After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
Who was attacking Rashford?
On this site just about HYUFD and a racist prick who got banned. HYUFD was roundly condemned by Big G, myself and a great many other Tories for his nonsense
If you recall Essicks Massiv said that he was supported by his fellow Tories. We then had some Tory MP repeat his comments word for word which suggests a WhatsApp "line to take".
Don't be silly.
Essicks Massiv was roundly condemned on this site by PB Tories across the board.
Then we had one single cranky extreme backbench MP use the same comments.
That says nothing other than Essicks Massive and that one single cranky extreme backbench MP think alike.
If there were a WhatsApp "line to take" there'd be dozens, or hundreds of MPs saying the same thing word for word.
I thought the whole point of extending free school meals throughout the school holidays was because children were going hungry.
Yes - because dysfunctional parents are well dysfunctional...
The usually unspoken assumption is that the parents would rather blow their benefits and wages on fags or crappy smartphone apps or whatever rather than feed their children, which may be true of about 7 parents but is absolutely not the reason why most of the hungry children in the country are going hungry.
Tories don't like it when the proles breed - which is ironic given the literal meaning of the word "proletarian". Hence what used to be the widespread Tory belief that many working class single mothers only had babies so they could get council flats. You have to wonder whether anyone who believes such rubbish has ever actually met a working class single mother in their whole life.
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.
Pepper (H.M.I.T.) v. Hart [1992] UKHL 3
So the RNLI or Joe Public in a boat has to pay a fortune for a defence team to confirm something that should be confirmed in the first place in Parliament?
I was simply responding to the question.
For what it is worth, I should imagine any court would quite easily interpret the concept of assistance of an asylum seeker purposively. It would look to the intention of the RNLI and conclude the intention was to save a person in distress at sea, even if that had the double effect of enabling an asylum seeking to reach dry land who might otherwise have drowned.
That said, if I were drafting the bill, I would include express provision to this effect. Indeed, I would be surprised if the bill were not amended in committee to this effect. Very many goverment bills are poorly drafted and have to be amended in committee or in the Lords. The fact that this bill is badly drafted i par for the course; it does not necessarily indicate malice or deliberate intent on the part of the Goverment.
If Britgov wanted to renege on its obligation under international maritime law (Article 98 of UNCLOS, "Duty to render assistance") to assist those who are in distress at sea, wouldn't it have to notify the UN formally to that effect?
The "red meat" of letting a boatful of migrants drown is something the Powellites in this country have been slavering for for decades. (Often they will refer to Australia in this connection.) They got Brexit. They got the okay from a cabinet minister for loutishly booing the English football team for taking the knee. Drowned migrants followed by a "serves them right" statement by the prime minister may be next on the list. I have even heard some of them say that such inhumanity would be "brave".
Meanwhile Dominic Cummings says Labour could walk the next general election if they focused on addressing the problem of "violent crime". Talk about moving the Overton window...
'Brave' in the Tory patriot sense or 'brave' in the Yes Prime Minister sense? Just checking ...
A tunnel under Guildford? That would be, err, challenging.
Naah. Cut and cover...
The geology at Guildford can't be too different from the Hog's Back section (the big one below the map). Maybe it's a doddle to the heirs of I. K. Brunel and G. Stephenson, but it looks awfully tricky to me. And one wonders aboiut the scope for subsidence with such complex geology.
IANAE, but geology can almost always be engineered out by altering the boring machine or tunnelling technique. This is one of the reasons why I think Musk's Boring Company is on a hiding to nothing: they seem to want one type of boring machine for any type of ground.
If the French could build a subway and station through mud under the Seine by freezing the ground 120 years ago, we can build in Guildford.
What Musk is reaching for is automating/reducing the workforce/vertical integration. The enormous layering of contracting out the counteracting out of the contracting out that goes on in big infrastructure projects bears a striking resemblance to the organisational structure used in big aerospace.
I can see that, but AIUI it's not the case with actual tunnelling, which is fairly efficient.
The problem occurs with the later parts: take Crossrail, where the tunnelling went quite well, but the mess started with the fitting out. Musk is essentially ignoring this part by using the simplest possible solution inside the tunnel.
Well, yes - by reducing the complexity of the solution, the method becomes easier.
For example, using ethernet (essentially) on your rocket was considered insane. But it reduces the cabling complexity by orders of magnitude, and runs over fibre nicely, so you don't have to worry about antenna effects.
Yes... but as I said the other day, the complexity of the systems are often necessary, e.g. for safety. These systems are really easy to miss when you design a new system to save money, it can have significant later costs.
Designing a system to be more complex to increase safety is often a bad sign. Since the complexity is then a great place for bugs to hide in.
Designing a system to be less efficient, but simpler is often a good way to increase reliability.
Except you have the Swiss Cheese Model: layerings of safety, with each layer created by experience. This adds complexity, but makes them safer. New systems tend not to.
A terrible example of this was the German Transrapid Maglev - where brochures said that collisions were impossible. Before a collision killed 23 people. They kidded themselves that the engineering stopped collisions, when human factors intervened.
IMO too many engineers fail to ask the vital question: "How does it fail?"
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
Who was attacking Rashford?
On this site just about HYUFD and a racist prick who got banned. HYUFD was roundly condemned by Big G, myself and a great many other Tories for his nonsense
If you recall Essicks Massiv said that he was supported by his fellow Tories. We then had some Tory MP repeat his comments word for word which suggests a WhatsApp "line to take".
Don't be silly.
Essicks Massiv was roundly condemned on this site by PB Tories across the board.
Then we had one single cranky extreme backbench MP use the same comments.
That says nothing other than Essicks Massive and that one single cranky extreme backbench MP think alike.
If there were a WhatsApp "line to take" there'd be dozens, or hundreds of MPs saying the same thing word for word.
47% of the Tory Party, according to HYUFD, or am I muddling that with some other moral panic?
I agree with much (almost all) of what Cyclefree says but bad laws to "send signals" that make good headlines, rather than fix problems, massively predate this administration stretching all the way back to Blair.
That doesn't excuse what's being done now but to heap opprobrium for all of it just on Boris isn't accurate. Politicians have found it's worked for them in managing problems and perceptions, so they've kept doing it.
Some of us still remember the Dangerous Dogs Act.
We might coin a name for these laws that governments seek to bring in purely for electoral posturing instead of concrete need regardless of the legal consequences. Virtue Signalling Legislation perhaps?
True, but I've never made my mind up about the Dangerous Dogs Act.
The trouble is there are quite a lot of dangerous dogs around, badly handled or treated by bad owners too, and quite frankly some of them terrify me, so I'm not sure how repeal would make things better.
Is there an alternative?
Oh, agreed & this is where Patel’s new law & the Dangerous Dogs Act share common ground. Both seek to deal with real problems that the country is wrestling with & both appear to have been drafted on a “we need to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it” basis.
Off the cuff, I would say that dealing with dangerous dogs requires enforcement in detail of owner’s responsibilty for the animals in their care. The DDA’s approach of outlawing specific breeds was wrongheaded & almost completely pointless. Likewise, dealing with asylum seekers in an appropriate fashion that takes account of our responsibilities & common humanity is going to be mostly about the detail of enforcement. Criminalising owners / staff of vessels picking up boats in the Channel is attacking a tiny part of the people smuggling funnel in the most ham-fisted way is unlikely to make a great deal of difference imo.
Interesting that Cyclefree does not mention in my view the most draconian of the government's measures - the compulsory vaccination of care workers.
Surely there are going to be all kinds of problems here.
Recruitment problems. Dismissal cases, Privacy law, Human rights cases. Equality law caes. Has this not opened up a gigantic can of worms?
There is a fair amount of case law, I believe, on medical requirements to have vaccinations for some jobs.
I have to have Hep B as a condition of employment. I don't have a problem with compulsory vaccines in principle, but staff recruitment and retention are real problems already.
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
Who was attacking Rashford?
On this site just about HYUFD and a racist prick who got banned. HYUFD was roundly condemned by Big G, myself and a great many other Tories for his nonsense
If you recall Essicks Massiv said that he was supported by his fellow Tories. We then had some Tory MP repeat his comments word for word which suggests a WhatsApp "line to take".
Without wanting to put words into his mouth, my recollection is that HYUFD was criticising Rashford for his position about school meals in the holidays. This is a perfectly acceptable line to take - there are some things government should pay for, and some things it shouldn't, and if you think government shouldn't pay for school meals in the school holidays that's a reasonable position to take. I don't know if I agree with him, but I do agree that we shouldn't agree to something just because a footballer demands it. I don't agree that he missed his penalty because he was campaigning for school meals. That's daft. He's allowed some life outside practicing football. But I think that was just a clumsy attempt at a joke. I don't think HYUFD believes that really.
So the LOTO is lying and misleading Parliament? Makes a change from the PM, I suppose...
Yes, but before condemning them, Liar did the opposite. As did Patel.
It’s quite simple. In the aftermath of the booing at the Riverside friendlies, he and Patel were invited to condemn the booing of the knee. Neither of them did, and now it’s come back to bite them on the bum.
The SNP only rarely talks about “the English” and only then by mistake. Under an unwritten rule a more impersonal term is preferred. Euphemisms are necessary. So Scottish nationalists speak instead of “Brexit Britain” or “Middle England” or “Westminster” when they mean “the English”.
Some years ago the SNP favoured the use of “London” as a disparagement. Scotland’s woes were the fault of “London Labour”, which was usefully alliterative, or “the London government”. This went out of fashion around the time of the 2012 Olympics when the SNP belatedly realised London was in fact quite a cool place with a centre-left outlook not unlike our own
A tunnel under Guildford? That would be, err, challenging.
Naah. Cut and cover...
The geology at Guildford can't be too different from the Hog's Back section (the big one below the map). Maybe it's a doddle to the heirs of I. K. Brunel and G. Stephenson, but it looks awfully tricky to me. And one wonders aboiut the scope for subsidence with such complex geology.
IANAE, but geology can almost always be engineered out by altering the boring machine or tunnelling technique. This is one of the reasons why I think Musk's Boring Company is on a hiding to nothing: they seem to want one type of boring machine for any type of ground.
If the French could build a subway and station through mud under the Seine by freezing the ground 120 years ago, we can build in Guildford.
What Musk is reaching for is automating/reducing the workforce/vertical integration. The enormous layering of contracting out the counteracting out of the contracting out that goes on in big infrastructure projects bears a striking resemblance to the organisational structure used in big aerospace.
I can see that, but AIUI it's not the case with actual tunnelling, which is fairly efficient.
The problem occurs with the later parts: take Crossrail, where the tunnelling went quite well, but the mess started with the fitting out. Musk is essentially ignoring this part by using the simplest possible solution inside the tunnel.
Well, yes - by reducing the complexity of the solution, the method becomes easier.
For example, using ethernet (essentially) on your rocket was considered insane. But it reduces the cabling complexity by orders of magnitude, and runs over fibre nicely, so you don't have to worry about antenna effects.
Yes... but as I said the other day, the complexity of the systems are often necessary, e.g. for safety. These systems are really easy to miss when you design a new system to save money, it can have significant later costs.
Designing a system to be more complex to increase safety is often a bad sign. Since the complexity is then a great place for bugs to hide in.
Designing a system to be less efficient, but simpler is often a good way to increase reliability.
Except you have the Swiss Cheese Model: layerings of safety, with each layer created by experience. This adds complexity, but makes them safer. New systems tend not to.
A terrible example of this was the German Transrapid Maglev - where brochures said that collisions were impossible. Before a collision killed 23 people. They kidded themselves that the engineering stopped collisions, when human factors intervened.
IMO too many engineers fail to ask the vital question: "How does it fail?"
The problem is also that the many layers can create a system that seems safe. But as things change, the holes in some layers move a and get bigger....
Hence the Boeing comedies - just slap another layer into the system. The airliners and the space capsules have all that legacy knowledge in there to protect us from any problems....
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
Heads the lawyers win, tails the lawyers win. What a world lawyers created through law!
FTFY because I'm not going to complain about lawyers trying to earn a penny (if I did one one them would try to find a reason to extract money from me).
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
Who was attacking Rashford?
On this site just about HYUFD and a racist prick who got banned. HYUFD was roundly condemned by Big G, myself and a great many other Tories for his nonsense
If you recall Essicks Massiv said that he was supported by his fellow Tories. We then had some Tory MP repeat his comments word for word which suggests a WhatsApp "line to take".
Don't be silly.
Essicks Massiv was roundly condemned on this site by PB Tories across the board.
Then we had one single cranky extreme backbench MP use the same comments.
That says nothing other than Essicks Massive and that one single cranky extreme backbench MP think alike.
If there were a WhatsApp "line to take" there'd be dozens, or hundreds of MPs saying the same thing word for word.
47% of the Tory Party, according to HYUFD, or am I muddling that with some other moral panic?
That was a misrepresentation by HYUFD roundly criticised here.
-1 is MoE....The other poll, I can't imagine what would have caused Labour to lose 4 points.
The two polls yesterday showed movement in the opposite direction. Take your pick.
I am surprised with Hancock scandal they didn't see a much bigger more immediate hit, as occurred with Cummings. But then I thought they would be hammered by the Indian variant being rampant.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
Indeed.
The problem they are trying to legislate is the organisers of these boat parties are rather good at trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Hence a law to prosecute anybody in the general vicinity, pretty much.
What you need to do, is to intercept all the boats, take everyone off them, and put them somewhere safe, that they didn't want to go. That news would travel back up the line quite fast and the boat trips would go out of fashion.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
Indeed.
The problem they are trying to legislate is the organisers of these boat parties are rather good at trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Hence a law to prosecute anybody in the general vicinity, pretty much.
What you need to do, is to intercept all the boats, take everyone off them, and put them somewhere safe, that they didn't want to go. That news would travel back up the line quite fast and the boat trips would go out of fashion.
Exactly. People take boats because it's a very effective way of gaining admission to the country, with removals - once here - being a manageable risk.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
And there are lifeboatwomen. Not to accuse you of sexism but to imagine the media photo opportunities - not merely steelyjawed greyhaired mariners being sent to Parkhurst, but the likes of a physically fit 18yo blonde lady in a RNLI tracksuit being sentenced to Borstal for rescuing some furriners.
Just listened to Layla Moran on BBC talking about why she was taking the knee to fight 'systemic racism' in Britain.
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
I should hope they did, its a good thing.
You have an issue with fighting systemic racism? Are you in favour of systemic racism?
Of course not, but I don't believe Britain is systemically racist, either.
I cite as my evidence the Sewell report, which concluded it wasn't. A conclusion for which Sewell and others were racially abused in disgusting ways. Labour? BLM? silent.
Just listened to Layla Moran on BBC talking about why she was taking the knee to fight 'systemic racism' in Britain.
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
People are free to make any gestures they wish for or against pretty much anything. All they will ever be though are gestures. The idea that they, in themselves, change naything strikes me as quite bizarre.
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
I also reckon Johnson wobbled very badly in the run up to the decision on freedom day. Indeed, I wonder if the only thing that kept it on track was the threat of a senior resignation or two. Sunak hinted it was July 19 or never for him, for example.
Have you any evidence for that at all? I've seen no sign of wobbling.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
"Its an appalling tragedy" said the Home Secretary "made worse that we do not know the boy's name or where he came from. It only reinforces the evil works that people traffickers do, and this government will continue to work very hard to stop migrants from pointlessly risking their lives in trying to come here".
Again, feedback to the Nigel when he films migrants is "let them drown". Some people have had all the humanity crushed out of them and Patel is very happy to gain their support. Your hypothetical dead child would still be alive if he stayed where he came from etc.
Just listened to Layla Moran on BBC talking about why she was taking the knee to fight 'systemic racism' in Britain.
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
I should hope they did, its a good thing.
You have an issue with fighting systemic racism? Are you in favour of systemic racism?
Of course not, but I don't believe Britain is systemically racist, either.
I cite as my evidence the Sewell report, which concluded it wasn't. A conclusion for which Sewell and others were racially abused in disgusting ways. Labour? BLM? silent.
Do you disagree with its findings?
The Sewell report wasn't as black and white as you make out. It didn't find that Britain as a whole was systemically racist, but it did find that there were some very serious racial issues that needed addressing.
I agree with that and I support fighting systemic racism were it exists as per the Sewell report. Don't you?
Except that isn't true. The "legal commitment" gave reasons that it might not be able to be met, including financial circumstances, and said that if that was the case it gave provision for statements in Parliament to resolve it.
The financial circumstances have changed theres been a statement in Parliament and a vote to resolve it, as per the law.
No legal commitment reneged on. The law was followed.
That presupposes the government is actually constrained by those circumstances and is disapplying its commitment to the least extent possible. It isn't. That's why it changed the law, which it has the power to do. But it's like principles. If we don't like this law, we can have others. Why would anyone believe them when even their laws aren't worth the paper they are written on?
They haven't changed the law, that would take an Act of Parliament.
They've issued a statement within the confines of the existing law, following the procedure laid down within the existing law.
No law change has occurred. Exercising a provision of a law is not a change in the law.
You may technically be correct. Time to reach for a constitutional lawyer. In effect the Act and the legal obligations on the government have been over-ridden by a ministerial statement, such that the Ministerial Statement, not the Act, is now the statement of law. According to Falconer, this is a novel and highly dubious constitutional manoeuvre.
The thread is here and speaks to the point that @Foxy made about a government that puts itself above the law being a danger to every citizen.
When we inevitably have to have reintroduction of restrictions this winter, I wonder what the public reaction will be?
What makes you think it's inevitable? Do you think things are bad or that the government will buckle to pressure from the zero COVID brigade?
I think a combination that as predicted by the eggheads we will see a bigger wave of non-COVID respiratory illness plus plenty of COVID (even if lets be optimistic and say no new variant and vaccines are holding up)...we will then see huge pressures from the likes of the zero COVID lot to reintroduce some measures to save the NHS etc and SAGE have a very cautious outlook.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
Indeed.
The problem they are trying to legislate is the organisers of these boat parties are rather good at trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Hence a law to prosecute anybody in the general vicinity, pretty much.
What you need to do, is to intercept all the boats, take everyone off them, and put them somewhere safe, that they didn't want to go. That news would travel back up the line quite fast and the boat trips would go out of fashion.
Exactly. People take boats because it's a very effective way of gaining admission to the country, with removals - once here - being a manageable risk.
They also take the view, according to interviews with actual migrants who've used such routes, that at worst they will end up where they started. In the hell hole known as France....
Apparently some traffickers actually offer a we-will-keep-sending-you-until-you-get-into-the-destination service...
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Just listened to Layla Moran on BBC talking about why she was taking the knee to fight 'systemic racism' in Britain.
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
I should hope they did, its a good thing.
You have an issue with fighting systemic racism? Are you in favour of systemic racism?
Of course not, but I don't believe Britain is systemically racist, either.
I cite as my evidence the Sewell report, which concluded it wasn't. A conclusion for which Sewell and others were racially abused in disgusting ways. Labour? BLM? silent.
Do you disagree with its findings?
The Sewell report wasn't as black and white as you make out. It didn't find that Britain as a whole was systemically racist, but it did find that there were some very serious racial issues that needed addressing.
I agree with that and I support fighting systemic racism were it exists as per the Sewell report. Don't you?
Wasn't Sewell the report where it cited all kinds of witnesses who immediately condemned both the report and what they are claimed to have said?
After today's PMQs the right wing commentators that exist out there are really noticing Johnson's total lack of principle or conviction in the face of left wing pressure.
Words like spineless, gutless, cowardly etc. are being bandied about much more often.
Exactly. Why do all the work pandering to get the racism and bigotry vote if you're going to fold so easily? Its only a couple of days ago they were attacking Rashford for interfering with politics and now he is getting eulogised like he is a saint.
The PM really does blow in the wind....
Who was attacking Rashford?
On this site just about HYUFD and a racist prick who got banned. HYUFD was roundly condemned by Big G, myself and a great many other Tories for his nonsense
If you recall Essicks Massiv said that he was supported by his fellow Tories. We then had some Tory MP repeat his comments word for word which suggests a WhatsApp "line to take".
Don't be silly.
Essicks Massiv was roundly condemned on this site by PB Tories across the board.
Then we had one single cranky extreme backbench MP use the same comments.
That says nothing other than Essicks Massive and that one single cranky extreme backbench MP think alike.
If there were a WhatsApp "line to take" there'd be dozens, or hundreds of MPs saying the same thing word for word.
47% of the Tory Party, according to HYUFD, or am I muddling that with some other moral panic?
That was a misrepresentation by HYUFD roundly criticised here.
Just listened to Layla Moran on BBC talking about why she was taking the knee to fight 'systemic racism' in Britain.
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
I should hope they did, its a good thing.
You have an issue with fighting systemic racism? Are you in favour of systemic racism?
Of course not, but I don't believe Britain is systemically racist, either.
I cite as my evidence the Sewell report, which concluded it wasn't. A conclusion for which Sewell and others were racially abused in disgusting ways. Labour? BLM? silent.
Do you disagree with its findings?
The Sewell report wasn't as black and white as you make out. It didn't find that Britain as a whole was systemically racist, but it did find that there were some very serious racial issues that needed addressing.
I agree with that and I support fighting systemic racism were it exists as per the Sewell report. Don't you?
Well Philip as you are such a proud and committed anti-racist, then perhaps you can name some institutions in Britain that are systemically racist, so that we can all fight them together?
After you have been sued and paid their legal costs, of course.
Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge on the foreign aid cut: "Is it consistent with the sovereignty of parliament that an obligation or duty imposed by primary legislation can be expunged by a ministerial statement?"
Treasury minister Lord Agnew: "We have not expunged the Act, we have suspended it"
When we inevitably have to have reintroduction of restrictions this winter, I wonder what the public reaction will be?
What makes you think it's inevitable? Do you think things are bad or that the government will buckle to pressure from the zero COVID brigade?
I think a combination that as predicted by the eggheads we will see a bigger wave of non-COVID respiratory illness plus plenty of COVID (even if lets be optimistic and say no new variant and vaccines are holding up)...we will then see huge pressures from the likes of the zero COVID lot to reintroduce some measures to save the NHS etc and SAGE have a very cautious outlook.
We had our all staff call today and senior management did not want to talk about the back to the office plans today. Apparently they are going to confirm arrangements over the next few days, but no one has to go back until September is the message.
I'm not sure whether I'll say to my boss that I won't go in until masks aren't mandated on the tube, or whether I'll just go in and not wear a mask and see if I get any grief.
Except that isn't true. The "legal commitment" gave reasons that it might not be able to be met, including financial circumstances, and said that if that was the case it gave provision for statements in Parliament to resolve it.
The financial circumstances have changed theres been a statement in Parliament and a vote to resolve it, as per the law.
No legal commitment reneged on. The law was followed.
That presupposes the government is actually constrained by those circumstances and is disapplying its commitment to the least extent possible. It isn't. That's why it changed the law, which it has the power to do. But it's like principles. If we don't like this law, we can have others. Why would anyone believe them when even their laws aren't worth the paper they are written on?
They haven't changed the law, that would take an Act of Parliament.
They've issued a statement within the confines of the existing law, following the procedure laid down within the existing law.
No law change has occurred. Exercising a provision of a law is not a change in the law.
You may technically be correct. Time to reach for a constitutional lawyer. In effect the Act and the legal obligations on the government have been over-ridden by a ministerial statement, such that the Ministerial Statement, not the Act, is now the statement of law. According to Falconer, this is a novel and highly dubious constitutional manoeuvre.
The thread is here and speaks to the point that @Foxy made about a government that puts itself above the law being a danger to every citizen.
Constitutional lawyer? I think you mean opposition partisan politician do you not? Hasn't he resigned yet?
The Act foresaw and specifically names financial circumstance as being a reason why the 0.7% is not met and specifically says that if its not met there needs to be a statement before Parliament explaining why.
The 0.7% isn't being met for the reasons explained and there's been a statement before Parliament explaining why, as per the provisions of the Act.
Just listened to Layla Moran on BBC talking about why she was taking the knee to fight 'systemic racism' in Britain.
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
I should hope they did, its a good thing.
You have an issue with fighting systemic racism? Are you in favour of systemic racism?
Of course not, but I don't believe Britain is systemically racist, either.
I cite as my evidence the Sewell report, which concluded it wasn't. A conclusion for which Sewell and others were racially abused in disgusting ways. Labour? BLM? silent.
Do you disagree with its findings?
The Sewell report should have been picked up by Starmer and waved in the face of the government. The racism highlighted and action recommended has been ignored so far, it seems to me, by the government. What aren't the LP all over this? - because the report denies the charge that the country is systemically racist and so doesn't count.
Just listened to Layla Moran on BBC talking about why she was taking the knee to fight 'systemic racism' in Britain.
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
I should hope they did, its a good thing.
You have an issue with fighting systemic racism? Are you in favour of systemic racism?
Of course not, but I don't believe Britain is systemically racist, either.
I cite as my evidence the Sewell report, which concluded it wasn't. A conclusion for which Sewell and others were racially abused in disgusting ways. Labour? BLM? silent.
Do you disagree with its findings?
The Sewell report wasn't as black and white as you make out. It didn't find that Britain as a whole was systemically racist, but it did find that there were some very serious racial issues that needed addressing.
I agree with that and I support fighting systemic racism were it exists as per the Sewell report. Don't you?
Well Philip as you are such a proud and committed anti-racist, then perhaps you can name some institutions in Britain that are systemically racist, so that we can all fight them together?
After you have been sued and paid their legal costs, of course.
Greens in turmoil as co-leader Sian Berry quits over 'inconsistencies' around trans issues...
Sian Berry has announced she will not be standing for re-election as co-leader of the Greens over her concerns the party is sending “mixed messages” around trans rights. The London Assembly member said she felt there was an “inconsistency” around her pledge to fight for equality for transgender people and the party’s choice of spokespeople.
The Greens are in the process of fluffing a big opportunity for them after an excellent set of local elections.
They do, I'm afraid, badly need to professionalise. Their leadership model just doesn't work.
I would disagree. I rather like the rather anarchic decentered nature of Green leadership. They should not copy the cult of personality that the big parties have chosen.
The fact that you (or I) "rather like" something isn't a reason to do it. There are always some people who "rather like" massively eccentric ideas or approaches.
The Greens, meanwhile, have to look to be polling in double figures, consistently ahead of the Lib Dems, to seize the moment. Then they need to build on the solitary MP they've been stuck on for more than a decade now.
That means a sharpening of the vision, an air of competence, a visibility of key figures. It does not mean being "anarchic" to appeal to a small minority... the Sex Pistols were a popular enough band, but even Johnny Rotten isn't going to claim "Anarchy in the UK" was an election winning strategy.
Just listened to Layla Moran on BBC talking about why she was taking the knee to fight 'systemic racism' in Britain.
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
I should hope they did, its a good thing.
You have an issue with fighting systemic racism? Are you in favour of systemic racism?
Of course not, but I don't believe Britain is systemically racist, either.
I cite as my evidence the Sewell report, which concluded it wasn't. A conclusion for which Sewell and others were racially abused in disgusting ways. Labour? BLM? silent.
Do you disagree with its findings?
The Sewell report wasn't as black and white as you make out. It didn't find that Britain as a whole was systemically racist, but it did find that there were some very serious racial issues that needed addressing.
I agree with that and I support fighting systemic racism were it exists as per the Sewell report. Don't you?
Well Philip as you are such a proud and committed anti-racist, then perhaps you can name some institutions in Britain that are systemically racist, so that we can all fight them together?
After you have been sued and paid their legal costs, of course.
Constable Savage wants a word.....
So the constables taking the knee at the BLM protests last year were....???
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
Just listened to Layla Moran on BBC talking about why she was taking the knee to fight 'systemic racism' in Britain.
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
I should hope they did, its a good thing.
You have an issue with fighting systemic racism? Are you in favour of systemic racism?
Of course not, but I don't believe Britain is systemically racist, either.
I cite as my evidence the Sewell report, which concluded it wasn't. A conclusion for which Sewell and others were racially abused in disgusting ways. Labour? BLM? silent.
Do you disagree with its findings?
The Sewell report wasn't as black and white as you make out. It didn't find that Britain as a whole was systemically racist, but it did find that there were some very serious racial issues that needed addressing.
I agree with that and I support fighting systemic racism were it exists as per the Sewell report. Don't you?
Well Philip as you are such a proud and committed anti-racist, then perhaps you can name some institutions in Britain that are systemically racist, so that we can all fight them together?
After you have been sued and paid their legal costs, of course.
I think the stop and search data for car drivers and pedestrians in London do indicate at least a problem in the Police and Criminal Justice system.
I have never been stopped by the police in a car or on a pavement in my whole life (60+), but then I am white.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
Its extremely arrogant and conceited whataboutery.
If lots of people are saying "I am doing this gesture against racism" then to have other people turn around and say "no you're not, this is a gesture in favour of Marxism" is extremely rude and hubristic.
Saying anyone using an anti-racism gesture is Marxist because some are is as absurd as saying that anyone who flies the flag is racist because a minority of people doing so are racist.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
Indeed.
The problem they are trying to legislate is the organisers of these boat parties are rather good at trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Hence a law to prosecute anybody in the general vicinity, pretty much.
What you need to do, is to intercept all the boats, take everyone off them, and put them somewhere safe, that they didn't want to go. That news would travel back up the line quite fast and the boat trips would go out of fashion.
Exactly. People take boats because it's a very effective way of gaining admission to the country, with removals - once here - being a manageable risk.
They also take the view, according to interviews with actual migrants who've used such routes, that at worst they will end up where they started. In the hell hole known as France....
Apparently some traffickers actually offer a we-will-keep-sending-you-until-you-get-into-the-destination service...
"I WANT to get to the UK." - NOT an asylum seeker.
with regard to the RNLI problem, on reflection it looks more and more like the problem may rest with Priti Patel. She acts from the gut and tries to drive through what she thinks is right, and has had a good run, with a bit of luck. However, she has never come across as being particularly appreciative of the nuances of her position, in the manner that Amber Rudd and Theresa May were.
I broadly agree. Maybe that's because Priti Patel is too interested in gesture politics, even more so than the England football team? Her 'solutions' are those that appeal to her Essex base, rather than focusing on the extraordinary complexity of resolving the migrant/asylum seeker issue. Diplomatic skills may also be helpful, I guess, in discussions with the French and others.
I don't think there is an equivalence between the gesture politics of Patel and the England team. Taking the knee ostensibly is to highlight racism, which is a blot on any society. Culture war aims to disrespect other people's principles and opinions. The first might be naive, but people can see the good intentions behind it. Disrespecting other people is not nice and at the extremes actually sinister. The Johnson regime wasn't prepared to be called out, and certainly not by very polite and articulate young footballers. To be fair (if that's the right word), Johnson doesn't actually believe in his own Culture War. He is totally cynical about Culture War because he thinks benefits from it. If the pushback shows that maybe it isn't the slamdunk he thought it was, that's all to the good.
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
That is frankly a ridiculous statement.
From the latest PHE reports, a total of 117 double jabbed people have died in 6 months.....those are the facts. Unless you think PHE are lying. This number will increase, but it is a fraction of what it was before vaccination. CFR was beteen 0.1 and 0.2% no vaccine, i believe the latest estimate is 0.0085% if double jabbed.
You are a bright bloke, you must surely understand when it is stated a vaccine is 80% efficient against infection, that means there are still going to be significant number of infections.
The point is being double jabbed then also massively reduces chance thay covid goes south and you end up in hospital and even more so dying from it.
This is one of the best posts I have read on PB for a long time.
Just listened to Layla Moran on BBC talking about why she was taking the knee to fight 'systemic racism' in Britain.
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
I should hope they did, its a good thing.
You have an issue with fighting systemic racism? Are you in favour of systemic racism?
Of course not, but I don't believe Britain is systemically racist, either.
I cite as my evidence the Sewell report, which concluded it wasn't. A conclusion for which Sewell and others were racially abused in disgusting ways. Labour? BLM? silent.
Do you disagree with its findings?
The Sewell report wasn't as black and white as you make out. It didn't find that Britain as a whole was systemically racist, but it did find that there were some very serious racial issues that needed addressing.
I agree with that and I support fighting systemic racism were it exists as per the Sewell report. Don't you?
Well Philip as you are such a proud and committed anti-racist, then perhaps you can name some institutions in Britain that are systemically racist, so that we can all fight them together?
After you have been sued and paid their legal costs, of course.
Constable Savage wants a word.....
So the constables taking the knee at the BLM protests last year were....???
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
I suspect most football fans booing the players couldn't tell you what Marxism is.
But this wasn't instigated out of thin air by the England footballers. This came about because of the murder of a black man by a white police officer in the USA. Furthermore, the footballers wore shirts with the words Black Lives Matter on them and Sky Sports have stuck those words on every PL game since.
So I would say that whilst most of the football fans who object to it couldn't articulate what it is they don't like about it, they know very well that they don't like it and it isn't because they're nasty racists.
I think I might be changing my mind re lifting the restrictions
Just had a chat with one of my colleagues - his wife (double jabbed) just gone down with Covid
Another guy and his family in isolation as they went to a friends house on Sunday - the male friend went to footie Wednesday and now he and all his family have tested positive.
More people at my sons school have tested positive - some of them appear to have caught it from fag breaks - his school had bubbles to keep groups separate and that was the only time they mixed (in hind sight not the greatest of ideas)
This thing spreads fast
Yes, also anecdotally, a sensible colleague who is careful in her habits and has been jabbed has just gone down with Covid and is very ill. People who say "Oh, virtually nobody dies from it now so let's stop worrying" have a lot to answer for.
That is frankly a ridiculous statement.
From the latest PHE reports, a total of 117 double jabbed people have died in 6 months.....those are the facts. Unless you think PHE are lying. This number will increase, but it is a fraction of what it was before vaccination. CFR was beteen 0.1 and 0.2% no vaccine, i believe the latest estimate is 0.0085% if double jabbed.
You are a bright bloke, you must surely understand when it is stated a vaccine is 80% efficient against infection, that means there are still going to be significant number of infections.
The point is being double jabbed then also massively reduces chance thay covid goes south and you end up in hospital and even more so dying from it.
This is one of the best posts I have read on PB for a long time.
I should correct something, that CFR stat, I missed off i believe it is for under 50s. But basically, double jabbed and not oldie, the level of protection against death from COVID is such you are in more danger from everything else going on in your everyday life.
Even among the oldest and most vulnerable, if they do suffer vaccine escape and do catch it, hospitalisation is down from over 10%+ to I think 2%.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
I suspect most football fans booing the players couldn't tell you what Marxism is.
But this wasn't instigated out of thin air by the England footballers. This came about because of the murder of a black man by a white police officer in the USA. Furthermore, the footballers wore shirts with the words Black Lives Matter on them and Sky Sports have stuck those words on every PL game since.
So I would say that whilst most of the football fans who object to it couldn't articulate what it is they don't like about it, they know very well that they don't like it and it isn't because they're nasty racists.
There's nothing wrong with saying Black Lives Matter. Anymore than there's anything wrong with saying Justice for the 96.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
And there are lifeboatwomen. Not to accuse you of sexism but to imagine the media photo opportunities - not merely steelyjawed greyhaired mariners being sent to Parkhurst, but the likes of a physically fit 18yo blonde lady in a RNLI tracksuit being sentenced to Borstal for rescuing some furriners.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
I suspect most football fans booing the players couldn't tell you what Marxism is.
But this wasn't instigated out of thin air by the England footballers. This came about because of the murder of a black man by a white police officer in the USA. Furthermore, the footballers wore shirts with the words Black Lives Matter on them and Sky Sports have stuck those words on every PL game since.
So I would say that whilst most of the football fans who object to it couldn't articulate what it is they don't like about it, they know very well that they don't like it and it isn't because they're nasty racists.
There's nothing wrong with saying Black Lives Matter. Anymore than there's anything wrong with saying Justice for the 96.
Except that it isn't some generic anti-racism campaign. How many Asian players in the Premier League? Seems pretty racist to me.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
I suspect most football fans booing the players couldn't tell you what Marxism is.
But this wasn't instigated out of thin air by the England footballers. This came about because of the murder of a black man by a white police officer in the USA. Furthermore, the footballers wore shirts with the words Black Lives Matter on them and Sky Sports have stuck those words on every PL game since.
So I would say that whilst most of the football fans who object to it couldn't articulate what it is they don't like about it, they know very well that they don't like it and it isn't because they're nasty racists.
Black Lives Matter in this context = black lives matter.
And who could complain about some capitalisation? And if you think that there is no read across in the UK of black people being unfairly or excessively targeted by the police if thankfully not shot, then that does betray a naivety unbecoming of a PB contributor.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
I suspect most football fans booing the players couldn't tell you what Marxism is.
But this wasn't instigated out of thin air by the England footballers. This came about because of the murder of a black man by a white police officer in the USA. Furthermore, the footballers wore shirts with the words Black Lives Matter on them and Sky Sports have stuck those words on every PL game since.
So I would say that whilst most of the football fans who object to it couldn't articulate what it is they don't like about it, they know very well that they don't like it and it isn't because they're nasty racists.
There's nothing wrong with saying Black Lives Matter. Anymore than there's anything wrong with saying Justice for the 96.
Except that it isn't some generic anti-racism campaign. How many Asian players in the Premier League? Seems pretty racist to me.
Why should it be generic?
Justice for the 96 wasn't generic, it wasn't demanding justice for all.
Saying there's an issue for some people - the 96, blacks or anyone else - does not mean there's no issue for others too.
Demanding it should be generic is as pathetic as Corbyn responding to antisemitism issues by saying he opposes all racism while refusing to deal with antisemitism.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
Its extremely arrogant and conceited whataboutery.
If lots of people are saying "I am doing this gesture against racism" then to have other people turn around and say "no you're not, this is a gesture in favour of Marxism" is extremely rude and hubristic.
Saying anyone using an anti-racism gesture is Marxist because some are is as absurd as saying that anyone who flies the flag is racist because a minority of people doing so are racist.
I see so gesture is in the eyes of the doer and never related to any political movement, eh Philip?
''are you going to come quietly Mr white-thug?''
"Well no officer, because see, for me, that Nazi salute is actually my symbolic protest against climate change. As Philip Thompson has decreed, the meaning of gesture rests with the DOER. You must accept my version of what it means, because your opinion as passive viewer does not matter"
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
And there are lifeboatwomen. Not to accuse you of sexism but to imagine the media photo opportunities - not merely steelyjawed greyhaired mariners being sent to Parkhurst, but the likes of a physically fit 18yo blonde lady in a RNLI tracksuit being sentenced to Borstal for rescuing some furriners.
Indeed. Paid homage to her grave not too long back. And very impressed with the young of both sexes acting as volunteers these days. Not just RNLI - I once knew someome who'd been to Atlantic College and was, I think, on their lifeboat crew. Which, as pointed out on PB today, is also in the firing line.
It's not because I'm particularly interested in photos of young ladies, certainly by the standards of some on PB I suspect, but because I can visualise what the media would make of this particular meal (rightly or wrongly).
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
Its extremely arrogant and conceited whataboutery.
If lots of people are saying "I am doing this gesture against racism" then to have other people turn around and say "no you're not, this is a gesture in favour of Marxism" is extremely rude and hubristic.
Saying anyone using an anti-racism gesture is Marxist because some are is as absurd as saying that anyone who flies the flag is racist because a minority of people doing so are racist.
I see so gesture is in the eyes of the doer and never related to any political movement, eh Philip?
''are you going to come quietly Mr white-thug?''
"Well no officer, because see, for me, that Nazi salute is actually my symbolic protest against climate change. As Philip Thompson has decreed, the meaning of gesture rests with the DOER. You must accept my version of what it means, because your opinion as passive viewer does not matter"
Nah it's pretty obvious what's going on. Sports people (and leaders of the opposition for some reason) have adopted a neat symbol to denote their opposition to racism. As many of those who have adopted it have been subject to racism I think we can allow them to display their objection. I won't be going out with a BLM armband but then I don't have millions of people tuning into my activities on the TV.
It is a benign gesture not seeking to offend anyone, indeed the opposite. Not quite the same as a nazi salute.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
Its extremely arrogant and conceited whataboutery.
If lots of people are saying "I am doing this gesture against racism" then to have other people turn around and say "no you're not, this is a gesture in favour of Marxism" is extremely rude and hubristic.
Saying anyone using an anti-racism gesture is Marxist because some are is as absurd as saying that anyone who flies the flag is racist because a minority of people doing so are racist.
I see so gesture is in the eyes of the doer and never related to any political movement, eh Philip?
''are you going to come quietly Mr white-thug?''
"Well no officer, because see, for me, that Nazi salute is actually my symbolic protest against climate change. As Philip Thompson has decreed, the meaning of gesture rests with the DOER. You must accept my version of what it means, because your opinion as passive viewer does not matter"
The Nazi salute is universally associated with Nazis.
An anti-racism knee gesture is pretty universally associated with being against racism. Next to nobody associates it with Marxism.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
I suspect most football fans booing the players couldn't tell you what Marxism is.
But this wasn't instigated out of thin air by the England footballers. This came about because of the murder of a black man by a white police officer in the USA. Furthermore, the footballers wore shirts with the words Black Lives Matter on them and Sky Sports have stuck those words on every PL game since.
So I would say that whilst most of the football fans who object to it couldn't articulate what it is they don't like about it, they know very well that they don't like it and it isn't because they're nasty racists.
Black Lives Matter in this context = black lives matter.
And who could complain about some capitalisation? And if you think that there is no read across in the UK of black people being unfairly or excessively targeted by the police if thankfully not shot, then that does betray a naivety unbecoming of a PB contributor.
In any case, the Americans capitalise everything. They Even Capitalise How To Make Pancakes From Our Mix. As well complain about Black Lives Matter being in English.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
Indeed.
The problem they are trying to legislate is the organisers of these boat parties are rather good at trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Hence a law to prosecute anybody in the general vicinity, pretty much.
What you need to do, is to intercept all the boats, take everyone off them, and put them somewhere safe, that they didn't want to go. That news would travel back up the line quite fast and the boat trips would go out of fashion.
Exactly. People take boats because it's a very effective way of gaining admission to the country, with removals - once here - being a manageable risk.
They also take the view, according to interviews with actual migrants who've used such routes, that at worst they will end up where they started. In the hell hole known as France....
Apparently some traffickers actually offer a we-will-keep-sending-you-until-you-get-into-the-destination service...
"I WANT to get to the UK." - NOT an asylum seeker.
Again, you are assuming a binary asylum seeker/not asylum seeker.
What about the chap who is in a kind of dicey situation in country x, but also wants to go somewhere he thinks he can get a job?
Are we back to - yet again - failing to grasp the concept of conditional probabilities?
Strap yourself in, we are in for a year of this....
My great fear is that the antivaxxers and zerocovidians have now blended into one amorphous bloc. Both groups seem to get up every morning determined to find new ways to trash the vaccines.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
I suspect most football fans booing the players couldn't tell you what Marxism is.
But this wasn't instigated out of thin air by the England footballers. This came about because of the murder of a black man by a white police officer in the USA. Furthermore, the footballers wore shirts with the words Black Lives Matter on them and Sky Sports have stuck those words on every PL game since.
So I would say that whilst most of the football fans who object to it couldn't articulate what it is they don't like about it, they know very well that they don't like it and it isn't because they're nasty racists.
Black Lives Matter in this context = black lives matter.
And who could complain about some capitalisation? And if you think that there is no read across in the UK of black people being unfairly or excessively targeted by the police if thankfully not shot, then that does betray a naivety unbecoming of a PB contributor.
I wasn't suggesting that capitals mattered - indeed, Sky have been keen to stress that it isn't about the organisation. But why not just stick the Kick It Out logo up? It feels like that no one was brave enough to say "look, we've made our point regarding the murder of George Floyd, time to move on". And so everything has been mixed up together, which I don't think is helpful when the football world pretends this is something that is generic.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
Indeed.
The problem they are trying to legislate is the organisers of these boat parties are rather good at trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Hence a law to prosecute anybody in the general vicinity, pretty much.
What you need to do, is to intercept all the boats, take everyone off them, and put them somewhere safe, that they didn't want to go. That news would travel back up the line quite fast and the boat trips would go out of fashion.
Exactly. People take boats because it's a very effective way of gaining admission to the country, with removals - once here - being a manageable risk.
They also take the view, according to interviews with actual migrants who've used such routes, that at worst they will end up where they started. In the hell hole known as France....
Apparently some traffickers actually offer a we-will-keep-sending-you-until-you-get-into-the-destination service...
"I WANT to get to the UK." - NOT an asylum seeker.
Again, you are assuming a binary asylum seeker/not asylum seeker.
What about the chap who is in a kind of dicey situation in country x, but also wants to go somewhere he thinks he can get a job?
Then he can claim asylum in any country where he can get asylum, then seek to get a visa to go somewhere he wants to go.
Being an asylum seeker isn't a blank cheque to be an economic migrant to any nation you choose to go to.
Except that isn't true. The "legal commitment" gave reasons that it might not be able to be met, including financial circumstances, and said that if that was the case it gave provision for statements in Parliament to resolve it.
The financial circumstances have changed theres been a statement in Parliament and a vote to resolve it, as per the law.
No legal commitment reneged on. The law was followed.
That presupposes the government is actually constrained by those circumstances and is disapplying its commitment to the least extent possible. It isn't. That's why it changed the law, which it has the power to do. But it's like principles. If we don't like this law, we can have others. Why would anyone believe them when even their laws aren't worth the paper they are written on?
They haven't changed the law, that would take an Act of Parliament.
They've issued a statement within the confines of the existing law, following the procedure laid down within the existing law.
No law change has occurred. Exercising a provision of a law is not a change in the law.
You may technically be correct. Time to reach for a constitutional lawyer. In effect the Act and the legal obligations on the government have been over-ridden by a ministerial statement, such that the Ministerial Statement, not the Act, is now the statement of law. According to Falconer, this is a novel and highly dubious constitutional manoeuvre.
The thread is here and speaks to the point that @Foxy made about a government that puts itself above the law being a danger to every citizen.
Constitutional lawyer? I think you mean opposition partisan politician do you not? Hasn't he resigned yet?
The Act foresaw and specifically names financial circumstance as being a reason why the 0.7% is not met and specifically says that if its not met there needs to be a statement before Parliament explaining why.
The 0.7% isn't being met for the reasons explained and there's been a statement before Parliament explaining why, as per the provisions of the Act.
You are confusing obligation with accountability. The obligation of the original Act on the government isn't diminished by the weak accountability measures. ie the the obligation under the Act to meet the 0.7% target isn't removed by a statement being brought to Parliament. The obligation is replaced however in yesterday's ministerial statement.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
Indeed.
The problem they are trying to legislate is the organisers of these boat parties are rather good at trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Hence a law to prosecute anybody in the general vicinity, pretty much.
What you need to do, is to intercept all the boats, take everyone off them, and put them somewhere safe, that they didn't want to go. That news would travel back up the line quite fast and the boat trips would go out of fashion.
Exactly. People take boats because it's a very effective way of gaining admission to the country, with removals - once here - being a manageable risk.
They also take the view, according to interviews with actual migrants who've used such routes, that at worst they will end up where they started. In the hell hole known as France....
Apparently some traffickers actually offer a we-will-keep-sending-you-until-you-get-into-the-destination service...
"I WANT to get to the UK." - NOT an asylum seeker.
Again, you are assuming a binary asylum seeker/not asylum seeker.
What about the chap who is in a kind of dicey situation in country x, but also wants to go somewhere he thinks he can get a job?
Then he can claim asylum in any country where he can get asylum, then seek to get a visa to go somewhere he wants to go.
Being an asylum seeker isn't a blank cheque to be an economic migrant to any nation you choose to go to.
I suggest you read up, somebody can claim asylum in whatever country they choose
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
Its extremely arrogant and conceited whataboutery.
If lots of people are saying "I am doing this gesture against racism" then to have other people turn around and say "no you're not, this is a gesture in favour of Marxism" is extremely rude and hubristic.
Saying anyone using an anti-racism gesture is Marxist because some are is as absurd as saying that anyone who flies the flag is racist because a minority of people doing so are racist.
I see so gesture is in the eyes of the doer and never related to any political movement, eh Philip?
''are you going to come quietly Mr white-thug?''
"Well no officer, because see, for me, that Nazi salute is actually my symbolic protest against climate change. As Philip Thompson has decreed, the meaning of gesture rests with the DOER. You must accept my version of what it means, because your opinion as passive viewer does not matter"
The Nazi salute is universally associated with Nazis.
An anti-racism knee gesture is pretty universally associated with being against racism. Next to nobody associates it with Marxism.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
I suspect most football fans booing the players couldn't tell you what Marxism is.
But this wasn't instigated out of thin air by the England footballers. This came about because of the murder of a black man by a white police officer in the USA. Furthermore, the footballers wore shirts with the words Black Lives Matter on them and Sky Sports have stuck those words on every PL game since.
So I would say that whilst most of the football fans who object to it couldn't articulate what it is they don't like about it, they know very well that they don't like it and it isn't because they're nasty racists.
Black Lives Matter in this context = black lives matter.
And who could complain about some capitalisation? And if you think that there is no read across in the UK of black people being unfairly or excessively targeted by the police if thankfully not shot, then that does betray a naivety unbecoming of a PB contributor.
I wasn't suggesting that capitals mattered - indeed, Sky have been keen to stress that it isn't about the organisation. But why not just stick the Kick It Out logo up? It feels like that no one was brave enough to say "look, we've made our point regarding the murder of George Floyd, time to move on". And so everything has been mixed up together, which I don't think is helpful when the football world pretends this is something that is generic.
Maybe because people don't think its time to move on as they do think that black lives matter makes a good point so they want to keep saying it until they cease to face racism?
Its not on you to determine when they're not facing racism anymore.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
Its extremely arrogant and conceited whataboutery.
If lots of people are saying "I am doing this gesture against racism" then to have other people turn around and say "no you're not, this is a gesture in favour of Marxism" is extremely rude and hubristic.
Saying anyone using an anti-racism gesture is Marxist because some are is as absurd as saying that anyone who flies the flag is racist because a minority of people doing so are racist.
I see so gesture is in the eyes of the doer and never related to any political movement, eh Philip?
''are you going to come quietly Mr white-thug?''
"Well no officer, because see, for me, that Nazi salute is actually my symbolic protest against climate change. As Philip Thompson has decreed, the meaning of gesture rests with the DOER. You must accept my version of what it means, because your opinion as passive viewer does not matter"
How the fuck does taking the knee make you a Marxist??
I mean, did Marx himself ever take the knee? Did Lenin? Stalin??
Except that isn't true. The "legal commitment" gave reasons that it might not be able to be met, including financial circumstances, and said that if that was the case it gave provision for statements in Parliament to resolve it.
The financial circumstances have changed theres been a statement in Parliament and a vote to resolve it, as per the law.
No legal commitment reneged on. The law was followed.
That presupposes the government is actually constrained by those circumstances and is disapplying its commitment to the least extent possible. It isn't. That's why it changed the law, which it has the power to do. But it's like principles. If we don't like this law, we can have others. Why would anyone believe them when even their laws aren't worth the paper they are written on?
They haven't changed the law, that would take an Act of Parliament.
They've issued a statement within the confines of the existing law, following the procedure laid down within the existing law.
No law change has occurred. Exercising a provision of a law is not a change in the law.
You may technically be correct. Time to reach for a constitutional lawyer. In effect the Act and the legal obligations on the government have been over-ridden by a ministerial statement, such that the Ministerial Statement, not the Act, is now the statement of law. According to Falconer, this is a novel and highly dubious constitutional manoeuvre.
The thread is here and speaks to the point that @Foxy made about a government that puts itself above the law being a danger to every citizen.
Constitutional lawyer? I think you mean opposition partisan politician do you not? Hasn't he resigned yet?
The Act foresaw and specifically names financial circumstance as being a reason why the 0.7% is not met and specifically says that if its not met there needs to be a statement before Parliament explaining why.
The 0.7% isn't being met for the reasons explained and there's been a statement before Parliament explaining why, as per the provisions of the Act.
You are confusing obligation with accountability. The obligation of the original Act on the government isn't diminished by the weak accountability measures. ie the the obligation under the Act to meet the 0.7% target isn't removed by a statement being brought to Parliament. The obligation is replaced however in yesterday's ministerial statement.
There was never an obligation to meet it 100% of the time, that's why the provisions for it not being met were there in the Act. Provisions that have been exercised.
There'd be no need for any such provisions if there were a universal obligation.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
Its extremely arrogant and conceited whataboutery.
If lots of people are saying "I am doing this gesture against racism" then to have other people turn around and say "no you're not, this is a gesture in favour of Marxism" is extremely rude and hubristic.
Saying anyone using an anti-racism gesture is Marxist because some are is as absurd as saying that anyone who flies the flag is racist because a minority of people doing so are racist.
I see so gesture is in the eyes of the doer and never related to any political movement, eh Philip?
''are you going to come quietly Mr white-thug?''
"Well no officer, because see, for me, that Nazi salute is actually my symbolic protest against climate change. As Philip Thompson has decreed, the meaning of gesture rests with the DOER. You must accept my version of what it means, because your opinion as passive viewer does not matter"
The Nazi salute is universally associated with Nazis.
An anti-racism knee gesture is pretty universally associated with being against racism. Next to nobody associates it with Marxism.
Well, this Roman would beg to differ...
It was my protest against climate change, officer, don't you know you must accept the doer's version of what a gesture is......in all cases.....
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
Indeed.
The problem they are trying to legislate is the organisers of these boat parties are rather good at trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Hence a law to prosecute anybody in the general vicinity, pretty much.
What you need to do, is to intercept all the boats, take everyone off them, and put them somewhere safe, that they didn't want to go. That news would travel back up the line quite fast and the boat trips would go out of fashion.
Exactly. People take boats because it's a very effective way of gaining admission to the country, with removals - once here - being a manageable risk.
They also take the view, according to interviews with actual migrants who've used such routes, that at worst they will end up where they started. In the hell hole known as France....
Apparently some traffickers actually offer a we-will-keep-sending-you-until-you-get-into-the-destination service...
"I WANT to get to the UK." - NOT an asylum seeker.
Again, you are assuming a binary asylum seeker/not asylum seeker.
What about the chap who is in a kind of dicey situation in country x, but also wants to go somewhere he thinks he can get a job?
Then he can claim asylum in any country where he can get asylum, then seek to get a visa to go somewhere he wants to go.
Being an asylum seeker isn't a blank cheque to be an economic migrant to any nation you choose to go to.
I suggest you read up, somebody can claim asylum in whatever country they choose
Doesn't give them a right to go through dozens of safe countries to shop around for whatever country they want for non-asylum related reasons.
Lawyer here. The only part I disagree with Cyclefree’s over is her interpretation of subsection 3. I think the concern about the RNLI is slightly overstated (but not misplaced at all) given the RNLI is likely a non profit that aims to assist asylum seekers (specifically those in distress at sea) and thus exempted by section 25(A)(3)?
Agree that it creates confusion and thus an intolerable situation for the RNLI though.
Any government that wants to lose the next election by 300 seats will make sure that lifeboatmen go to prison for saving people from drowning.
To repeat myself
You don't think things through. Say you have a dinghy full of people in the English channel in good weather with everything a bit borderline: might be overloaded or just very full, has food water and fuel but maybe not enough, has chart and compass but the skipper looks a bit vague about using them. Does the lifeboat take them in tow? If it does does the same boat, same situation, turn up the following day in hope of a tow? Does the lifeboat refuse because We did you yesterday? And so on.
It isn't going to be a "Grace Darling is innocent" scenario.
Exactly. And that is before someone on the dingy declares an emergency. Or even creates emergencies - this has occurred and been filmed in the Med.
I don't disagree with all this, but stick to my point that the public will not vote for a government which allows RNLI men to go to prison for saving people from drowning. Which means, among other things, that it won't happen.
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
Indeed.
The problem they are trying to legislate is the organisers of these boat parties are rather good at trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Hence a law to prosecute anybody in the general vicinity, pretty much.
What you need to do, is to intercept all the boats, take everyone off them, and put them somewhere safe, that they didn't want to go. That news would travel back up the line quite fast and the boat trips would go out of fashion.
Exactly. People take boats because it's a very effective way of gaining admission to the country, with removals - once here - being a manageable risk.
They also take the view, according to interviews with actual migrants who've used such routes, that at worst they will end up where they started. In the hell hole known as France....
Apparently some traffickers actually offer a we-will-keep-sending-you-until-you-get-into-the-destination service...
"I WANT to get to the UK." - NOT an asylum seeker.
Again, you are assuming a binary asylum seeker/not asylum seeker.
What about the chap who is in a kind of dicey situation in country x, but also wants to go somewhere he thinks he can get a job?
Then he can claim asylum in any country where he can get asylum, then seek to get a visa to go somewhere he wants to go.
Being an asylum seeker isn't a blank cheque to be an economic migrant to any nation you choose to go to.
I suggest you read up, somebody can claim asylum in whatever country they choose
Doesn't give them a right to go through dozens of safe countries to shop around for whatever country they want for non-asylum related reasons.
Yes, it does. They can claim asylum in whatever country they choose!
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
Its extremely arrogant and conceited whataboutery.
If lots of people are saying "I am doing this gesture against racism" then to have other people turn around and say "no you're not, this is a gesture in favour of Marxism" is extremely rude and hubristic.
Saying anyone using an anti-racism gesture is Marxist because some are is as absurd as saying that anyone who flies the flag is racist because a minority of people doing so are racist.
I see so gesture is in the eyes of the doer and never related to any political movement, eh Philip?
''are you going to come quietly Mr white-thug?''
"Well no officer, because see, for me, that Nazi salute is actually my symbolic protest against climate change. As Philip Thompson has decreed, the meaning of gesture rests with the DOER. You must accept my version of what it means, because your opinion as passive viewer does not matter"
The Nazi salute is universally associated with Nazis.
An anti-racism knee gesture is pretty universally associated with being against racism. Next to nobody associates it with Marxism.
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
I suspect most football fans booing the players couldn't tell you what Marxism is.
But this wasn't instigated out of thin air by the England footballers. This came about because of the murder of a black man by a white police officer in the USA. Furthermore, the footballers wore shirts with the words Black Lives Matter on them and Sky Sports have stuck those words on every PL game since.
So I would say that whilst most of the football fans who object to it couldn't articulate what it is they don't like about it, they know very well that they don't like it and it isn't because they're nasty racists.
Black Lives Matter in this context = black lives matter.
And who could complain about some capitalisation? And if you think that there is no read across in the UK of black people being unfairly or excessively targeted by the police if thankfully not shot, then that does betray a naivety unbecoming of a PB contributor.
I wasn't suggesting that capitals mattered - indeed, Sky have been keen to stress that it isn't about the organisation. But why not just stick the Kick It Out logo up? It feels like that no one was brave enough to say "look, we've made our point regarding the murder of George Floyd, time to move on". And so everything has been mixed up together, which I don't think is helpful when the football world pretends this is something that is generic.
My own view is that Kick it Out is the Rock Against Racism of the anti-racist world - pretty middle-class friendly (and perhaps less effective) whereas BLM is more akin to the ANL which took a more, er, pro-active approach on the streets.
BLM is the more streetwise and your mother wouldn't like it anti-racist group.
Netherlands watch: 10,426 positives today, up from 3,600 a week ago. A big leap, but we are already down from 6-fold week-on-week increase to three-fold. Would be too optimistic to say 'flattening out' yet but rate of increase decreasing rapidly. Long way to go yet. Netherlands positives per capita now ahead of UK's - though we're yet to have the figures for the UK for 'sicky Wednesday' (an acceptable analog to 'murder Tuesday'?)
Mr. Felix, cultish rituals are a substitute for useful action and a means by which members of said cult can know one another.
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
Morris I reckon it is only you, @Leon, and Douglas Murray (who I rate btw) who have the faintest idea that the BLM movement is Marxist, that the BLM movement is a movement, or what the hell Marxism is.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
Its extremely arrogant and conceited whataboutery.
If lots of people are saying "I am doing this gesture against racism" then to have other people turn around and say "no you're not, this is a gesture in favour of Marxism" is extremely rude and hubristic.
Saying anyone using an anti-racism gesture is Marxist because some are is as absurd as saying that anyone who flies the flag is racist because a minority of people doing so are racist.
I see so gesture is in the eyes of the doer and never related to any political movement, eh Philip?
''are you going to come quietly Mr white-thug?''
"Well no officer, because see, for me, that Nazi salute is actually my symbolic protest against climate change. As Philip Thompson has decreed, the meaning of gesture rests with the DOER. You must accept my version of what it means, because your opinion as passive viewer does not matter"
The Nazi salute is universally associated with Nazis.
An anti-racism knee gesture is pretty universally associated with being against racism. Next to nobody associates it with Marxism.
Well, this Roman would beg to differ...
Mussolini was allied to Hitler, remember?
Eh, that's a Roman salute isn't it? But adopted as, and now widely remembered as, the Hitlergruss. Which everyone associates with the chaps with black uniforms and black, red and white armbands.
Comments
Essicks Massiv was roundly condemned on this site by PB Tories across the board.
Then we had one single cranky extreme backbench MP use the same comments.
That says nothing other than Essicks Massive and that one single cranky extreme backbench MP think alike.
If there were a WhatsApp "line to take" there'd be dozens, or hundreds of MPs saying the same thing word for word.
Tories don't like it when the proles breed - which is ironic given the literal meaning of the word "proletarian". Hence what used to be the widespread Tory belief that many working class single mothers only had babies so they could get council flats. You have to wonder whether anyone who believes such rubbish has ever actually met a working class single mother in their whole life.
For what it is worth, I should imagine any court would quite easily interpret the concept of assistance of an asylum seeker purposively. It would look to the intention of the RNLI and conclude the intention was to save a person in distress at sea, even if that had the double effect of enabling an asylum seeking to reach dry land who might otherwise have drowned.
That said, if I were drafting the bill, I would include express provision to this effect. Indeed, I would be surprised if the bill were not amended in committee to this effect. Very many goverment bills are poorly drafted and have to be amended in committee or in the Lords. The fact that this bill is badly drafted i par for the course; it does not necessarily indicate malice or deliberate intent on the part of the Goverment.
A terrible example of this was the German Transrapid Maglev - where brochures said that collisions were impossible. Before a collision killed 23 people. They kidded themselves that the engineering stopped collisions, when human factors intervened.
IMO too many engineers fail to ask the vital question: "How does it fail?"
Off the cuff, I would say that dealing with dangerous dogs requires enforcement in detail of owner’s responsibilty for the animals in their care. The DDA’s approach of outlawing specific breeds was wrongheaded & almost completely pointless. Likewise, dealing with asylum seekers in an appropriate fashion that takes account of our responsibilities & common humanity is going to be mostly about the detail of enforcement. Criminalising owners / staff of vessels picking up boats in the Channel is attacking a tiny part of the people smuggling funnel in the most ham-fisted way is unlikely to make a great deal of difference imo.
I don't agree that he missed his penalty because he was campaigning for school meals. That's daft. He's allowed some life outside practicing football. But I think that was just a clumsy attempt at a joke. I don't think HYUFD believes that really.
Even Steve Baker gets it!
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jun/07/boris-johnson-refuses-to-condemn-fans-booing-england-taking-the-knee
Some years ago the SNP favoured the use of “London” as a disparagement. Scotland’s woes were the fault of “London Labour”, which was usefully alliterative, or “the London government”. This went out of fashion around the time of the 2012 Olympics when the SNP belatedly realised London was in fact quite a cool place with a centre-left outlook not unlike our own
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-progressive-england-scares-hell-out-of-snp-vn9mjx8wz
Hence the Boeing comedies - just slap another layer into the system. The airliners and the space capsules have all that legacy knowledge in there to protect us from any problems....
Yes, there is a scandal, yes there are no good and easy answers, and threatening RNLI men is among the not good answers. I can foresee the Daily Mail photo of the 4 year old's dead body on the south coast beach right now, and so can Boris.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1415293109441908736?s=19
Wonder if the lib dems mentioned that on the doorsteps of Chesham and Amersham.
You have an issue with fighting systemic racism? Are you in favour of systemic racism?
The two polls yesterday showed movement in the opposite direction. Take your pick.
I am surprised with Hancock scandal they didn't see a much bigger more immediate hit, as occurred with Cummings. But then I thought they would be hammered by the Indian variant being rampant.
The problem they are trying to legislate is the organisers of these boat parties are rather good at trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Hence a law to prosecute anybody in the general vicinity, pretty much.
What you need to do, is to intercept all the boats, take everyone off them, and put them somewhere safe, that they didn't want to go. That news would travel back up the line quite fast and the boat trips would go out of fashion.
I wonder what first attracted Contrarian to people like Hepple and Trump?
I cite as my evidence the Sewell report, which concluded it wasn't. A conclusion for which Sewell and others were racially abused in disgusting ways. Labour? BLM? silent.
Do you disagree with its findings?
Again, feedback to the Nigel when he films migrants is "let them drown". Some people have had all the humanity crushed out of them and Patel is very happy to gain their support. Your hypothetical dead child would still be alive if he stayed where he came from etc.
I agree with that and I support fighting systemic racism were it exists as per the Sewell report. Don't you?
The thread is here and speaks to the point that @Foxy made about a government that puts itself above the law being a danger to every citizen.
https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1415077645394616325
Apparently some traffickers actually offer a we-will-keep-sending-you-until-you-get-into-the-destination service...
I'm not a fan of this sort of thing, whether it's clapping at one's door, or falling to one's knees.
It achieves nothing. Well, except stoking division when the straightforward message of opposing racism is something almost everyone would be happy to get behind if it weren't tethered to the political bullshit and iconoclast tendencies of BLM.
After you have been sued and paid their legal costs, of course.
Treasury minister Lord Agnew: "We have not expunged the Act, we have suspended it"
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1415296683546714113
Scary stuff...
I'm not sure whether I'll say to my boss that I won't go in until masks aren't mandated on the tube, or whether I'll just go in and not wear a mask and see if I get any grief.
The Act foresaw and specifically names financial circumstance as being a reason why the 0.7% is not met and specifically says that if its not met there needs to be a statement before Parliament explaining why.
The 0.7% isn't being met for the reasons explained and there's been a statement before Parliament explaining why, as per the provisions of the Act.
The Greens, meanwhile, have to look to be polling in double figures, consistently ahead of the Lib Dems, to seize the moment. Then they need to build on the solitary MP they've been stuck on for more than a decade now.
That means a sharpening of the vision, an air of competence, a visibility of key figures. It does not mean being "anarchic" to appeal to a small minority... the Sex Pistols were a popular enough band, but even Johnny Rotten isn't going to claim "Anarchy in the UK" was an election winning strategy.
99.8% of the population sees people making a stand against racism, which undoubtedly exists in our society. Many younger perhaps who knows would-be racists see their heroes and role-models doing it and perhaps that gets them thinking that this racism thing is bad.
I have never been stopped by the police in a car or on a pavement in my whole life (60+), but then I am white.
And on that cheery note, I must be off. This anti-sexism limbo dance isn't going to perform itself.
If lots of people are saying "I am doing this gesture against racism" then to have other people turn around and say "no you're not, this is a gesture in favour of Marxism" is extremely rude and hubristic.
Saying anyone using an anti-racism gesture is Marxist because some are is as absurd as saying that anyone who flies the flag is racist because a minority of people doing so are racist.
But this wasn't instigated out of thin air by the England footballers. This came about because of the murder of a black man by a white police officer in the USA. Furthermore, the footballers wore shirts with the words Black Lives Matter on them and Sky Sports have stuck those words on every PL game since.
So I would say that whilst most of the football fans who object to it couldn't articulate what it is they don't like about it, they know very well that they don't like it and it isn't because they're nasty racists.
Even among the oldest and most vulnerable, if they do suffer vaccine escape and do catch it, hospitalisation is down from over 10%+ to I think 2%.
#PMQs
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1415295903842414600
And who could complain about some capitalisation? And if you think that there is no read across in the UK of black people being unfairly or excessively targeted by the police if thankfully not shot, then that does betray a naivety unbecoming of a PB contributor.
Justice for the 96 wasn't generic, it wasn't demanding justice for all.
Saying there's an issue for some people - the 96, blacks or anyone else - does not mean there's no issue for others too.
Demanding it should be generic is as pathetic as Corbyn responding to antisemitism issues by saying he opposes all racism while refusing to deal with antisemitism.
''are you going to come quietly Mr white-thug?''
"Well no officer, because see, for me, that Nazi salute is actually my symbolic protest against climate change. As Philip Thompson has decreed, the meaning of gesture rests with the DOER. You must accept my version of what it means, because your opinion as passive viewer does not matter"
It's not because I'm particularly interested in photos of young ladies, certainly by the standards of some on PB I suspect, but because I can visualise what the media would make of this particular meal (rightly or wrongly).
It is a benign gesture not seeking to offend anyone, indeed the opposite. Not quite the same as a nazi salute.
An anti-racism knee gesture is pretty universally associated with being against racism. Next to nobody associates it with Marxism.
What about the chap who is in a kind of dicey situation in country x, but also wants to go somewhere he thinks he can get a job?
Sco: 2636 / 11 (3799 / 5)
Wal: 1135 / 1 (636 / 0)
NIr: 636 /1 (570 / 0)
Very ecnouraging signs in Scotland - positives down almost one third in a week. Deaths about 2 weeks behind positives.
Being an asylum seeker isn't a blank cheque to be an economic migrant to any nation you choose to go to.
This is absolutely despicable: sexist and racist.
Its not on you to determine when they're not facing racism anymore.
I mean, did Marx himself ever take the knee? Did Lenin? Stalin??
FFS!
There'd be no need for any such provisions if there were a universal obligation.
BLM is the more streetwise and your mother wouldn't like it anti-racist group.
Netherlands positives per capita now ahead of UK's - though we're yet to have the figures for the UK for 'sicky Wednesday' (an acceptable analog to 'murder Tuesday'?)