politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you fancy a 1% and an 8% return in a little over 2 months t
Comments
-
Dr, as you will doubtless know the October revolution actually took place in November.foxinsoxuk said:
Not necessarily. No election is required, just for this government to collapse and the LOTO to be asked to form a minority government.dyingswan said:May I remind punters looking at these odds of the Great Corbo's own prediction. He told Michael Eavis at Glastonbury on the 24th June that he would be PM within 6 months. That expires on Xmas Eve. Corbo is a straight talking politician. He told us so.Therefore there must be a November GE and Santa Corbo will be eating his vegan turkey and mince pies at number 10. Bet with this Labour promise in mind.
A proletarian rising, and all power to the workers soviets, installing the Jezziah in an October revolution is a further mechanism. Oops, I think that this is still to be kept under wraps
So there is still time.
It is worth remembering everyone laughed at Trotsky and ignored him when he first seized power...0 -
And also the layout of the House of Commons, with the red lines on the floor said to be two swords’ lengths apart.Charles said:
We also have them to blame for toeing the line, crossing the line, etc ...foxinsoxuk said:
Bloody knights and their medieval road rage...Charles said:
More importantly, as most are right handed, your lance is conveniently positioned to strike your opponentIshmael_Z said:
In fact this is another qwerty case where incumbency trumps everything else. There is no doubt that we are right and rhs is wrong, because everyone everywhere mounts a horse from the left.JosiasJessop said:Bringing some reality into the conversation (why?), a few days over fifty years ago, Sweden swapped from driving on the left to the right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H
Not as much chaos as you might expect, although the traffic was undoubtedly lighter back then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-_and_right-hand_traffic0 -
The current system discourages people trading down. Let's say you are living in a £500k house and want to move into a £300k flat. For the economy as a whole, that would be good: you would be using 1,000 square feet rather than 2,000. Scarce resources (space) would be used more efficiently.Pong said:
It has the makings of an excellent policy.Elliot said:Sajid Javid talking about using cheap government borrowing rates to finance massive homebuilding. Sounds like a good Labour policy.
The demand side of the coin needs action too, though. The tories IHT bribe to their client vote - incentivising older people to stay in *the family home* until death so they can pass it onto their kids tax free is a big part of the problem.
But the transactional costs of trading down are very significant, and it will usually make more sense to simply borrow against the equity in your house instead. In other words, we discourage the efficient use of scarce resources.
I would exempt from stamp duty all "trade downs", and there may be other things we can do to increase the efficiency of the market.0 -
Massively amateurish logo? TickSandpit said:
That’s surely a spoof? If they change their logo to that ladder they’ll be getting my membership card back in the post!Ishmael_Z said:
Where it says "Tory Workers", definitely nobody is going to photoshop "Workers" into anything else.Stocky said:Seen this? : "The Tories may be about to change their logo to a ladder"
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/tories-may-change-logo-ladder/
Can`t decide whether this is a serious article? I rather liked the oak tree.
Silly slogan? Tick
It's not real.0 -
Debts still have to be repaid or refinanced (probably refinanced at a much higher rate in the future).Elliot said:Sajid Javid talking about using cheap government borrowing rates to finance massive homebuilding. Sounds like a good Labour policy.
Debt repayment and debt interest equals taxation deferred.0 -
I suspect you may have had more lance training that most of us, Charles.Charles said:
More importantly, as most are right handed, your lance is conveniently positioned to strike your opponentIshmael_Z said:
In fact this is another qwerty case where incumbency trumps everything else. There is no doubt that we are right and rhs is wrong, because everyone everywhere mounts a horse from the left.JosiasJessop said:Bringing some reality into the conversation (why?), a few days over fifty years ago, Sweden swapped from driving on the left to the right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H
Not as much chaos as you might expect, although the traffic was undoubtedly lighter back then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-_and_right-hand_traffic0 -
There are plenty of people in flats - especially those with small children - who would like to move to houses but cannot afford them.HYUFD said:
Uh, no it isn't. It is not that we need expensive detached family homes to be vacated by pensioners to get young people on the housing ladder, it is that we need more affordable new build flats and semi detached properties to be built which are ideally suited to first time buyers, the former for singles and young couples and the latter to young families.Pong said:
It has the makings of an excellent policy.Elliot said:Sajid Javid talking about using cheap government borrowing rates to finance massive homebuilding. Sounds like a good Labour policy.
The demand side of the coin needs action too, though. The tories IHT bribe to their client vote - incentivising older people to stay in *the family home* until death so they can pass it onto their kids tax free is a big part of the problem.
We are looking to encourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource. The current system discourages it.0 -
I saw "The Death of Stalin" this weekend. A well made film and some darkly comic moments. I agree with the Independent's review, except that I thought Jason Isaacs was briliant as Zhukov. It is a funny, yet disturbing film, all the more so for being reasonably accurate.ydoethur said:
Dr, as you will doubtless know the October revolution actually took place in November.foxinsoxuk said:
Not necessarily. No election is required, just for this government to collapse and the LOTO to be asked to form a minority government.dyingswan said:May I remind punters looking at these odds of the Great Corbo's own prediction. He told Michael Eavis at Glastonbury on the 24th June that he would be PM within 6 months. That expires on Xmas Eve. Corbo is a straight talking politician. He told us so.Therefore there must be a November GE and Santa Corbo will be eating his vegan turkey and mince pies at number 10. Bet with this Labour promise in mind.
A proletarian rising, and all power to the workers soviets, installing the Jezziah in an October revolution is a further mechanism. Oops, I think that this is still to be kept under wraps
So there is still time.
It is worth remembering everyone laughed at Trotsky and ignored him when he first seized power...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/the-death-of-stalin-review-armando-iannucci-jason-isaacs-trailer-steve-buscemi-release-date-a8006541.html
The trailer gives a good flavour:
https://youtu.be/ukJ5dMYx2no0 -
Actually, the red lines may be two swords' lengths apart, but it's laid out that way because in the original Palace of Westminster they met in the chapel. So I suspect if the pews were more than two swords' lengths apart that was merely a happy accident.Sandpit said:
And also the layout of the House of Commons, with the red lines on the floor said to be two swords’ lengths apart.Charles said:
We also have them to blame for toeing the line, crossing the line, etc ...foxinsoxuk said:
Bloody knights and their medieval road rage...Charles said:
More importantly, as most are right handed, your lance is conveniently positioned to strike your opponentIshmael_Z said:
In fact this is another qwerty case where incumbency trumps everything else. There is no doubt that we are right and rhs is wrong, because everyone everywhere mounts a horse from the left.JosiasJessop said:Bringing some reality into the conversation (why?), a few days over fifty years ago, Sweden swapped from driving on the left to the right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H
Not as much chaos as you might expect, although the traffic was undoubtedly lighter back then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-_and_right-hand_traffic
And of course not many Victorian gentlemen routinely carrier swords, bearing in mind the present building was constructed from 1837 to 1860.0 -
It's also worth remembering that everybody laughed at David Icke when he said he was the son of God.ydoethur said:
Dr, as you will doubtless know the October revolution actually took place in November.foxinsoxuk said:
Not necessarily. No election is required, just for this government to collapse and the LOTO to be asked to form a minority government.dyingswan said:May I remind punters looking at these odds of the Great Corbo's own prediction. He told Michael Eavis at Glastonbury on the 24th June that he would be PM within 6 months. That expires on Xmas Eve. Corbo is a straight talking politician. He told us so.Therefore there must be a November GE and Santa Corbo will be eating his vegan turkey and mince pies at number 10. Bet with this Labour promise in mind.
A proletarian rising, and all power to the workers soviets, installing the Jezziah in an October revolution is a further mechanism. Oops, I think that this is still to be kept under wraps
So there is still time.
It is worth remembering everyone laughed at Trotsky and ignored him when he first seized power...0 -
And are there old people at the top of the ladder rapidly pulling it up to avoid young people getting on it?Sandpit said:
That’s surely a spoof? If they change their logo to that ladder they’ll be getting my membership card back in the post!Ishmael_Z said:
Where it says "Tory Workers", definitely nobody is going to photoshop "Workers" into anything else.Stocky said:Seen this? : "The Tories may be about to change their logo to a ladder"
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/tories-may-change-logo-ladder/
Can`t decide whether this is a serious article? I rather liked the oak tree.0 -
I went from the sublime to the ridiculous - got Rhode Island right, then Illinois wrong and gave up!Danny565 said:
Thank you very much - saw this just as I was looking for a procrastination in the middle of doing this report for tomorrow, and just wasted 20 minutes on it (and top score was 10 states even after all that time, eek! Fooking Delaware got me out about 4 times).MarqueeMark said:OK, if you want a timewaster..... How much have you learnt about the boundaries of US states from all those Super Tuesdays? Kudos to anybody who does well on this - WARNING - you have to be pixel perfect!
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield
0 -
They may be looking to move to more affordable semis, not expensive detached properties recently vacated by pensioners. Plus of course many of those couples, particularly on an average wage, will be relying on an inheritance from grandparents or parents to help them to move from a flat and be able to afford to move into a semi.rcs1000 said:
There are plenty of people in flats - especially those with small children - who would like to move to houses but cannot afford them.HYUFD said:
Uh, no it isn't. It is not that we need expensive detached family homes to be vacated by pensioners to get young people on the housing ladder, it is that we need more affordable new build flats and semi detached properties to be built which are ideally suited to first time buyers, the former for singles and young couples and the latter to young families.Pong said:
It has the makings of an excellent policy.Elliot said:Sajid Javid talking about using cheap government borrowing rates to finance massive homebuilding. Sounds like a good Labour policy.
The demand side of the coin needs action too, though. The tories IHT bribe to their client vote - incentivising older people to stay in *the family home* until death so they can pass it onto their kids tax free is a big part of the problem.
We are looking to encourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource. The current system discourages it.0 -
Burma's neighbour China drives on the right.ydoethur said:
True, but remember Burmese vehicles are all right hand drive as well.brendan16 said:
If it wasn't for Napoleon the whole world would almost certainly still be driving on the left!rcs1000 said:
83% of people voted against going to RHD in a referendum and the government ignored them.JosiasJessop said:Bringing some reality into the conversation (why?), a few days over fifty years ago, Sweden swapped from driving on the left to the right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H
Not as much chaos as you might expect, although the traffic was undoubtedly lighter back then.
That's serious balls.
It's really only Commonwealth nations that drive on the left now - plus Japan, Indonesia, Ireland and Thailand. Oddly Burma drives on the right despite all its neighbours driving on the left. It would be very costly to change these days for any nation.
http://www.minordiversion.com/2012/03/the-unique-world-of-burmese-driving/0 -
Turn the whole system upside down!HYUFD said:
They may be looking to move to more affordable semis, not expensive detached properties recently vacated by pensioners. Plus of course many of those couples, particularly on an average wage, will be relying on an inheritance from grandparents or parents to help them to move from a flat and be able to afford to move into a semi.rcs1000 said:
There are plenty of people in flats - especially those with small children - who would like to move to houses but cannot afford them.HYUFD said:
Uh, no it isn't. It is not that we need expensive detached family homes to be vacated by pensioners to get young people on the housing ladder, it is that we need more affordable new build flats and semi detached properties to be built which are ideally suited to first time buyers, the former for singles and young couples and the latter to young families.Pong said:
It has the makings of an excellent policy.Elliot said:Sajid Javid talking about using cheap government borrowing rates to finance massive homebuilding. Sounds like a good Labour policy.
The demand side of the coin needs action too, though. The tories IHT bribe to their client vote - incentivising older people to stay in *the family home* until death so they can pass it onto their kids tax free is a big part of the problem.
We are looking to encourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource. The current system discourages it.0 -
It is a chain. Detached owner downsizes, Semi owner moves upscale, terraced owner moves to Semi, terrace comes available for first time buyers. Everybody happy.HYUFD said:
They may be looking to move to more affordable semis, not expensive detached properties recently vacated by pensioners. Plus of course many of those couples, particularly on an average wage, will be relying on an inheritance from grandparents or parents to help them to move from a flat and be able to afford to move into a semi.rcs1000 said:
There are plenty of people in flats - especially those with small children - who would like to move to houses but cannot afford them.HYUFD said:
Uh, no it isn't. It is not that we need expensive detached family homes to be vacated by pensioners to get young people on the housing ladder, it is that we need more affordable new build flats and semi detached properties to be built which are ideally suited to first time buyers, the former for singles and young couples and the latter to young families.Pong said:
It has the makings of an excellent policy.Elliot said:Sajid Javid talking about using cheap government borrowing rates to finance massive homebuilding. Sounds like a good Labour policy.
The demand side of the coin needs action too, though. The tories IHT bribe to their client vote - incentivising older people to stay in *the family home* until death so they can pass it onto their kids tax free is a big part of the problem.
We are looking to encourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource. The current system discourages it.
Currently there is little incentive to downsize, as Pong points out.0 -
Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.0 -
Rhode Island! It's only about 2 pixels wide!BannedInParis said:
delaware's easy - left hand side of a peninsula, half way down the east coast. It's the square ones and sodding Tennessee that do for meMarqueeMark said:
It's evil! I got 23 states - then had to find Delaware! Aaaaargh!!kle4 said:
No kidding - I keep getting very close, but apparently just far enough out (and I swear sometimes you hit the state, but its too near the edge and doesn't count it), and some of those north eastern states are quite small.MarqueeMark said:OK, if you want a timewaster..... How much have you learnt about the boundaries of US states from all those Super Tuesdays? Kudos to anybody who does well on this - WARNING - you have to be pixel perfect!
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield0 -
The detached owner may well downsize but the semi owner may not be able to upsize without the benefit of an inheritance from grandparents or parents given how expensive detached properties are now, especially if you are on an average wage. So it does not necessarily lead to any increased move up the chain, indeed in a few cases it may even lead to less if downsizing means the grandparents miss out on a further rise in the value of the detached house they vacated they could pass on through inheritance to their children and grandchildren. Plus of course many of those trying to get on the housing ladder in the first place will be relying on an inheritance from their grandparents to help them get the deposit for that first flat or terrace or semi.foxinsoxuk said:
It is a chain. Detached owner downsizes, Semi owner moves upscale, terraced owner moves to Semi, terrace comes available for first time buyers. Everybody happy.HYUFD said:
They may be looking to move to more affordable semis, not expensive detached properties recently vacated by pensioners. Plus of course many of those couples, particularly on an average wage, will be relying on an inheritance from grandparents or parents to help them to move from a flat and be able to afford to move into a semi.rcs1000 said:
There are plenty of people in flats - especially those with small children - who would like to move to houses but cannot afford them.HYUFD said:
Uh, no it isn't. It is not that we need expensive detached family homes to be vacated by pensioners to get young people on the housing ladder, it is that we need more affordable new build flats and semi detached properties to be built which are ideally suited to first time buyers, the former for singles and young couples and the latter to young families.Pong said:
It has the makings of an excellent policy.Elliot said:Sajid Javid talking about using cheap government borrowing rates to finance massive homebuilding. Sounds like a good Labour policy.
The demand side of the coin needs action too, though. The tories IHT bribe to their client vote - incentivising older people to stay in *the family home* until death so they can pass it onto their kids tax free is a big part of the problem.
We are looking to encourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource. The current system discourages it.
Currently there is little incentive to downsize, as Pong points out.0 -
Only took me about 40 goes but I managed to get all 50 in the endBenpointer said:
Rhode Island! It's only about 2 pixels wide!BannedInParis said:
delaware's easy - left hand side of a peninsula, half way down the east coast. It's the square ones and sodding Tennessee that do for meMarqueeMark said:
It's evil! I got 23 states - then had to find Delaware! Aaaaargh!!kle4 said:
No kidding - I keep getting very close, but apparently just far enough out (and I swear sometimes you hit the state, but its too near the edge and doesn't count it), and some of those north eastern states are quite small.MarqueeMark said:OK, if you want a timewaster..... How much have you learnt about the boundaries of US states from all those Super Tuesdays? Kudos to anybody who does well on this - WARNING - you have to be pixel perfect!
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield
That might count as cheating though.
I am not sure I will forget where Rhode Island is in a hurry.0 -
....and Labour are going to adopt the snake......Stocky said:Seen this? : "The Tories may be about to change their logo to a ladder"
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/tories-may-change-logo-ladder/
Can`t decide whether this is a serious article? I rather liked the oak tree.0 -
@faisalislam: @faz Even in this negative piece in a German paper - does say there was a positive response to Florence, progress on citizens rights... etc
@faisalislam: @faz .. but it also claims UK now open to possibility of ECJ role on citizens...0 -
-
Latest Catalonia poll points to independence parties maintaining their majority:
http://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20171022/encuesta-elecciones-cataluna-63712990 -
Ladders are good for opportunities, particularly in a time of chaos.Stocky said:Seen this? : "The Tories may be about to change their logo to a ladder"
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/tories-may-change-logo-ladder/
Can`t decide whether this is a serious article? I rather liked the oak tree.
https://youtu.be/iRS8a8HjqFs?t=2m09s
0 -
Verstappen from 16th to fifth after 14 laps. That's some driving...
0 -
https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/922178557564129281
@bopanc: @theresa_may @JunckerEU @MartinSelmayr "Rings around eyes, weak, can't even smile, can't fight her own party, unable to persevere" - leaker really going ad hominem.0 -
It is hard to see a short term solution to this crisis. If they boycott the elections, there'll be trouble, but if they maintain or increase their support in regional elections there'll still be trouble, given Madrid apparently won't bend on crucial issues.calum said:Latest Catalonia poll points to independence parties maintaining their majority:
http://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20171022/encuesta-elecciones-cataluna-6371299
I suppose the main point of interest, assuming the Indy parties take part, would be if they manage to increase support to 50% of the electorate (or indeed, this poll turns out to be wrong and they drop support). One of the BBC reports raised the prospect (not likelihood) of the Indy parties treating the election as in effect election of their independent constituent assembly, oddly.0 -
She has had those rings around her eyes for years - well before the Referendum, let alone since being PM.Scott_P said:https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/922178557564129281
@bopanc: @theresa_may @JunckerEU @MartinSelmayr "Rings around eyes, weak, can't even smile, can't fight her own party, unable to persevere" - leaker really going ad hominem.
And as for smiling...where are the laughs in negotiating with Brussels?0 -
The Comu party on 9% - historically neutral on independence wasn't impressed with yesterdays events ! - Rajoy may have just tipped them.kle4 said:
It is hard to see a short term solution to this crisis. If they boycott the elections, there'll be trouble, but if they maintain or increase their support in regional elections there'll still be trouble, given Madrid apparently won't bend on crucial issues.calum said:Latest Catalonia poll points to independence parties maintaining their majority:
http://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20171022/encuesta-elecciones-cataluna-6371299
I suppose the main point of interest, assuming the Indy parties take part, would be if they manage to increase support to 50% of the electorate (or indeed, this poll turns out to be wrong and they drop support). One of the BBC reports raised the prospect (not likelihood) of the Indy parties treating the election as in effect election of their independent constituent assembly, oddly.0 -
That sounds like a serious bi to be leader of the Conservative Party.Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
Can you beat that, Boris?0 -
Banks plan to move APAC trading books from London to Hong Kong.
https://www.ft.com/content/2a072982-b59d-11e7-aa26-bb002965bce80 -
I'm actually quite surprised the average score is as high as 24%. Presumably Americans are (relatively) well-schooled on their own geography.Richard_Tyndall said:
Only took me about 40 goes but I managed to get all 50 in the endBenpointer said:
Rhode Island! It's only about 2 pixels wide!BannedInParis said:
delaware's easy - left hand side of a peninsula, half way down the east coast. It's the square ones and sodding Tennessee that do for meMarqueeMark said:
It's evil! I got 23 states - then had to find Delaware! Aaaaargh!!kle4 said:
No kidding - I keep getting very close, but apparently just far enough out (and I swear sometimes you hit the state, but its too near the edge and doesn't count it), and some of those north eastern states are quite small.MarqueeMark said:OK, if you want a timewaster..... How much have you learnt about the boundaries of US states from all those Super Tuesdays? Kudos to anybody who does well on this - WARNING - you have to be pixel perfect!
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield
That might count as cheating though.
I am not sure I will forget where Rhode Island is in a hurry.
It would be good to have a similar quiz for European states, I reckon I would do much better even allowing for the Balkans.
0 -
What you are overlooking, Mr HYUDF, is the Chinese tax dodger. And the French tax dodger etc etc.HYUFD said:
The detached owner may well downsize but the semi owner may not be able to upsize without the benefit of an inheritance from grandparents or parents given how expensive detached properties are now, especially if you are on an average wage. So it does not necessarily lead to any increased move up the chain, indeed in a few cases it may even lead to less if downsizing means the grandparents miss out on a further rise in the value of the detached house they vacated they could pass on through inheritance to their children and grandchildren. Plus of course many of those trying to get on the housing ladder in the first place will be relying on an inheritance from their grandparents to help them get the deposit for that first flat or terrace or semi.foxinsoxuk said:
It is a chain. Detached owner downsizes, Semi owner moves upscale, terraced owner moves to Semi, terrace comes available for first time buyers. Everybody happy.HYUFD said:
They may be looking to move to more affordable semis, not expensive detached properties recently vacated by pensioners. Plus of course many of those couples, particularly on an average wage, will be relying on an inheritance from grandparents or parents to help them to move from a flat and be able to afford to move into a semi.rcs1000 said:
There are plenty of people in flats - especially those with small children - who would like to move to houses but cannot afford them.HYUFD said:
Uh, no it isn't. It is not that we need expensive detached family homes to be vacated by pensioners to get young people on the housing ladder, it is that we need more affordable new build flats and semi detached properties to be built which are ideally suited to first time buyers, the former for singles and young couples and the latter to young families.Pong said:
It has the makings of an excellent policy.Elliot said:Sajid Javid talking about using cheap government borrowing rates to finance massive homebuilding. Sounds like a good Labour policy.
The demand side of the coin needs action too, though. The tories IHT bribe to their client vote - incentivising older people to stay in *the family home* until death so they can pass it onto their kids tax free is a big part of the problem.
We are looking to encourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource. The current system discourages it.
Currently there is little incentive to downsize, as Pong points out.
Your system does not work. Big fail for Tories.0 -
Tykejohnno said:
Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.0 -
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.0 -
I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
0 -
Which is an argument to introduce measures to limit foreign investors, especially buying property in central London, nothing to do with inheritance laws for British families.PClipp said:
What you are overlooking, Mr HYUDF, is the Chinese tax dodger. And the French tax dodger etc etc.HYUFD said:
The detached owner may well downsize but the semi owner may not be able to upsize without the benefit of an inheritance from grandparents or parents given how expensive detached properties are now, especially if you are on an average wage. So it does not necessarily lead to any increased move up the chain, indeed in a few cases it may even lead to less if downsizing means the grandparents miss out on a further rise in the value of the detached house they vacated they could pass on through inheritance to their children and grandchildren. Plus of course many of those trying to get on the housing ladder in the first place will be relying on an inheritance from their grandparents to help them get the deposit for that first flat or terrace or semi.foxinsoxuk said:
It is a chain. Detached owner downsizes, Semi points out.HYUFD said:
They may be looking to move to more affordable semis, not expensive detached properties recently vacated by pensioners. Plus of course many of those couples, particularly on an average wage, will be relying on an inheritance from grandparents or parents to help them to move from a flat and be able to afford to move into a semi.rcs1000 said:
There are plenty of people in flats - especially those with small children - who would like to move to houses but cannot afford them.HYUFD said:
Uh, no it isn't. It is not that we need expensive detached family homes to be vacated by pensioners to get young people on the housing ladder, it is that we need more affordable new build flats and semi detached properties to be built which are ideally suited to first time buyers, the former for singles and young couples and the latter to young families.Pong said:
It has the makings of an excellent policy.Elliot said:Sajid Javid talking about using cheap government borrowing rates to finance massive homebuilding. Sounds like a good Labour policy.
The demand side of the coin needs action too, though. The tories IHT bribe to their client vote - incentivising older people to stay in *the family home* until death so they can pass it onto their kids tax free is a big part of the problem.
We are looking to encourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource. The current system discourages it.
Your system does not work. Big fail for Tories.0 -
Nothing is ruled out in these uncertain times.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.0 -
He will call for absolutely all of them to be killed, and the £350 million a week saved in prison costs to be diverted to the NHS.PClipp said:
That sounds like a serious bi to be leader of the Conservative Party.Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
Can you beat that, Boris?0 -
Fair point.Tykejohnno said:
Nothing is ruled out in these uncertain times.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.0 -
HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
It is worth pointing out that of the only two Prime Ministers in the democratic era to win three consecutive general elections, one was an unabashed supporter of capital punishment. As it is a very minor issue and Parliament will never vote to bring it back, most people won't care about the private views of politicians on it.foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
I have to say as well sounding tough on security probably won't go down badly. It didn't hurt George W. Bush for example when he said he wanted Bin Laden 'dead or alive' - quite the contrary. Whether it is sensible for a Foreign Office minister to be mulling over using the armed forces to kill people in a sovereign foreign state is a very different question.0 -
Can't be any worse than the total disaster that is Theresa May...Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.0 -
Problem is Theresa May is a Remainer who has looked thoroughly miserable about the fact we're leaving the EU from the very beginning.williamglenn said:
She won't be able to "sell" that message.
A Leaver like Boris would probably be able to sell it but Theresa Won't.0 -
That's a slight exaggeration. We can safely rule out TSE approving of pineapple on pizza or saying something complimentary about Hannibal. We can also probably rule out Corbyn coming clean on his links to the IRA, Trump having a lucid moment or Kim Jong Un joining the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.Tykejohnno said:
Nothing is ruled out in these uncertain times.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
However, beyond that it is true it would be reckless to predict the future.0 -
Keep getting New Hampshire and Vermont mixed up.kle4 said:
No kidding - I keep getting very close, but apparently just far enough out (and I swear sometimes you hit the state, but its too near the edge and doesn't count it), and some of those north eastern states are quite small.MarqueeMark said:OK, if you want a timewaster..... How much have you learnt about the boundaries of US states from all those Super Tuesdays? Kudos to anybody who does well on this - WARNING - you have to be pixel perfect!
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield0 -
-
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
It is worth pointing out that of the only two Prime Ministers in the democratic era to win three consecutive general elections, one was an unabashed supporter of capital punishment. As it is a very minor issue and Parliament will never vote to bring it back, most people won't care about the private views of politicians on it.foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
I have to say as well sounding tough on security probably won't go down badly. It didn't hurt George W. Bush for example when he said he wanted Bin Laden 'dead or alive' - quite the contrary. Whether it is sensible for a Foreign Office minister to be mulling over using the armed forces to kill people in a sovereign foreign state is a very different question.0 -
You have to ask yourself, if you are fighting for a terrorist organisation that claims to be a state and has the explicit aim of killing British civilians, in what way are you NOT an enemy combatant?ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
It is worth pointing out that of the only two Prime Ministers in the democratic era to win three consecutive general elections, one was an unabashed supporter of capital punishment. As it is a very minor issue and Parliament will never vote to bring it back, most people won't care about the private views of politicians on it.foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
I have to say as well sounding tough on security probably won't go down badly. It didn't hurt George W. Bush for example when he said he wanted Bin Laden 'dead or alive' - quite the contrary. Whether it is sensible for a Foreign Office minister to be mulling over using the armed forces to kill people in a sovereign foreign state is a very different question.0 -
Does that mean that Boris is your got tip for next Tory leader?ydoethur said:
He will call for absolutely all of them to be killed, and the £350 million a week saved in prison costs to be diverted to the NHS.PClipp said:
That sounds like a serious bi to be leader of the Conservative Party.Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
Can you beat that, Boris?
Can we still go away and live in France and Spain?0 -
Not after 2019PClipp said:
Does that mean that Boris is your got tip for next Tory leader?ydoethur said:
He will call for absolutely all of them to be killed, and the £350 million a week saved in prison costs to be diverted to the NHS.PClipp said:
That sounds like a serious bi to be leader of the Conservative Party.Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
Can you beat that, Boris?
Can we still go away and live in France and Spain? 0 -
New Hampshire has a coastline.dodrade said:
Keep getting New Hampshire and Vermont mixed up.kle4 said:
No kidding - I keep getting very close, but apparently just far enough out (and I swear sometimes you hit the state, but its too near the edge and doesn't count it), and some of those north eastern states are quite small.MarqueeMark said:OK, if you want a timewaster..... How much have you learnt about the boundaries of US states from all those Super Tuesdays? Kudos to anybody who does well on this - WARNING - you have to be pixel perfect!
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield
How about this one on national regions/provinces.
A creditable 88% for me.
https://m.sporcle.com/games/timmylemoine1/mc-national-subdivisions-a-z0 -
A PM who backed bringing back capital punishment for terrorists and serial killers, using a 'shoot to kill' policy for British troops fighting ISIS, nationalising the railways and utilities and not paying £65 billion to Brussels and putting the money saved into the NHS would probably win a landslide. That does not necessarily mean all those policies are the right thing for the country though.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
It is worth pointing out that of the only two Prime Ministers in the democratic era to win three consecutive general elections, one was an unabashed supporter of capital punishment. As it is a very minor issue and Parliament will never vote to bring it back, most people won't care about the private views of politicians on it.foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
I have to say as well sounding tough on security probably won't go down badly. It didn't hurt George W. Bush for example when he said he wanted Bin Laden 'dead or alive' - quite the contrary. Whether it is sensible for a Foreign Office minister to be mulling over using the armed forces to kill people in a sovereign foreign state is a very different question.0 -
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:RobD said:
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
It is worth pointing out that of the only two Prime Ministers in the democratic era to win three consecutive general elections, one was an unabashed supporter of capital punishment. As it is a very minor issue and Parliament will never vote to bring it back, most people won't care about the private views of politicians on it.foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
I have to say as well sounding tough on security probably won't go down badly. It didn't hurt George W. Bush for example when he said he wanted Bin Laden 'dead or alive' - quite the contrary. Whether it is sensible for a Foreign Office minister to be mulling over using the armed forces to kill people in a sovereign foreign state is a very different question.
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.0 -
I don't think that would be far enough. Does anyone have a personal rocket to Mars?PClipp said:
Does that mean that Boris is your got tip for next Tory leader?ydoethur said:
He will call for absolutely all of them to be killed, and the £350 million a week saved in prison costs to be diverted to the NHS.PClipp said:
That sounds like a serious bi to be leader of the Conservative Party.Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
Can you beat that, Boris?
Can we still go away and live in France and Spain?0 -
Salsburg almost fooled me. Much easier that one - a couple of flat out guesses, but I'm pleased with an average 69%.foxinsoxuk said:
New Hampshire has a coastline.dodrade said:
Keep getting New Hampshire and Vermont mixed up.kle4 said:
No kidding - I keep getting very close, but apparently just far enough out (and I swear sometimes you hit the state, but its too near the edge and doesn't count it), and some of those north eastern states are quite small.MarqueeMark said:OK, if you want a timewaster..... How much have you learnt about the boundaries of US states from all those Super Tuesdays? Kudos to anybody who does well on this - WARNING - you have to be pixel perfect!
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield
How about this one on national regions/provinces.
A creditable 88% for me.
https://m.sporcle.com/games/timmylemoine1/mc-national-subdivisions-a-z0 -
Boris has basically said he does not believe a deal with the EU matters or not, Brexit Britain will be fine regardless, May clearly does not believe that, even Davis does not really believe that, which is why the EU loathes him.GIN1138 said:
Problem is Theresa May is a Remainer who has looked thoroughly miserable about the fact we're leaving the EU from the very beginning.williamglenn said:
She won't be able to "sell" that message.
A Leaver like Boris would probably be able to sell it but Theresa Won't.0 -
I thought you lost civilian status when you took up arms - and the right to Geneva protections if not in a regular army: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.0 -
His position is realistic, expressed clearly and would be supported by a very large majority. (There is of course a political case for keeping quite and adopting this policy covertly.) It is better for us if they die on the battlefield and it is also what they should choose and can be assumed to have chosen given their beliefs about martyrdom.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.0 -
If you lost civilian status on taking up arms, then there wouldn't be a category of civilian under arms, would there?Freggles said:
I thought you lost civilian status when you took up arms - and the right to Geneva protections if not in a regular army: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Yes under certain circumstances the Geneva protections could and probably still can be forfeited. However, that hardly applies here as we are not technically at war with them nor are they fighting in a theatre where our forces are directly engaged.0 -
Though May famously said 'No deal is better than a bad deal" of course. She might be regretting that now.HYUFD said:
Boris has basically said he does not believe a deal with the EU matters or not, Brexit Britain will be fine regardless, May clearly does not believe that, even Davis does not really believe that, which is why the EU loathes him.GIN1138 said:
Problem is Theresa May is a Remainer who has looked thoroughly miserable about the fact we're leaving the EU from the very beginning.williamglenn said:
She won't be able to "sell" that message.
A Leaver like Boris would probably be able to sell it but Theresa Won't.0 -
I haven't heard of this status , is it part of Geneva protocols?ydoethur said:
If you lost civilian status on taking up arms, then there wouldn't be a category of civilian under arms, would there?Freggles said:
I thought you lost civilian status when you took up arms - and the right to Geneva protections if not in a regular army: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Yes under certain circumstances the Geneva protections could and probably still can be forfeited. However, that hardly applies here as we are not technically at war with them nor are they fighting in a theatre where our forces are directly engaged.0 -
A thought - could returning ISIS fighters who make it back to the UK be investigted for war crimes and sent to the Hague? It could solve some legal problems and even save a few bob.0
-
Ha, just came across this Diane Abbott interview from nearly a year ago, where she predicted Labour would catch up with the Tories in the polls within 12 months:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04l0gc5
People scoffed at the time, but Di got the last laugh
0 -
I don't think she ever really meant that as her current actions and concessions over money and EU citizens' rights suggest, she just thought it was a good line to help her win a landslide, once it was clear it had no electoral benefit she has swiftly dumped it.Benpointer said:
Though May famously said 'No deal is better than a bad deal" of course. She might be regretting that now.HYUFD said:
Boris has basically said he does not believe a deal with the EU matters or not, Brexit Britain will be fine regardless, May clearly does not believe that, even Davis does not really believe that, which is why the EU loathes him.GIN1138 said:
Problem is Theresa May is a Remainer who has looked thoroughly miserable about the fact we're leaving the EU from the very beginning.williamglenn said:
She won't be able to "sell" that message.
A Leaver like Boris would probably be able to sell it but Theresa Won't.0 -
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective.ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:RobD said:
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
.......foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?0 -
There is the legal position. And then there is the political reality: should the British government allow back into the country a load of fighters who have killed, been trained to kill and who are highly likely to be a threat to us here (and to other European countries)?ydoethur said:
If you lost civilian status on taking up arms, then there wouldn't be a category of civilian under arms, would there?Freggles said:
I thought you lost civilian status when you took up arms - and the right to Geneva protections if not in a regular army: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Yes under certain circumstances the Geneva protections could and probably still can be forfeited. However, that hardly applies here as we are not technically at war with them nor are they fighting in a theatre where our forces are directly engaged.
The vast majority will say no. I don’t care what happens to them, would shed no tears if they were killed but most certainly don’t want them let back into the country. We face enough of a risk as it is, without increasing it. A government’s first duty is to protect its citizens from harm.
Sometimes the legal answer may not be enough. Cf: Mr Rajoy and the Catalan question.
0 -
No. It is a status that is not covered by them and is therefore one that doesn't entitle you to the protections of them. It is the status of, for example, spies, and is why they could be shot.Freggles said:
I haven't heard of this status , is it part of Geneva protocols?ydoethur said:
If you lost civilian status on taking up arms, then there wouldn't be a category of civilian under arms, would there?Freggles said:
I thought you lost civilian status when you took up arms - and the right to Geneva protections if not in a regular army: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Yes under certain circumstances the Geneva protections could and probably still can be forfeited. However, that hardly applies here as we are not technically at war with them nor are they fighting in a theatre where our forces are directly engaged.0 -
A rare occurrence for her, and definitely a case of stating something without there being any evidence to back up the prediction, but fair play to her, she was right.Danny565 said:Ha, just came across this Diane Abbott interview from nearly a year ago, where she predicted Labour would catch up with the Tories in the polls within 12 months:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04l0gc5
People scoffed at the time, but Di got the last laugh0 -
Not sure it would save much money. For one, if convicted where would they serve the sentence? One of the people they convicted, Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, is serving his sentence...in Britain.NorthofStoke said:A thought - could returning ISIS fighters who make it back to the UK be investigted for war crimes and sent to the Hague? It could solve some legal problems and even save a few bob.
0 -
That's true. But as a lawyer don't you think there's a bit of a difference between not letting them back into the country and/or arresting them on arrival, and conspiring to kill them?Cyclefree said:
There is the legal position. And then there is the political reality: should the British government allow back into the country a load of fighters who have killed, been trained to kill and who are highly likely to be a threat to us here (and to other European countries)?ydoethur said:
If you lost civilian status on taking up arms, then there wouldn't be a category of civilian under arms, would there?Freggles said:
I thought you lost civilian status when you took up arms - and the right to Geneva protections if not in a regular army: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Yes under certain circumstances the Geneva protections could and probably still can be forfeited. However, that hardly applies here as we are not technically at war with them nor are they fighting in a theatre where our forces are directly engaged.
The vast majority will say no. I don’t care what happens to them, would shed no tears if they were killed but most certainly don’t want them let back into the country. We face enough of a risk as it is, without increasing it. A government’s first duty is to protect its citizens from harm.
Sometimes the legal answer may not be enough. Cf: Mr Rajoy and the Catalan question.0 -
What programme can make them safe to rejoin society? Shouldn't they be investigated for crimes against humanity? I suspect that Iraq probably don't want the hassle of extraditing them. An international court should step in and charge them. The truth is that if they don't get back we are better off.PClipp said:
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective.ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:RobD said:
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
.......foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?0 -
Yes I believe you are right but it was very unwise of her since she will be reminded of it many times when, as she surely must, she tries to sell a compromise deal to her party.HYUFD said:
I don't think she ever really meant that as her current actions and concessions over money and EU citizens' rights suggest, she just thought it was a good line to help her win a landslide, once it was clear it had no electoral benefit she has swiftly dumped it.Benpointer said:
Though May famously said 'No deal is better than a bad deal" of course. She might be regretting that now.HYUFD said:
Boris has basically said he does not believe a deal with the EU matters or not, Brexit Britain will be fine regardless, May clearly does not believe that, even Davis does not really believe that, which is why the EU loathes him.GIN1138 said:
Problem is Theresa May is a Remainer who has looked thoroughly miserable about the fact we're leaving the EU from the very beginning.williamglenn said:
She won't be able to "sell" that message.
A Leaver like Boris would probably be able to sell it but Theresa Won't.0 -
We are bombing and droning IS. Is it any more moral to kill foreigners than Britons fighting for IS?PClipp said:
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective.ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:RobD said:
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
.......foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?
If extra judicial killing of British IS is wrong, Why is it right for the rest of them?0 -
Did you seriously just use a 'thin end of the wedge' argument about ISIS?PClipp said:
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective.ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:RobD said:
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
.......foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?
International war says it was OK for us to kill Argentinians in a dispute over governance of an island - soldiers who joined up to protect their own country and families.
Yet it's not OK to kill people who of their own choice have joined a paramilitary pseudo-state with the express aims of defeating democracy and killing their own countrymen.
Alright then!0 -
You don't believe there are any different obligations toward our own errant citizens than foreign citizens? I don't know the legalities, but I suspect the rules are looser when it comes to the latter (and thus not be extra judicial), and that that is not uncommon.foxinsoxuk said:
We are bombing and droning IS. Is it any more moral to kill foreigners than Britons fighting for IS?PClipp said:
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective.ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:RobD said:
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
.......foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
1) Their offfficially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?
If extra judicial killing of British IS is wrong, Why is it right for the rest of them?0 -
To which the obvious question in response is - why are we bombing IS without formally declaring war? (And yes, I know this goes back to Miliband and that vote.)foxinsoxuk said:We are bombing and droning IS. Is it any more moral to kill foreigners than Britons fighting for IS?
If extra judicial killing of British IS is wrong, Why is it right for the rest of them?
If we're going to attack IS, with the aim of defeating them, fine. No beef with that. Indeed, I'd tend to support it. If that means British citizens who are fighting for them get killed, equally fine. That's their own fault for being there, illegally.
But let's do it within the rules. And let's not say we're going to kill them when we can stop matters by taking the rest prisoner and putting them on trial, even though I can foresee certain difficulties trying them in Syria, Iraq or Kurdistan.
I am off to bed. I hope everyone enjoys a fruitful discussion on this issue.
Good night.
Edit - also Stewart's words implied targeted killing, although the transcript may have conveyed it poorly. Which as I have noted is a moral and legal minefield.0 -
0
-
I wouldn't make that distinction. IS is IS, wherever they are from.kle4 said:
You don't believe there are any different obligations toward our own errant citizens than foreign citizens? I don't know the legalities, but I suspect the rules are looser when it comes to the latter (and thus not be extra judicial), and that that is not uncommon.foxinsoxuk said:
We are bombing and droning IS. Is it any more moral to kill foreigners than Britons fighting for IS?PClipp said:
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective.ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expk.RobD said:
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
.......foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?
If extra judicial killing of British IS is wrong, Why is it right for the rest of them?
We may not be formally at war, but when was our last formal declaration of war?1939?
0 -
I got 88% as well - troubled by the pacific islands.kle4 said:
Salsburg almost fooled me. Much easier that one - a couple of flat out guesses, but I'm pleased with an average 69%.foxinsoxuk said:
New Hampshire has a coastline.dodrade said:
Keep getting New Hampshire and Vermont mixed up.kle4 said:
No kidding - I keep getting very close, but apparently just far enough out (and I swear sometimes you hit the state, but its too near the edge and doesn't count it), and some of those north eastern states are quite small.MarqueeMark said:OK, if you want a timewaster..... How much have you learnt about the boundaries of US states from all those Super Tuesdays? Kudos to anybody who does well on this - WARNING - you have to be pixel perfect!
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield
How about this one on national regions/provinces.
A creditable 88% for me.
https://m.sporcle.com/games/timmylemoine1/mc-national-subdivisions-a-z0 -
Maybe but May now knows she is not going to lead the Tories into the next general election so her main aim is to try and get some form of deal with the EU. Though it may be she needs Labour, LD and SNP votes to get a deal through Parliament, especially if as is likely it involves £50 billion+ being paid to the EU as the price of that deal, with hardline Tory Brexiteers like Patterson, Rees-Mogg and perhaps Boris voting against as well as a few Labour Leavers like Hoey and Skinner.Benpointer said:
Yes I believe you are right but it was very unwise of her since she will be reminded of it many times when, as she surely must, she tries to sell a compromise deal to her party.HYUFD said:
I don't think she ever really meant that as her current actions and concessions over money and EU citizens' rights suggest, she just thought it was a good line to help her win a landslide, once it was clear it had no electoral benefit she has swiftly dumped it.Benpointer said:
Though May famously said 'No deal is better than a bad deal" of course. She might be regretting that now.HYUFD said:
Boris has basically said he does not believe a deal with the EU matters or not, Brexit Britain will be fine regardless, May clearly does not believe that, even Davis does not really believe that, which is why the EU loathes him.GIN1138 said:
Problem is Theresa May is a Remainer who has looked thoroughly miserable about the fact we're leaving the EU from the very beginning.williamglenn said:
She won't be able to "sell" that message.
A Leaver like Boris would probably be able to sell it but Theresa Won't.0 -
Doesn't that go back to the whole 'IS not being a state' thing though? Can we declare war on them even if we wanted?foxinsoxuk said:
I wouldn't make that distinction. IS is IS, wherever they are from.kle4 said:
You don't believe there are any different obligations toward our own errant citizens than foreign citizens? I don't know the legalities, but I suspect the rules are looser when it comes to the latter (and thus not be extra judicial), and that that is not uncommon.foxinsoxuk said:
We are bombing and droning IS. Is it any more moral to kill foreigners than Britons fighting for IS?PClipp said:
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective.ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expk.RobD said:
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
.......foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?
If extra judicial killing of British IS is wrong, Why is it right for the rest of them?
We may not be formally at war, but when was our last formal declaration of war?1939?
Though Wiki says you're right about it being WW2 since the last. Declarations do seem out o f vogue these days, people just fight each other without sending a note.0 -
There is a difference. But so what? We are already killing IS killers now. Whether they’re British or not makes no difference. The government’s priority should be to protect us here, where we already face very serious risks, according to the Head of our intelligence services. No point making their job harder or our risk greater.ydoethur said:
That's true. But as a lawyer don't you think there's a bit of a difference between not letting them back into the country and/or arresting them on arrival, and conspiring to kill them?Cyclefree said:
There is the legal position. And then there is the political reality: should the British government allow back into the country a load of fighters who have killed, been trained to kill and who are highly likely to be a threat to us here (and to other European countries)?ydoethur said:Freggles said:
I thought you lost civilian status when you took up arms - and the right to Geneva protections if not in a regular armyydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield:
1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants;
2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them;
3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court.
So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power.
The vast majority will say no. I don’t care what happens to them, would shed no tears if they were killed but most certainly don’t want them let back into the country. We face enough of a risk as it is, without increasing it. A government’s first duty is to protect its citizens from harm.
Sometimes the legal answer may not be enough. Cf: Mr Rajoy and the Catalan question.0 -
I believe there are just a couple of years since 1945 where British troops were not in combat somewhere.kle4 said:
Doesn't that go back to the whole 'IS not being a state' thing though? Can we declare war on them even if we wanted?foxinsoxuk said:
I wouldn't make that distinction. IS is IS, wherever they are from.kle4 said:
You don't believe there are any different obligations toward our own errant citizens than foreign citizens? I don't know the legalities, but I suspect the rules are looser when it comes to the latter (and thus not be extra judicial), and that that is not uncommon.foxinsoxuk said:
We are bombing and droning IS. Is it any more moral to kill foreigners than Britons fighting for IS?PClipp said:
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective.ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expk.RobD said:
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
.......foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?
If extra judicial killing of British IS is wrong, Why is it right for the rest of them?
We may not be formally at war, but when was our last formal declaration of war?1939?
Though Wiki says you're right about it being WW2 since the last. Declarations do seem out o f vogue these days, people just fight each other without sending a note.0 -
-
And where, how and by whom are they entitled to be killed ?ydoethur said:
That's true. But as a lawyer don't you think there's a bit of a difference between not letting them back into the country and/or arresting them on arrival, and conspiring to kill them?Cyclefree said:
There is the legal position. And then there is the political reality: should the British government allow back into the country a load of fighters who have killed, been trained to kill and who are highly likely to be a threat to us here (and to other European countries)?ydoethur said:
If you lost civilian status on taking up arms, then there wouldn't be a category of civilian under arms, would there?Freggles said:
I thought you lost civilian status when you took up arms - and the right to Geneva protections if not in a regular army: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5
Yes under certain circumstances the Geneva protections could and probably still can be forfeited. However, that hardly applies here as we are not technically at war with them nor are they fighting in a theatre where our forces are directly engaged.
The vast majority will say no. I don’t care what happens to them, would shed no tears if they were killed but most certainly don’t want them let back into the country. We face enough of a risk as it is, without increasing it. A government’s first duty is to protect its citizens from harm.
Sometimes the legal answer may not be enough. Cf: Mr Rajoy and the Catalan question.
Is it okay for them to be killed only in Iraq or in Turkey or in France or in the UK as well ?
Is it okay for them to be killed only by air strikes or can they be shot or poisoned as well ?
Is it okay for them to be killed only by by the British military or by ordinary people as well ?
0 -
Does anybody have any links or news from the Argentina mid-term elections going on today?0
-
I would answer that it is a matter of threat. If an IS fighter is armed and intent on harm then they should be stopped by the most effective means possible, whether in Raqqa or Borough Market.another_richard said:
And where, how and by whom are they entitled to be killed ?ydoethur said:
That's true. But as a lawyer don't you think there's a bit of a difference between not letting them back into the country and/or arresting them on arrival, and conspiring to kill them?Cyclefree said:
There is the legal position. And then there is the political reality: should the British government allow back into the country a load of fighters who have killed, been trained to kill and who are highly likely to be a threat to us here (and to other European countries)?ydoethur said:
If you lost civilian status on taking up arms, then there wouldn't be a category of civilian under arms, would there?Freggles said:
I thought you lost civilian status when you took up arms - and the right to Geneva protections if not in a regular army: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5
Yes under certain circumstances the Geneva protections could and probably still can be forfeited. However, that hardly applies here as we are not technically at war with them nor are they fighting in a theatre where our forces are directly engaged.
The vast majority will say no. I don’t care what happens to them, would shed no tears if they were killed but most certainly don’t want them let back into the country. We face enough of a risk as it is, without increasing it. A government’s first duty is to protect its citizens from harm.
Sometimes the legal answer may not be enough. Cf: Mr Rajoy and the Catalan question.
Is it okay for them to be killed only in Iraq or in Turkey or in France or in the UK as well ?
Is it okay for them to be killed only by air strikes or can they be shot or poisoned as well ?
Is it okay for them to be killed only by by the British military or by ordinary people as well ?
If they are attempting to surrender, unarmed, then they should be taken into custody.0 -
The law is going to have to catch up with the existence of organisations like IS. Like many an army, it has a tendency to look back rather than forward at the new landscape. The Geneva Convention is fine when dealing with a conventional state. It is utterly meaningless when dealing with something like IS. That is the new reality which all of us, including lawyers, will need to adjust to.foxinsoxuk said:
I wouldn't make that distinction. IS is IS, wherever they are from.kle4 said:
You don't believe there are any different obligations toward our own errant citizens than foreign citizens? I don't know the legalities, but I suspect the rules are looser when it comes to the latter (and thus not be extra judicial), and that that is not uncommon.foxinsoxuk said:
We are bombing and droning IS. Is it any more moral to kill foreigners than Britons fighting for IS?PClipp said:
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective.ydoethur said:
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expk.RobD said:
I suspect he views them as enemy combatants.ydoethur said:HYUFD said:
With metropolitan liberals maybe, with the majority of the country probably not.Benpointer said:Tykejohnno said:Minister calls for 'almost every' British Islamic State fighter to be killed
Foreign Office minister Rory Stewart says "we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us".
http://news.sky.com/story/minister-calls-for-almost-every-british-islamic-state-fighter-to-be-killed-11093488
Wow,he's gone up in my be good next tory leader estimation.
In reality, he's probably just ruled himself out. Forever.
.......foxinsoxuk said:I heard the interview, and he was very honest. He was wanting them dead out there, rather than capital punishment back here.
Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?
If extra judicial killing of British IS is wrong, Why is it right for the rest of them?
We may not be formally at war, but when was our last formal declaration of war?1939?
How is the more difficult - and interesting - question.
But it is late. So am off to bed. Night all.0 -
Thought The National had stopped printing, haven't seen a copy for a while......Scott_P said:Remember, it's just a bonus...
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/9222052223820308500 -
I've gotten very confused by all the Brexit stuff - her argument is predicated on their being a vote on the final deal by MPs (a vote on a no deal scenario, which I don't get the alternative if they reject it), but has that point been conceded yet? The A50 case was all about the government not having the power to serve the A50 notice, but did the legislation passed permit the government to sign off on any deal that is reached?Scott_P said:0 -
-
O/T
If there are any cricket followers around...
This is one of the most stupid things I've learned for a very long time. It's now against the laws of cricket for a fielder to pretend to throw the ball when in fact they don't have possession of it. This has always been a common thing for fielders to do, and I can't understand why it's been decided that it should now be against the laws of the game, incurring a penalty of five runs:
http://www.cricket.com.au/news/fake-fielding-video-first-incident-queensland-jlt-one-day-cup-marnus-labuschagne-five-penalty-runs/2017-09-29
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g0NGVId9fg
Also, would this new law apply to a fielder who has the ball and pretends to throw it at one end and actually throws it to the other end?0 -
As inevitable as the tides.Scott_P said:0 -
-
I seem to recall the Obama whitehouse, and presumably others, relied on legal advice for scenarios that required an 'imminent threat' to react to which defined the terms in such a way that there need not be an immediate threat at all. Crafty lawyers.foxinsoxuk said:
I would answer that it is a matter of threat. If an IS fighter is armed and intent on harm then they should be stopped by the most effective means possible, whether in Raqqa or Borough Market.another_richard said:
And where, how and by whom are they entitled to be killed ?ydoethur said:
That's true. But as a lawyer don't you think there's a bit of a difference between not letting them back into the country and/or arresting them on arrival, and conspiring to kill them?Cyclefree said:
There is the legal position. And then there is the political reality: should the British government allow back into the country a load of fighters who have killed, been trained to kill and who are highly likely to be a threat to us here (and to other European countries)?ydoethur said:
If you lost civilian status on taking up arms, then there wouldn't be a category of civilian under arms, would there?Freggles said:
I thought you lost civilian status when you took up arms - and the right to Geneva protections if not in a regular army: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5
Yes under certain circumstances the Geneva protections could and probably still can be forfeited. However, that hardly applies here as we are not technically at war with them nor are they fighting in a theatre where our forces are directly engaged.
The vast majority will say no. I don’t care what happens to them, would shed no tears if they were killed but most certainly don’t want them let back into the country. We face enough of a risk as it is, without increasing it. A government’s first duty is to protect its citizens from harm.
Sometimes the legal answer may not be enough. Cf: Mr Rajoy and the Catalan question.
Is it okay for them to be killed only in Iraq or in Turkey or in France or in the UK as well ?
Is it okay for them to be killed only by air strikes or can they be shot or poisoned as well ?
Is it okay for them to be killed only by by the British military or by ordinary people as well ?
If they are attempting to surrender, unarmed, then they should be taken into custody.0 -
I wasn't aware it was a problem which needed solving. Sounds fraught with difficulty - what if you start to throw but pull out of it, what if you try to throw but the ball pops out your hand and the Umpire thinks you faked the throw on purpose?AndyJS said:O/T
If there are any cricket followers around...
This is one of the most stupid things I've learned for a very long time. It's now against the laws of cricket for a fielder to pretend to throw the ball when in fact they don't have possession of it. This has always been a common thing for fielders to do, and I can't understand why it's been decided that it should now be against the laws of the game, incurring a penalty of five runs:
http://www.cricket.com.au/news/fake-fielding-video-first-incident-queensland-jlt-one-day-cup-marnus-labuschagne-five-penalty-runs/2017-09-29
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g0NGVId9fg
Also, would this new law apply to a fielder who has the ball and pretends to throw it at one end and actually throws it to the other end?0 -
So we'll go into Christmas/New Year with no transition deal, and no clear idea of what we're asking for...Scott_P said:0 -
I'm genuinely starting to wonder if the reason the talks aren't moving onto "phase two" (even though both the UK and EU are apparently largely in agreement on the "phase one" issues) is actually at May's and Davis's request, to give them more time to decide within the government what type of "deal" they want with the EU.Scott_P said:0
