatives, yet we are 9 years on and the original law is being applied even though it contradicts the intention and what ministers confirmed when the original law was passed.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
You misunderstand. We have to cut foreign aid so that we can have money for our own people. Like poor WWC school kids who go hungry in the holidays.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
[Citation Needed] that the government are objecting to such amendments.
The RNLI are saying quite reasonably they shouldn't be caught by the law, and the government are quite reasonably saying they won't be, so if amendments are needed to clarify that then there's no sign they'll be opposed. It hasn't reached the time for amendments yet.
But that doesn't allow people to score political points, so instead we get nonsense like this debate.
The government today just amended an absolute duty on it contained in an Act of Parliament by a motion in the Commons. They did not amend the Act. They simply used their Commons majority to override the law. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
Another example of the Boris’s “Executive Power” project. Parliament has got too bolshy - even one with an 80 seat Tory majority - and needs emasculating, apparently,
The point of the The Nationality and Borders Bill is not to prosecute RNLI, it is to reopen the avenue to prosecute immigrants who "take the tiller".
Recently there was a drive to prosecute the immigrant steering the boat for "people trafficking", on the basis that they got a discount on their journey so they were doing it "for profit". So the majority of the time when you read headlines about people traffickers being convicted you were actually reading about a synthetic people trafficker made up to grab headlines. Asylum lawyers have got wise to this and it's basically collapsed as a prosecutorial route so the law is being changed to open it up again.
What, after all, is Borisology so far? How do we judge the government’s priorities based on their legislative programme to date.
1. Dishing the woke. 2. Cracking down on asylum seekers 3. Muzzling the BBC 4. Performative stuff on Brexit
Oh, and austerity is coming, but they haven’t fessed up openly to it yet.
Anything else?
Well, that is how populism works. A lack of coherence makes for inconsistency and failure to tackle the real issues, while pandering to client voters.
I sense quite a lot of anger in the country, much of it from people supporting the government still. It will be a brutal downfall when it comes for Johnson.
You mean "Self-Styled 'Brexit Hardman' Steve Baker. Bloody Hell."
Why, what has he done now...?
He's looked at his majority, at the Chesham & Amersham by-election result and concluded that going to war with England footballers over taking the knee is not a great idea.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
Well said.
I am not sure how true that is. I am no lawyer BUT I am involved in trying to get the law changed for exactly this type of reason (completely unrelated). We had a 10 min bill to do so which died because of the last general election. We have another in a few weeks. It has cross party support in particular with many Conservatives, yet we are 9 years on and the original law is being applied even though it contradicts the intention and what ministers confirmed when the original law was passed.
Precisely the point.
Shit law ALWAYS gets applied in ways not considered by the legislators.
We just be vigilant and hand waving this stuff away will not help Arthur Miggins, of Beachhaven, Sussex, imprisoned for rescuing a pair of drowning refugees.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
I have not heard of any objection to the clarification of the position with the RNL
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
As I said, if I am misrepresenting your position, I apologise. I am describing you as self-professedly “on the fence”, but effectively wearing a peek-a-boo “own the libs” outfit.
Not really and I accept your apology, thank you
It is Labour who I have issues with and the article was warning Labour they are on the wrong side of public opinion
I really do not have an issue generally with the Lib Dems
The Nationality and Borders Bill does indeed make it an offence to help an asylum seeker enter the country regardless of whether you are doing it for reward. However, it excludes people acting on behalf of organisations that aim to assist asylum seekers and do not charge for their services. Whilst it is not the primary aim of either RNLI or HM Coastguard, that description appears to cover both. In any event, the chances of the courts convicting a member of either organisation for helping asylum seekers in distress at sea is nil. Interpreting the legislation in that way would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. Under that Act, the ECHR must be used to interpret UK law and the right to live is one of the central rights. A law that required RNLI to leave people to drown would clearly be incompatible with the HRA so, even if this bill did that (which I don't think it does), the courts would not accept such an interpretation. Whilst it would not harm the bill to add wording to specifically protect RNLI and HM Coatsguard, the reality is that such wording is not required. The Home Office is correct.
Sticking to that bill, clause 23 does NOT say that late evidence must be given minimal weight regardless of the reason. It says that late evidence must be given minimal weight "unless there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late" (clause 23(2)). Cyclefree's arguments on this clause therefore fail as they are based on something the bill categorically does not say. If you have a good reason for supplying evidence late, the evidence must be given weight.
Finally, the actual wording of the Online Safety Bill (which is only in draft form at the moment) requires removal of content where the service provider has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a material risk of "significant" psychological harm. So not "may cause psychological harm". but "a material risk of significant psychological harm", which is rather different. Yes, there is a possibility that pressure groups may seek to misuse this bill if it is introduced and becomes law, but that is a risk with any legislation that seeks to make service providers liable for failure to remove content that is harmful to children (something covered by the bill that Cyclefree chooses to ignore) or adults.
Good post. However, I am not convinced that the RNLI could plead that it is 'an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services' and get off the hook in relation to a conviction under this law, nor could it fall back on an argument that the legislation it would be convicted under is inconsistent with human rights law, to prove that would be a drawn out procedural mess. Reliance on vague notions that 'it'll never happen' or home office press releases is flawed, I agree with @Cyclefree on that. The legislation needs to be completely redrafted.
With regard to the online safety bill, "a material risk of significant psychological harm" is a very subjective test; one of many examples of bad law bought forward by various governments over the last 2 or so decades. Another example of government traipsing over ancient wisdom about precision in drafting legislation, to the detriment of us all.
The point of the The Nationality and Borders Bill is not to prosecute RNLI, it is to reopen the avenue to prosecute immigrants who "take the tiller".
Recently there was a drive to prosecute the immigrant steering the boat for "people trafficking", on the basis that they got a discount on their journey so they were doing it "for profit". So the majority of the time when you read headlines about people traffickers being convicted you were actually reading about a synthetic people trafficker made up to grab headlines. Asylum lawyers have got wise to this and it's basically collapsed as a prosecutorial route so the law is being changed to open it up again.
And there is the problem
If you can prosecute the person with the tiller, that covers the RNLI
I cannot recall a time when we had a government so keen to trash British values. The re-toxification of the Nasty Party is in full swing.
It will not happen just yet, but when this government falls, it is going to be remembered as one of the worst in modern British history.
The triple lock and high house prices seal in a very large demographic for the Tories. The challenge the opposition parties have is to get turnouts among younger age groups higher. That said, I think that tactical voting - especially in the south - is on course to return to 1990s levels. Current Tory retoxification will have electoral consequences.
And yet as much as lefties like you complain about the triple lock, when Sunak and Boris hint that the warped "earnings growth" figures need dealing with as wages have not grown 8% this year, we have Labour and lefties like Owen Jones instantly responding that 8% pension rises would be appropriate this year. And when Theresa May campaigned in 2017 to water down the triple lock, one rare thing she actually got right, she was attacked for it of course.
So what is it that you want?
If we had a principled opposition that cared about young people then we could have seen Labour campaigning for years in favour of fairness for working age people and saying how unfair the triple lock is. But the opposite happens. Any attempt to address it is turned into a party political third rail.
Mate, I am not Owen Jones! I think Labour should be campaigning against the triple lock. It is a bung to prosperous Tory voters at the expense of younger people of working age.
Or, to flip this over, you support keeping British pensions amongst the worst in the developed world...
Nope - I think that can be done without the triple lock. Every other country manages it. Why can't we?
The point of the The Nationality and Borders Bill is not to prosecute RNLI, it is to reopen the avenue to prosecute immigrants who "take the tiller".
Recently there was a drive to prosecute the immigrant steering the boat for "people trafficking", on the basis that they got a discount on their journey so they were doing it "for profit". So the majority of the time when you read headlines about people traffickers being convicted you were actually reading about a synthetic people trafficker made up to grab headlines. Asylum lawyers have got wise to this and it's basically collapsed as a prosecutorial route so the law is being changed to open it up again.
New plan for people smugglers.
Boat 1 will leak so boat 2 will come along (with a separate immigrant "taking the tiller") and "rescue you all"..
The simple fact is that it doesn't work because I've just got round the issue using the get out clause.
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
Nope you do seem to have a fixed viewpoint - which is a problem as it becomes a broken record.
And there lies the problem with BigG. It's all good fun though as he has become a figure of ridicule! Who knows his posts may be the very best of satire....
Looks like it's Hard Left Super Whinge-In morning today.
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
Still on the hard left mantra. Still unable to actually identify any on here. Out of interest do I fall into the category of hard left? If I do god knows where you are on the left right spectrum.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
But the government are presumably objecting to such amendments or the RNLI would not be complaining. Why are the government objecting? Or are you claiming that they support such amendments?
[Citation Needed] that the government are objecting to such amendments.
The RNLI are saying quite reasonably they shouldn't be caught by the law, and the government are quite reasonably saying they won't be, so if amendments are needed to clarify that then there's no sign they'll be opposed. It hasn't reached the time for amendments yet.
But that doesn't allow people to score political points, so instead we get nonsense like this debate.
Any sane government would just accept the need for an RNLI amendment and not have a public spat about it.
This government won't, either through incompetence, or to virtue signal to the hard right how tough they are on immigrants. Or a mix or both.
You mean "Self-Styled 'Brexit Hardman' Steve Baker. Bloody Hell."
Why, what has he done now...?
Yes verily he. Told the Cons to sort themselves out about their attitude to taking the knee and that it is a legitimate expression of concern about racism.
I assume your statement is in surprised admiration. I was impressed.
I would like to say how impressed I am with the dignified way the England players have dealt with everything. Very impressed indeed.
Baker finding an interesting point of differentiation in his leadership campaign. He might consider himself a hardman, but was actually one of the very few ERG who (on the whole) behaved politely and reasonably during Brexit so not surprised he is polite and reasonable on footballer knees as well.
Baker is literally the only Brexiter I can think of who has come through the shitshow with his reputation intact.
Yes, he seems to have dodged the performative culture war stuff, in a way that other Brexiteers do not.
I am green on him for next leader. Not least, he actually has some leadership qualities.
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
Nope you do seem to have a fixed viewpoint - which is a problem as it becomes a broken record.
And there lies the problem with BigG. It's all good fun though as he has become a figure of ridicule! Who knows his posts may be the very best of satire....
Really or just highlighting why Labour are a long way from power
I cannot recall a time when we had a government so keen to trash British values. The re-toxification of the Nasty Party is in full swing.
It will not happen just yet, but when this government falls, it is going to be remembered as one of the worst in modern British history.
The triple lock and high house prices seal in a very large demographic for the Tories. The challenge the opposition parties have is to get turnouts among younger age groups higher. That said, I think that tactical voting - especially in the south - is on course to return to 1990s levels. Current Tory retoxification will have electoral consequences.
And yet as much as lefties like you complain about the triple lock, when Sunak and Boris hint that the warped "earnings growth" figures need dealing with as wages have not grown 8% this year, we have Labour and lefties like Owen Jones instantly responding that 8% pension rises would be appropriate this year. And when Theresa May campaigned in 2017 to water down the triple lock, one rare thing she actually got right, she was attacked for it of course.
So what is it that you want?
If we had a principled opposition that cared about young people then we could have seen Labour campaigning for years in favour of fairness for working age people and saying how unfair the triple lock is. But the opposite happens. Any attempt to address it is turned into a party political third rail.
Mate, I am not Owen Jones! I think Labour should be campaigning against the triple lock. It is a bung to prosperous Tory voters at the expense of younger people of working age.
Or, to flip this over, you support keeping British pensions amongst the worst in the developed world...
Nope - I think that can be done without the triple lock. Every other country manages it. Why can't we?
Because for 40 years we have waged war against social security. If you get "benefits" (stupid name) you're scrounging. Even if you are a pensioner or in work.
We could choose to pay a decent pension, decent unemployment support, decent sick pay, decent maternity pay. But we don't. The Triple Lock was trying to force the government and its successors to do something long term about pensions. If it goes because "we can't afford it" then the government aren't going to voluntarily choose to uprate them are they?
The amendment in clause 38(2) is the deletion of the words "and for gain" in the earlier legislation. The effect of that is that it is not necessary to prove that there was a financial motive in providing illegal assistance. The definition of what is "illegal assistance" is not otherwise changed.
As I have mentioned before my daughter does voluntary work for Caring for Calais. When she was there last Summer the charity were very clear that facilitating anyone's journey to the UK in any way was an absolute no no and almost certainly an offence. I thought that was probably right because it would be a conspiracy to commit an offence if the person was not eligible for asylum. It certainly would be now.
One of the things that my daughter introduced while there was information cards which gave the number of the charity and lawyers willing to assist with asylum claims to contact once the journey was made. Might be an interesting marginal case.
The Nationality and Borders Bill does indeed make it an offence to help an asylum seeker enter the country regardless of whether you are doing it for reward. However, it excludes people acting on behalf of organisations that aim to assist asylum seekers and do not charge for their services. Whilst it is not the primary aim of either RNLI or HM Coastguard, that description appears to cover both. In any event, the chances of the courts convicting a member of either organisation for helping asylum seekers in distress at sea is nil. Interpreting the legislation in that way would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. Under that Act, the ECHR must be used to interpret UK law and the right to live is one of the central rights. A law that required RNLI to leave people to drown would clearly be incompatible with the HRA so, even if this bill did that (which I don't think it does), the courts would not accept such an interpretation. Whilst it would not harm the bill to add wording to specifically protect RNLI and HM Coatsguard, the reality is that such wording is not required. The Home Office is correct.
Sticking to that bill, clause 23 does NOT say that late evidence must be given minimal weight regardless of the reason. It says that late evidence must be given minimal weight "unless there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late" (clause 23(2)). Cyclefree's arguments on this clause therefore fail as they are based on something the bill categorically does not say. If you have a good reason for supplying evidence late, the evidence must be given weight.
Finally, the actual wording of the Online Safety Bill (which is only in draft form at the moment) requires removal of content where the service provider has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a material risk of "significant" psychological harm. So not "may cause psychological harm". but "a material risk of significant psychological harm", which is rather different. Yes, there is a possibility that pressure groups may seek to misuse this bill if it is introduced and becomes law, but that is a risk with any legislation that seeks to make service providers liable for failure to remove content that is harmful to children (something covered by the bill that Cyclefree chooses to ignore) or adults.
Good post. However, I am not convinced that the RNLI could plead that it is 'an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services' and get off the hook in relation to a conviction under this law, nor could it fall back on an argument that the legislation it would be convicted under is inconsistent with human rights law, to prove that would be a drawn out procedural mess. Reliance on vague notions that 'it'll never happen' or home office press releases is flawed, I agree with @Cyclefree on that. The legislation needs to be completely redrafted.
With regard to the online safety bill, "a material risk of significant psychological harm" is a very subjective test; one of many examples of bad law bought forward by various governments over the last 2 or so decades. Another example of government traipsing over ancient wisdom about precision in drafting legislation, to the detriment of us all.
There is actually a risk that it would happen - remember it's perfectly possible to bring a private criminal prosecution if you wished to (say) prove a point...
On topic: this is a wretched Government, aided and abetted by an equally wretched Opposition. It'll be interesting to see whether or not Labour attempts to vote the Online Safety Bill down. The cynic in me says that they won't, because all the "psychological harm" guff could've been custom-built to appeal to the kind of online activist type that is mortally offended by almost everything, and cynicism is normally justified in this day and age. But we shall see.
I can be deeply offended and distressed when England throw away another wicket or drop a chance. Should Cricinfo be concerned?
It doesn't mean that supporting a far left lunatic in Corbyn was preferable.
Doesn't marriage confer residency rights?
No it doesn't. My wife is an economic migrant (albeit the kind of the government tolerates because of high skills and believe me our interactions with the Home Office very much give off the impression of reluctant tolerance) and when we got married a lot of our friends and family had this misconception.
She has residency rights through her work visa. However, if she were to lose her job we would have to apply for a marriage visa quite fast, with not insignificant costs involved, or else she'd have to leave. I'm not saying that's wrong, but there is very much no automatic right.
Thankfully she's eligible for permanent residence in a few months (which annoyingly will cost us several thousand pounds).
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
Nope you do seem to have a fixed viewpoint - which is a problem as it becomes a broken record.
And there lies the problem with BigG. It's all good fun though as he has become a figure of ridicule! Who knows his posts may be the very best of satire....
Really or just highlighting why Labour are a long way from power
It's got nothing to do with Labour or any party for that matter. It's what *we* believe in. For example, I believe in not punishing the poor of the World, not allowing defenceless migrants to drown. What do you believe in?
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
You sure about that? Look at what happened yesterday.
The amendment in clause 38(2) is the deletion of the words "and for gain" in the earlier legislation. The effect of that is that it is not necessary to prove that there was a financial motive in providing illegal assistance. The definition of what is "illegal assistance" is not otherwise changed.
As I have mentioned before my daughter does voluntary work for Caring for Calais. When she was there last Summer the charity were very clear that facilitating anyone's journey to the UK in any way was an absolute no no and almost certainly an offence. I thought that was probably right because it would be a conspiracy to commit an offence if the person was not eligible for asylum. It certainly would be now.
One of the things that my daughter introduced while there was information cards which gave the number of the charity and lawyers willing to assist with asylum claims to contact once the journey was made. Might be an interesting marginal case.
Your must be v proud of your daughter.
Despite the abuse that Faragistes love to bang on about, asylum seekers are truly the wretched of the earth.
You mean "Self-Styled 'Brexit Hardman' Steve Baker. Bloody Hell."
Why, what has he done now...?
Yes verily he. Told the Cons to sort themselves out about their attitude to taking the knee and that it is a legitimate expression of concern about racism.
The realisation has dawned on the tories that they cannot win this culture war. They can achieve more by trying to "own" the woke agenda, particularly some of its symbolism; whilst continuing to push through its anti-CRT agenda. From a tactical point of view, it is the right way to go.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
Looks like it's Hard Left Super Whinge-In morning today.
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
My fellow Londoner, I couldn't give a monkeys about Opinion Polls; it's about doing what is right. As an aside how do you think your beloved Tories will do in London? Do you think they are totally irrelevant in our great Capital. Less than 20% at the next GE?
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
Nope you do seem to have a fixed viewpoint - which is a problem as it becomes a broken record.
And there lies the problem with BigG. It's all good fun though as he has become a figure of ridicule! Who knows his posts may be the very best of satire....
Really or just highlighting why Labour are a long way from power
It's got nothing to do with Labour or any party for that matter. It's what *we* believe in. For example, I believe in not punishing the poor of the World, not allowing defenceless migrants to drown. What do you believe in?
Exactly the same and indeed my son as a member of the RNLI will save any life at risk on the sea without question
The Nationality and Borders Bill does indeed make it an offence to help an asylum seeker enter the country regardless of whether you are doing it for reward. However, it excludes people acting on behalf of organisations that aim to assist asylum seekers and do not charge for their services. Whilst it is not the primary aim of either RNLI or HM Coastguard, that description appears to cover both. In any event, the chances of the courts convicting a member of either organisation for helping asylum seekers in distress at sea is nil. Interpreting the legislation in that way would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. Under that Act, the ECHR must be used to interpret UK law and the right to live is one of the central rights. A law that required RNLI to leave people to drown would clearly be incompatible with the HRA so, even if this bill did that (which I don't think it does), the courts would not accept such an interpretation. Whilst it would not harm the bill to add wording to specifically protect RNLI and HM Coatsguard, the reality is that such wording is not required. The Home Office is correct.
Sticking to that bill, clause 23 does NOT say that late evidence must be given minimal weight regardless of the reason. It says that late evidence must be given minimal weight "unless there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late" (clause 23(2)). Cyclefree's arguments on this clause therefore fail as they are based on something the bill categorically does not say. If you have a good reason for supplying evidence late, the evidence must be given weight.
Finally, the actual wording of the Online Safety Bill (which is only in draft form at the moment) requires removal of content where the service provider has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a material risk of "significant" psychological harm. So not "may cause psychological harm". but "a material risk of significant psychological harm", which is rather different. Yes, there is a possibility that pressure groups may seek to misuse this bill if it is introduced and becomes law, but that is a risk with any legislation that seeks to make service providers liable for failure to remove content that is harmful to children (something covered by the bill that Cyclefree chooses to ignore) or adults.
Good post. However, I am not convinced that the RNLI could plead that it is 'an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services' and get off the hook in relation to a conviction under this law, nor could it fall back on an argument that the legislation it would be convicted under is inconsistent with human rights law, to prove that would be a drawn out procedural mess. Reliance on vague notions that 'it'll never happen' or home office press releases is flawed, I agree with @Cyclefree on that. The legislation needs to be completely redrafted.
With regard to the online safety bill, "a material risk of significant psychological harm" is a very subjective test; one of many examples of bad law bought forward by various governments over the last 2 or so decades. Another example of government traipsing over ancient wisdom about precision in drafting legislation, to the detriment of us all.
I fail to see why proving that an interpretation of the legislation that allows RNLI volunteers to be convicted for rescuing people is incompatible with the HRA would be a drawn out procedural mess. It would, in fact, be very simple. Any Crown Court judge would throw out a prosecution on that basis very quickly.
Yes, the test of "material risk of significant psychological harm" is going to be subjective but so are many tests in law. To some degree that is why the interpretation of some laws has changed over time. The test for obscenity, for example, is highly subjective. The interpretation today is very different from the 1950s. If banning harmful content is a legitimate objective, it is hard to see how that can be accomplished without a subjective test. Indeed, putting in an objective test risks that test becoming outdated as attitudes change.
I assume your statement is in surprised admiration. I was impressed.
I would like to say how impressed I am with the dignified way the England players have dealt with everything. Very impressed indeed.
Baker finding an interesting point of differentiation in his leadership campaign. He might consider himself a hardman, but was actually one of the very few ERG who (on the whole) behaved politely and reasonably during Brexit so not surprised he is polite and reasonable on footballer knees as well.
Baker is literally the only Brexiter I can think of who has come through the shitshow with his reputation intact.
Yes, he seems to have dodged the performative culture war stuff, in a way that other Brexiteers do not.
I am green on him for next leader. Not least, he actually has some leadership qualities.
His problem is that Wycombe is rapidly becoming a marginal seat where Labour has a reasonable chance of winning.
I assume your statement is in surprised admiration. I was impressed.
I would like to say how impressed I am with the dignified way the England players have dealt with everything. Very impressed indeed.
Baker finding an interesting point of differentiation in his leadership campaign. He might consider himself a hardman, but was actually one of the very few ERG who (on the whole) behaved politely and reasonably during Brexit so not surprised he is polite and reasonable on footballer knees as well.
Baker is literally the only Brexiter I can think of who has come through the shitshow with his reputation intact.
Yes, he seems to have dodged the performative culture war stuff, in a way that other Brexiteers do not.
I am green on him for next leader. Not least, he actually has some leadership qualities.
A friend who knows him well, who is himself one of the brightest people I know, says he (Baker) is super-bright.
I'm not going so far as to back him for next leader but as has been pointed out, since Brexit (which he argued with coherence - see I'm softening..) he has made a series of right calls imo on lockdown and now taking the knee.
The point of the The Nationality and Borders Bill is not to prosecute RNLI, it is to reopen the avenue to prosecute immigrants who "take the tiller".
Recently there was a drive to prosecute the immigrant steering the boat for "people trafficking", on the basis that they got a discount on their journey so they were doing it "for profit". So the majority of the time when you read headlines about people traffickers being convicted you were actually reading about a synthetic people trafficker made up to grab headlines. Asylum lawyers have got wise to this and it's basically collapsed as a prosecutorial route so the law is being changed to open it up again.
Golly, Tories trying to falsely characterise folk as people smugglers, I can’t believe such a thing could happen.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
Whatever a government may "say" in parliament is irrelevant if it doesn't find itself in the bill/act. The burden after the act comes into force then transfers to a test case in the supreme court surely. Do we really want it to have to go all the way to there?
It is absolutely relevant
If there is ambiguity in the drafting of the legislation the courts seek to determine the intention of parliament.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
IANAL but why is the government not willing to make it explicit within the bill rather than leave it open to the courts?
If will be amended as it passes through the Commons and Lords
You sure about that? Look at what happened yesterday.
Looks like it's Hard Left Super Whinge-In morning today.
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
The problem with the current Cons supporters/govt in a nutshell.
Not for a moment concerned about the rights or wrongs of any particular policy, just whether it is popular.
Now of course that's how politics works but if I were you and the others on here, I would feel a little bit dirty.
I really don't get it. I can see why being popular is important for the individuals right at the top as it gives them immense power, status and further down the line hard cash. But why are cheerleaders outside government, happy to cheerlead those that wear the same colour rosette on things that are wrong simply because they are popular?
Why not sometimes accepts mistakes are made and demand that they change?
What, after all, is Borisology so far? How do we judge the government’s priorities based on their legislative programme to date.
1. Dishing the woke. 2. Cracking down on asylum seekers 3. Muzzling the BBC 4. Performative stuff on Brexit
Oh, and austerity is coming, but they haven’t fessed up openly to it yet.
Anything else?
Well, that is how populism works. A lack of coherence makes for inconsistency and failure to tackle the real issues, while pandering to client voters.
I sense quite a lot of anger in the country, much of it from people supporting the government still. It will be a brutal downfall when it comes for Johnson.
One would hope so. But I can't help thinking of Silvio Berlusconi. Running Italy really badly and being barred from office for tax fraud hasn't caused his brutal downfall.
The point about populism is that it elevates what the client voters want now over what's in the best long-term interests of the people of the country as a whole. (I really wish someone could point me towards a counterexample.) And if your sole aim is to keep tickling enough voters to win, you can survive in office a long time, and there's not that much any opposition can do about it.
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
Bullshit.
Give a citation please that the government wants that, given they've said the exact opposite. Rather than that you're deliberately misinterpreting what a proposed law to tackle evil people traffickers means.
The law as it was originally presented....
And you've proved the point yourself - if the desire was to tackle evil people traffickers the "for profit" motive within the current law would have been kept in place and not explicitly removed.
The issue is that you have to *prove* the “for profit”
Cash payments in the home country or a lein on future earnings in this are hard to prove
I'd wish everyone a 'Good Morning" as usual, but looking at both Ms Cyclefree's leader and what happened yesterday it isn't really, is it? We appear to have a mean-minded, indeed cruel, group of people in Government. If the RNLI is concerned about a proposal, then I would really hope that it's reconsidered. But there is, so far, no sign of that.
I have great respect for @Cyclefree but the issue with the RNLI and rescue at sea will need to be addressed, but I can say with certainty that my son, who has just joined the RNLI following a long tradition of both our families involvement in the sea and fishing for generations, will not be thinking that he will be imprisoned for saving any life at sea
Indeed as a family the RNLI and our local hospice benefit from all our charity support but then maybe that is understandable
My wife has lost family members at sea and a nephew in the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 and the absence of their recovery leaves a terrible yearning of loss
We all thank your son and his colleagues for their service. Your initial response though was instructive. Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la its not true.
This government - YOUR government, your party - want to send your son to jail for being a hero.
And still you support them.
The government has repeatedly said that is not their intention
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
Examples already given where "not our intention" does not override legislation. "You are accused of action in contravention of x". "Ah but the Home Secretary back in 2021 said they wouldn't prosecute". "That is no defence against the law is it?"
To be fair to the Government, I wrote to the Home Secretary, who, as I've said before is MP for the constituency in which I live, expressing my concerns about the forthcoming requirement for ID when voting. She's replied, to the effect that a wide range of photographic passes.... bus passes and so on.... will be acceptable. She also said, and I quote 'expired photographic ID will be accepted as long as the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder.'
I am by no means certain that the proposals will not cause problems and prevent people voting, but this does seem less illiberal than many of us feared.
Looks like it's Hard Left Super Whinge-In morning today.
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
The problem with the current Cons supporters/govt in a nutshell.
Not for a moment concerned about the rights or wrongs of any particular policy, just whether it is popular.
Now of course that's how politics works but if I were you and the others on here, I would feel a little bit dirty.
I really don't get it. I can see why being popular is important for the individuals right at the top as it gives them immense power, status and further down the line hard cash. But why are cheerleaders outside government, happy to cheerlead those that wear the same colour rosette on things that are wrong simply because they are popular?
Why not sometimes accepts mistakes are made and demand that they change?
Because they might lose bragging rights on PB of being on the winning side?
I wonder if the BoE has forecast what the impact would be if/when we return to 'normalized' interest rates of circa 5% given we've been on close to zero for so long now?
Would surely have a major impact given the levels of household debt and cheap credit swirling round the system?
Interest rates are never going back to "normal". A lot of people would struggle to pay their mortgages in those circumstances.
Exactly. The US nor the UK Governments know exactly what would happen to mortgage holders if interest rates went up even to "sub-normal" levels of 2-3% and the effect on their economic and their re-election chances. We are staying in a world of (at most) 1% interest rates. Savers be damned
Looks like it's Hard Left Super Whinge-In morning today.
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
Still on the hard left mantra. Still unable to actually identify any on here. Out of interest do I fall into the category of hard left? If I do god knows where you are on the left right spectrum.
Ah kjh! I've been expecting you!
I don't need to identify them. They identify themselves with their incessant stupidity on here.
As you ask, I think that you are - on the whole - a reasoned sensible contributor. I'm sure that will be a big comfort to you 👍.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
Are you a QC? I accept that QCs job is to interpret the law, but that is the heart of our legal system. Its just that there are QCs lining up pointing out the stupidity of this bill, with you, Big_G and the press officer at the Home Office saying "no it's fine".
This would hardly be the first time that a piece of legislation has directly classed with other legislation. As I said in my original post on this, the government would be happy with the clash between this law and the Human Rights Act going to court. We know which of the two they would be attacking.
I try not to reveal too much in the way of personal details online so I don't answer questions about how I earn a living. Sorry.
The government can attack the HRA all it likes. The HRA is clear that it trumps all other legislation (clauses 3 and 4). They can't get around that and somehow claim that the Nationality and Borders Bill can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with the ECHR. All legislation, without exception, must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the ECHR.
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
Whatever a government may "say" in parliament is irrelevant if it doesn't find itself in the bill/act. The burden after the act comes into force then transfers to a test case in the supreme court surely. Do we really want it to have to go all the way to there?
It is absolutely relevant
If there is ambiguity in the drafting of the legislation the courts seek to determine the intention of parliament.
That’s when what the government says matters
Can you provide a court judgment that backs up that assertion. Courts usually play a straight bat here and will allow the arguments of the two sides to sway the end result.
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
Nope you do seem to have a fixed viewpoint - which is a problem as it becomes a broken record.
And there lies the problem with BigG. It's all good fun though as he has become a figure of ridicule! Who knows his posts may be the very best of satire....
Really or just highlighting why Labour are a long way from power
It's got nothing to do with Labour or any party for that matter. It's what *we* believe in. For example, I believe in not punishing the poor of the World, not allowing defenceless migrants to drown. What do you believe in?
Exactly the same and indeed my son as a member of the RNLI will save any life at risk on the sea without question
Providing the RNLI is still able to send its boats out on a mission which makes its volunteers break the law. As others have pointed out thats a very difficult position for them to be in.
You literally will back anything this lot will do, even making your son a criminal.
I wonder if the BoE has forecast what the impact would be if/when we return to 'normalized' interest rates of circa 5% given we've been on close to zero for so long now?
Would surely have a major impact given the levels of household debt and cheap credit swirling round the system?
Interest rates are never going back to "normal". A lot of people would struggle to pay their mortgages in those circumstances.
Exactly. The US nor the UK Governments know exactly what would happen to mortgage holders if interest rates went up even to "sub-normal" levels of 2-3% and the effect on their economic and their re-election chances. We are staying in a world of (at most) 1% interest rates. Savers be damned
Well savers, and people trying to get on the housing ladder.
If there is ambiguity in the drafting of the legislation the courts seek to determine the intention of parliament.
There is no ambiguity. As drafted, the RNLI can be prosecuted.
Indeed. Who knows what will happen with this wretched Government who pander to the thick uneducated chavs? It's a great look for them and their supporters to actually prosecute the RNLI. You can imagine the favourable headlines in our odious right-wing press...
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
Whatever a government may "say" in parliament is irrelevant if it doesn't find itself in the bill/act. The burden after the act comes into force then transfers to a test case in the supreme court surely. Do we really want it to have to go all the way to there?
It is absolutely relevant
If there is ambiguity in the drafting of the legislation the courts seek to determine the intention of parliament.
Thank goodness Cyclefree has expressed her experienced insight on this.
I was being lectured and lectured and lectured on how the bill would assuredly be changed. How stupid a little boy I was being, I was told.
If I'm writing a book or paper, and there is a whacking great omission, I damn well change it before it goes out to refereeing. Or if the referee spots that then it gets changed pronto. Not left to galley proofs or still worse final proofs. It might get published. And that isn't a law which affects the life and liberty of many.
But the RNLI have evidently rescued too many migrants and (ironically) been teaching furrin people with brown skins to swim. Certain newspapers and their readers are angry [edit].
Eitherr the law will pass and the RNLI will be taken to court. Rmember it will be open to being reported to the police by anyone who doesn't like migrants being rescued.
Or, if the law is struck down, a point has been made and Labour and charities can be blamed.
And also - we were all lectured on PB yesterday that 'charities should keep out of politics'.
How is it now possible for the BNLI to stand up for its staff and volunteers (not to mention insurance bills) without upsetting certain folk?
And how can they tell who is an illegal and who isn't in the dark in a Force 6 and up in mid-Channel?
The RNLI thing seems a total nonsense. The government have already said repeatedly that is not what is being targetted, its hard to imagine the CPS finding a public interest in prosecuting the RNLI for lifesaving and its even harder to imagine a jury voting to convict. Plus of course its not been through the Committee or or the Commons or the Lords were the government's clear stated intent that this is not targetting the RNLI can be clarified through amendments if needed.
The problem with crying wolf is that you end up casting doubt on other issues. The Online Harms Bill, as described, sounds absolutely awful. We should have free speech and having people's feelings hurt is not a reason for the law to get involved.
But is the Online Harms Bill actually as described? Or is it, like the RNLI one, being rather misrepresented?
How is anyone misrepresenting the bill? It is there for all to read. Your interpretation of "ah but" - would anyone actually be pursued, would the CPS be able to make a case etc - wouldn't change the fact that RNLI heroes would be Breaking the Law. Which would put the RNLI itself in an impossible situation as no organisation can send its own people out to deliberately break the law.
If this bill passes, people wouldn't be prosecuting the RNLI because its botas wouldn't be on the seas rescuing drowning people.
BTW I entirely agree with you on the Online "Harms" Act. Its yet another piece of appalling legislation so why not show your disgust by voting Conservative again next time? You quite literally voted for this shit.
To repeat, the bill MUST be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act which enshrines the right to life. An interpretation which says RNLI cannot resuce drowning people is therefore wrong. RNLI heroes would NOT be breaking the law. That is not, "ah but would anyone be pursued". That is the law.
A common mistake by campaigners is looking at a specific piece of legislation without looking at the wider legislative framework that governs how that legislation must be interpreted. The courts will not make that mistake.
Are you a QC? I accept that QCs job is to interpret the law, but that is the heart of our legal system. Its just that there are QCs lining up pointing out the stupidity of this bill, with you, Big_G and the press officer at the Home Office saying "no it's fine".
This would hardly be the first time that a piece of legislation has directly classed with other legislation. As I said in my original post on this, the government would be happy with the clash between this law and the Human Rights Act going to court. We know which of the two they would be attacking.
I try not to reveal too much in the way of personal details online so I don't answer questions about how I earn a living. Sorry.
The government can attack the HRA all it likes. The HRA is clear that it trumps all other legislation (clauses 3 and 4). They can't get around that and somehow claim that the Nationality and Borders Bill can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with the ECHR. All legislation, without exception, must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the ECHR.
And that is something that would be established in court would it not?
To be fair to the Government, I wrote to the Home Secretary, who, as I've said before is MP for the constituency in which I live, expressing my concerns about the forthcoming requirement for ID when voting. She's replied, to the effect that a wide range of photographic passes.... bus passes and so on.... will be acceptable. She also said, and I quote 'expired photographic ID will be accepted as long as the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder.'
I am by no means certain that the proposals will not cause problems and prevent people voting, but this does seem less illiberal than many of us feared.
I’d forgotten about that abortion of a policy.
Reminds me of Major’s comments yesterday on the government yacht project: nobody wants it, nobody asked for it, nobody knows what it’s for.
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
Nope you do seem to have a fixed viewpoint - which is a problem as it becomes a broken record.
And there lies the problem with BigG. It's all good fun though as he has become a figure of ridicule! Who knows his posts may be the very best of satire....
Really or just highlighting why Labour are a long way from power
It's got nothing to do with Labour or any party for that matter. It's what *we* believe in. For example, I believe in not punishing the poor of the World, not allowing defenceless migrants to drown. What do you believe in?
Exactly the same and indeed my son as a member of the RNLI will save any life at risk on the sea without question
Providing the RNLI is still able to send its boats out on a mission which makes its volunteers break the law. As others have pointed out thats a very difficult position for them to be in.
You literally will back anything this lot will do, even making your son a criminal.
Of course I do not and you are simply scaremongering
Anyway I have some work to do and I am 100% confident the RNLI will nor be prosecuted for saving any life at sea
Looks like it's Hard Left Super Whinge-In morning today.
Let's see. Are the Tories still around 10% clear in the polls? Oh yes so they are!
Keep on dreaming hard lefters!
😊
Looking at the people "whinging" on here this morning I would be quite surprised if over half of them have not voted Tory at some point. We are for good government and law, further from the ideological hard left than this populist government who appoint Marxists to the House of Lords.
Big G doing his usual “I’m on the fence but Sky News say this and I could tease the libs a bit” schtick.
One of the most notorious trolls on PB.
I am not a troll but you do not seem to like being challenged when making untrue and inaccurate comments about me
Not least about my neutral stance on foreign aid, as I made that clear yesterday long before Sky web story
You are wrong yet again
Nope you do seem to have a fixed viewpoint - which is a problem as it becomes a broken record.
And there lies the problem with BigG. It's all good fun though as he has become a figure of ridicule! Who knows his posts may be the very best of satire....
Really or just highlighting why Labour are a long way from power
It's got nothing to do with Labour or any party for that matter. It's what *we* believe in. For example, I believe in not punishing the poor of the World, not allowing defenceless migrants to drown. What do you believe in?
Exactly the same and indeed my son as a member of the RNLI will save any life at risk on the sea without question
Providing the RNLI is still able to send its boats out on a mission which makes its volunteers break the law. As others have pointed out thats a very difficult position for them to be in.
You literally will back anything this lot will do, even making your son a criminal.
And the RNLI's insurers will dump them instantly the moment it is a criminal issue. I should think even saying theyd' ignore the law would be sufficient.
I wonder if the BoE has forecast what the impact would be if/when we return to 'normalized' interest rates of circa 5% given we've been on close to zero for so long now?
Would surely have a major impact given the levels of household debt and cheap credit swirling round the system?
Interest rates are never going back to "normal". A lot of people would struggle to pay their mortgages in those circumstances.
Exactly. The US nor the UK Governments know exactly what would happen to mortgage holders if interest rates went up even to "sub-normal" levels of 2-3% and the effect on their economic and their re-election chances. We are staying in a world of (at most) 1% interest rates. Savers be damned
Well savers, and people trying to get on the housing ladder.
Though a moderately sustained pulse of inflation will take the choice out of everyone's hands. Headline interest rates will have to go up just to stand still, so to speak.
It may be possible to manage a soft landing, but it looks tricky. Especially at a time when supply and demand for goods and people is all over the place.
The point of the The Nationality and Borders Bill is not to prosecute RNLI, it is to reopen the avenue to prosecute immigrants who "take the tiller".
Recently there was a drive to prosecute the immigrant steering the boat for "people trafficking", on the basis that they got a discount on their journey so they were doing it "for profit". So the majority of the time when you read headlines about people traffickers being convicted you were actually reading about a synthetic people trafficker made up to grab headlines. Asylum lawyers have got wise to this and it's basically collapsed as a prosecutorial route so the law is being changed to open it up again.
Golly, Tories trying to falsely characterise folk as people smugglers, I can’t believe such a thing could happen.
Have you heard any updates on the Sikh people smugglers?
To be fair to the Government, I wrote to the Home Secretary, who, as I've said before is MP for the constituency in which I live, expressing my concerns about the forthcoming requirement for ID when voting. She's replied, to the effect that a wide range of photographic passes.... bus passes and so on.... will be acceptable. She also said, and I quote 'expired photographic ID will be accepted as long as the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder.'
I am by no means certain that the proposals will not cause problems and prevent people voting, but this does seem less illiberal than many of us feared.
I’d forgotten about that abortion of a policy.
Reminds me of Major’s comments yesterday on the government yacht project: nobody wants it, nobody asked for it, nobody knows what it’s for.
Yep but it's another example of all this Government's current policies - it's virtue and signal politics which won't actually solve anything but looks like they are being tough and gets a few nice headlines in the papers (Telegraph, Mail) they read.
Comments
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/repayments-to-customers-of-failed-operator-football-index-set-to-begin/500401
That is the point you don't see - by using for profit it allowed all niche cases (including RNLI landing in a UK port) to be excluded, now they need to be explicitly defined and the legislation modified to ensure all such niche cases are covered.
Because all the Government wants to do is score right wing "virtue" points it doesn't bother to think why was that phrased this way.
And it wouldn't be so bad but this is a continual issue, you would have hoped after similar issues had been pointed out before that they wouldn't need to point them out again.
This would hardly be the first time that a piece of legislation has directly classed with other legislation. As I said in my original post on this, the government would be happy with the clash between this law and the Human Rights Act going to court. We know which of the two they would be attacking.
You need not imagine my response.
Britain has underperformed its peers since 2015, and the trajectory is worsening. Covid masks all for the moment, although the top line looks even worse for us.
https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077620383985666
There is not a problem with lifesaving, which is protected under other laws, and clearly not the intent of this law. Plus it still has to go through Committee, Commons and Lords were it can be amended if there are niche issues that need dealing with.
That meritocracy thing is going well.
I don't think the media have pressed Pagel and co on this.
What will they do to get young people to the vaccination centres even if we did decide to hold off unlifting restrictions?
Or, as the cartoonist puts it: https://twitter.com/J_Holliss/status/1414967339611836417
The RNLI are saying quite reasonably they shouldn't be caught by the law, and the government are quite reasonably saying they won't be, so if amendments are needed to clarify that then there's no sign they'll be opposed. It hasn't reached the time for amendments yet.
But that doesn't allow people to score political points, so instead we get nonsense like this debate.
Recently there was a drive to prosecute the immigrant steering the boat for "people trafficking", on the basis that they got a discount on their journey so they were doing it "for profit". So the majority of the time when you read headlines about people traffickers being convicted you were actually reading about a synthetic people trafficker made up to grab headlines. Asylum lawyers have got wise to this and it's basically collapsed as a prosecutorial route so the law is being changed to open it up again.
I sense quite a lot of anger in the country, much of it from people supporting the government still. It will be a brutal downfall when it comes for Johnson.
Shit law ALWAYS gets applied in ways not considered by the legislators.
We just be vigilant and hand waving this stuff away will not help Arthur Miggins, of Beachhaven, Sussex, imprisoned for rescuing a pair of drowning refugees.
It is Labour who I have issues with and the article was warning Labour they are on the wrong side of public opinion
I really do not have an issue generally with the Lib Dems
With regard to the online safety bill, "a material risk of significant psychological harm" is a very subjective test; one of many examples of bad law bought forward by various governments over the last 2 or so decades. Another example of government traipsing over ancient wisdom about precision in drafting legislation, to the detriment of us all.
If you can prosecute the person with the tiller, that covers the RNLI
Boat 1 will leak so boat 2 will come along (with a separate immigrant "taking the tiller") and "rescue you all"..
The simple fact is that it doesn't work because I've just got round the issue using the get out clause.
This government won't, either through incompetence, or to virtue signal to the hard right how tough they are on immigrants. Or a mix or both.
I am green on him for next leader. Not least, he actually has some leadership qualities.
When it comes to you, Philip and HYUFD that is my default position. When it comes to Casino, maxpb, CycleFree and Charles that isn't the case.
Never apologise. Never explain.
They can't admit there was a problem with drafting the bill. If they got that wrong, what else might they be wrong about? That's a slippery slope.
So as with the Northern Ireland protocol, they insist the bill is perfect.
Look how well that turned out!
We could choose to pay a decent pension, decent unemployment support, decent sick pay, decent maternity pay. But we don't. The Triple Lock was trying to force the government and its successors to do something long term about pensions. If it goes because "we can't afford it" then the government aren't going to voluntarily choose to uprate them are they?
As I have mentioned before my daughter does voluntary work for Caring for Calais. When she was there last Summer the charity were very clear that facilitating anyone's journey to the UK in any way was an absolute no no and almost certainly an offence. I thought that was probably right because it would be a conspiracy to commit an offence if the person was not eligible for asylum. It certainly would be now.
One of the things that my daughter introduced while there was information cards which gave the number of the charity and lawyers willing to assist with asylum claims to contact once the journey was made. Might be an interesting marginal case.
Not for a moment concerned about the rights or wrongs of any particular policy, just whether it is popular.
Now of course that's how politics works but if I were you and the others on here, I would feel a little bit dirty.
She has residency rights through her work visa. However, if she were to lose her job we would have to apply for a marriage visa quite fast, with not insignificant costs involved, or else she'd have to leave. I'm not saying that's wrong, but there is very much no automatic right.
Thankfully she's eligible for permanent residence in a few months (which annoyingly will cost us several thousand pounds).
Despite the abuse that Faragistes love to bang on about, asylum seekers are truly the wretched of the earth.
Fingers in ears, eyes closed, la la la it’s not true.
You continue to accuse them despite reasonable argument that you position is utter bollocks
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/in-priti-patel-v-tyrone-mings-theres-only-one-winner-9tdbw8lf3?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=34b044c22c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_07_14_06_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-34b044c22c-189986641 https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1415200583183749120/photo/1
It is reported that BoZo did try and invite the England team to Downing Street and they
told him to fuck offpolitely declinedMissed opportunity. They should have agreed as long as BoZo took the knee when they met...
Yes, the test of "material risk of significant psychological harm" is going to be subjective but so are many tests in law. To some degree that is why the interpretation of some laws has changed over time. The test for obscenity, for example, is highly subjective. The interpretation today is very different from the 1950s. If banning harmful content is a legitimate objective, it is hard to see how that can be accomplished without a subjective test. Indeed, putting in an objective test risks that test becoming outdated as attitudes change.
I'm not going so far as to back him for next leader but as has been pointed out, since Brexit (which he argued with coherence - see I'm softening..) he has made a series of right calls imo on lockdown and now taking the knee.
If there is ambiguity in the drafting of the legislation the courts seek to determine the intention of parliament.
That’s when what the government says matters
What the Government intends, and what the legislation says, are not the same, and intent butters no parsnips
Why not sometimes accepts mistakes are made and demand that they change?
The point about populism is that it elevates what the client voters want now over what's in the best long-term interests of the people of the country as a whole.
(I really wish someone could point me towards a counterexample.)
And if your sole aim is to keep tickling enough voters to win, you can survive in office a long time, and there's not that much any opposition can do about it.
All that gentleman’s convention stuff got torched by Boris/Cummings.
Cash payments in the home country or a lein on future earnings in this are hard to prove
I am by no means certain that the proposals will not cause problems and prevent people voting, but this does seem less illiberal than many of us feared.
I don't need to identify them. They identify themselves with their incessant stupidity on here.
As you ask, I think that you are - on the whole - a reasoned sensible contributor. I'm sure that will be a big comfort to you 👍.
The government can attack the HRA all it likes. The HRA is clear that it trumps all other legislation (clauses 3 and 4). They can't get around that and somehow claim that the Nationality and Borders Bill can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with the ECHR. All legislation, without exception, must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the ECHR.
You literally will back anything this lot will do, even making your son a criminal.
I was being lectured and lectured and lectured on how the bill would assuredly be changed. How stupid a little boy I was being, I was told.
If I'm writing a book or paper, and there is a whacking great omission, I damn well change it before it goes out to refereeing. Or if the referee spots that then it gets changed pronto. Not left to galley proofs or still worse final proofs. It might get published. And that isn't a law which affects the life and liberty of many.
But the RNLI have evidently rescued too many migrants and (ironically) been teaching furrin people with brown skins to swim. Certain newspapers and their readers are angry [edit].
Eitherr the law will pass and the RNLI will be taken to court. Rmember it will be open to being reported to the police by anyone who doesn't like migrants being rescued.
Or, if the law is struck down, a point has been made and Labour and charities can be blamed.
And also - we were all lectured on PB yesterday that 'charities should keep out of politics'.
How is it now possible for the BNLI to stand up for its staff and volunteers (not to mention insurance bills) without upsetting certain folk?
And how can they tell who is an illegal and who isn't in the dark in a Force 6 and up in mid-Channel?
Reminds me of Major’s comments yesterday on the government yacht project: nobody wants it, nobody asked for it, nobody knows what it’s for.
Anyway I have some work to do and I am 100% confident the RNLI will nor be prosecuted for saving any life at sea
Editor's note.
Edward Leigh on July 13 voted for Rishi's foreign aid cuts. We apologise for any confusion.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/foreign-aid-cut-yemen-vote-edward-leigh-b922109.html
It may be possible to manage a soft landing, but it looks tricky. Especially at a time when supply and demand for goods and people is all over the place.