brendan16 said:

The SDP was of course boosted by various by elections - which increased their profile and made them appear electable as they were winning everywhere from Croydon to Glasgow to Merseyside. I doubt the Tiggers will get that chance - as I doubt they could mount a serious challenge on that scale.

As for UKIP there are so many offshoots now as well as Batten's UKIP. If we do end up having to elect MEPs is time allocated and election broadcast allocations based on the 2014 European results or the last general election? Does Farage's party really have any capacity to run a national list in barely two months time.

And of course many of the most pro Brexit areas have the smallest MEP allocations - the North east only has 4 seats (i.e. you potentially need 25% of the local vote to get one MEP) and the east midlands 6 whereas London has ten and the south east has 11 (i.e. potentially less than 10% is sufficient). Its much harder to win seats in the former than the latter if the vote is split - its that quirk that resulted in the Lib Dems getting their sole MEP last time (in the largest south east region) and UKIP getting Gerald Batten elected in London.

Farage could as a result end up being a group of one - elected in the south east region!

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

Floater said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

SouthamObserver said:

This is depressingly true ...

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824

I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.

So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?

Not exactly democratic is he

Lying isn't democratic.

It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.

How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?

His lips move.

Victorian joke.

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

Floater said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

SouthamObserver said:

This is depressingly true ...

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824

I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.

So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?

Not exactly democratic is he

Lying isn't democratic.

It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.

How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?

His lips move.

Victorian joke.

I'd be surprised if there was ever a time when politicians were high-minded, serious, and impartial servants of the people who set aside partisan considerations to do the right thing (perhaps WW2).

ydoethur said:

Grim news:

Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508

And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Recidivist said:

The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.

It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.

Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...

Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?

Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.

ydoethur said:

brendan16 said:

We used to run nearly one third of the globe with limited resources - apparently the whole of the Sudan (which covers 5 times the area of Germany) was administered by less than 150 civil servants.

In 1900 there were just 25 civil servants in the Treasury.

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

brendan16 said:

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

Floater said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

SouthamObserver said:

This is depressingly true ...

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824

I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.

So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?

Not exactly democratic is he

Lying isn't democratic.

It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.

How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?

His lips move.

Victorian joke.

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

Floater said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

SouthamObserver said:

This is depressingly true ...

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824

I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.

So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?

Not exactly democratic is he

Lying isn't democratic.

It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.

How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?

His lips move.

Victorian joke.

I'd beW2).

Perhaps we did have better quality civil servants and MPs back then - or we just remember the good ones?

We used to run nearly one third of the globe with limited resources - apparently the whole of the Sudan (which covers 5 times the area of Germany) was administered by less than 150 civil servants.

In 1900 there were just 25 civil servants in the Treasury.

That seems unlikely given the size of the building so perhaps the definition has changed and only very senior civil servants used to be counted.

Speaking of which, the Chancellor's spring statement is this Wednesday.

Sandpit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Recidivist said:

The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.

It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.

Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...

Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?

Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.

I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.

ydoethur said:

brendan16 said:

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

Floater said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

SouthamObserver said:

This is depressingly true ...

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824

I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.

So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?

Not exactly democratic is he

Lying isn't democratic.

It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.

How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?

His lips move.

Victorian joke.

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

Floater said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

SouthamObserver said:

This is depressingly true ...

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824

I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.

So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?

Not exactly democratic is he

Lying isn't democratic.

It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.

How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?

His lips move.

Victorian joke.

I'd be surprised if there was ever a time when politicians were high-minded, serious, and impartial servants of the people who set aside partisan considerations to do the right thing (perhaps WW2).

Perhaps we did have better quality civil servants and MPs back then - or we just remember the good ones?

We used to run nearly one third of the globe with limited resources - apparently the whole of the Sudan (which covers 5 times the area of Germany) was administered by less than 150 civil servants.

In 1900 there were just 25 civil servants in the Treasury.

Theuniondivvie said:

Sandpit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Recidivist said:

The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.

It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.

Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...

Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?

Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figurle who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.

I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.

So that'll be 2021 at the earliest?

Sandpit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Recidivist said:

The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.

It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.

Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...

Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?

Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.

I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.

Sandpit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Recidivist said:

The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.

It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.

Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...

Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?

Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.

I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.

Sandpit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Sandpit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

Scott_P said:

Recidivist said:

The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.

It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.

Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...

Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?

Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figurle who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.

I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.

So that'll be 2021 at the earliest?

Quite possibly. I wonder when the publisher paid the advance, and if they realised how long it might take to actually publish without throwing a spanner in the works to his successors?

ydoethur said:

I'd be surprised if there was ever a time when politicians were high-minded, serious, and impartial servants of the people who set aside partisan considerations to do the right thing (perhaps WW2).

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

Grim news:

Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508

And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).

And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.

The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.

I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...

So far they're being very guarded in what they say:

https://www.boeing.com

Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.

Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.

The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.

2nd crash of a new 737 8-Max https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46373125

Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.

Yep. Lion Air losing one could be put down to that airline’s woeful safety record, but a second one will have the Boeing suits getting nervous.

A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.

Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.

kle4 said:

Chris said:

kle4 said:

Chris said:

Sean_F said:

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).

I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.

There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.

IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.

I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.

Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.

Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)

I
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.

Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).

Why ministers and not courts?

Because power is in the hands of the elected and reviewed by the unelected rather than the other way around.

Judicial power has never been in the hands of the elected in this country. We've never elected judges.

?? Where on earth did I say that they had?

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

Grim news:

Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508

And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).

And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.

The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.

I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...

So far they're being very guarded in what they say:

https://www.boeing.com

Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.

Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.

The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.

2nd crash of a new 737 8-Max https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46373125

Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.

Yep. Lion Air losing one could be put down to that airline’s woeful safety record, but a second one will have the Boeing suits getting nervous.

A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.

Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.

Particularly as since 1996 Ethiopia Airlines have a very good safety record - just one crash in 2010, partly attributable to bad weather and partly to pilot error. That's a better record than Air France over the same period.

(Edited because I was out by a year.)

kle4 said:

Chris said:

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

Sean_F said:

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.

IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.

I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.

Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.

Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)

I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.

I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.

Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).

Why ministers and not courts?

What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?

Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.

That's a diplomatic consideration not a legal one.

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

Grim news:

Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508

And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).

And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.

The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.

I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...

So far they're being very guarded in what they say:

https://www.boeing.com

Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.

Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.

The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.

2nd crash of a new 737 8-Max https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46373125

Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.

Yep. Lion Air losing one could be put down to that airline’s woeful safety record, but a second one will have the Boeing suits getting nervous.

A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.

Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.

Particularly as since 1996 Ethiopia Airlines have a very good safety record - just one crash in 2010, partly attributable to bad weather and partly to pilot error. That's a better record than Air France over the same period.

(Edited because I was out by a year.)

nico67 said:

I

brendan16 said:

nico67 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1104714513289498624

Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .

Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.

Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian

And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).

My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.

She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.

So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!

I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .

brendan16 said:

kle4 said:

Chris said:

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

Sean_F said:

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

Chris said:

Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.

Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)

I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.

I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.

Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).

Why ministers and not courts?

What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?

Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.

That's a diplomatic consideration not a legal one.

Of course we no longer grant UK citizenship by birth but by descent/ancestry - and have not done as of right since 1983. Being born here to non British citizen parents makes you a citizen of your parent's country(ies) not a British one - although you can regularise that later!

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

).

...

So far they're being very guarded in what they say:

https://www.boeing.com

Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.

Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.

The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.

2nd crash of a new 737 8-Max https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46373125

Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.

Yep. Lion Air losing one could be put down to that airline’s woeful safety record, but a second one will have the Boeing suits getting nervous.

A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.

Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.

Particularly as since 1996 Ethiopia Airlines have a very good safety record - just one crash in 2010, partly attributable to bad weather and partly to pilot error. That's a better record than Air France over the same period.

(Edited because I was out by a year.)

I have two rules for flying. Don’t fly with Ryanair, and don’t fly with Air France. AF have killed more of their customers this century than every other EU airline combined.

Indeed. As I understand it, the fact the third pilot was in the captain's chair in AF447 and tried to climb out of a stall was one of the key reasons for the crash.

Chris said:

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

Sean_F said:

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process. .

.

Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.

Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)

I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.

I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.

Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).

Why ministers and not courts?

What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?

First, I haven't seen it alleged that any of these women who have been deprived of their British citizenship have done any "fighting for ISIS in Syria."

If you want to have a process for depriving people of their British citizenship, then of course you can suggest ministers - or anyone else you can think of - should be able to initiate that process.

But depriving people of their citizenship - especially citizenship acquired through birth - seems an odd concept to me. Considering it's generally accepted that people shoudn't be made stateless. Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

Grim news:

Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508

And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).

The previous crash was with Lion air, an Indonesian airline with a generally poor safety record. Ethiopian is probably the best run airline in Africa.

The design issue with the 737 MAX relates to engine placement. Higher bypass engines with big fans are more efficient than the lighter smaller, engines the 737 was designed for in the 1960's. There isn't enough space for them to be placed fully under the wings. So the engine, which is now heavier, has to be placed in front of the wings, which disturbs the centre of gravity. Boeing compensates for this through software. There may be flaws with the software, or it is possible crews aren't properly adapted to the different handling characteristics when moving from the older version of the plane.

It's certain that crews were not properly adapted to the changes in the control laws, because those changes were not present in the difference training when pilots moved to the new type.

*** SPECULATION ALERT ***

Lion Air *might* have culpability for the issues the plane had. From what we know so far, Boeing have ultimate responsibility for the fact that when the pilots were faced with a situation they could get out of, they did not have the information they needed and ended up fighting the plane.

nico67 said:

I

brendan16 said:

nico67 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1104714513289498624

Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .

Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.

Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian

And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).

My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.

She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.

So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!

I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .

NeilVW said:

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

Lots of factors in every constituency.

It should be noted that Canterbury has an especially high number of students:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/canterbury/

It seems beyond all logic to me that Labour's student fees promises wouldn't have had a significant effect there.

As election bribes go it was one of the most significant I've ever seen.

It's a very small city with two very large universities. Does anyone know whether similar analysis was carried out for Ceredigion which is the nearest parallel I can think of?

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/ceredigion/

20% in full-time education compared with 24% in Canterbury, according to that link.

The swing from Con to Lab was actually smaller here than the GB average, but it is a very unusual seat, now arguably a four-way marginal, and those two parties are in 4th and 3rd place.

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

First, I haven't seen it alleged that any of these women who have been deprived of their British citizenship have done any "fighting for ISIS in Syria."

If you want to have a process for depriving people of their British citizenship, then of course you can suggest ministers - or anyone else you can think of - should be able to initiate that process.

But depriving people of their citizenship - especially citizenship acquired through birth - seems an odd concept to me. Considering it's generally accepted that people shoudn't be made stateless. Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.

Your suggestion is exactly what happens in practice - a minister notices a problem with someone, and a judge is allowed to review if the subject wishes to contest the minister.

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

Grim news:

Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508

And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).

The previous crash was with Lion air, an Indonesian airline with a generally poor safety record. Ethiopian is probably the best run airline in Africa.

The design issue with the 737 MAX relates to engine placement. Higher bypass engines with big fans are more efficient than the lighter smaller, engines the 737 was designed for in the 1960's. There isn't enough space for them to be placed fully under the wings. So the engine, which is now heavier, has to be placed in front of the wings, which disturbs the centre of gravity. Boeing compensates for this through software. There may be flaws with the software, or it is possible crews aren't properly adapted to the different handling characteristics when moving from the older version of the plane.

It's certain that crews were not properly adapted to the changes in the control laws, because those changes were not present in the difference training when pilots moved to the new type.

*** SPECULATION ALERT ***

Lion Air *might* have culpability for the issues the plane had. From what we know so far, Boeing have ultimate responsibility for the fact that when the pilots were faced with a situation they could get out of, they did not have the information they needed and ended up fighting the plane.

Indeed. Crashes typically have more than one cause which come tragically together on the occasion. Even if Boeing equipment is at fault, there could well be maintenance or piloting issues at play too.

AFAIK the Lion air accident enquiry hasn't completed yet, which will be a problem for Boeing. If the similarities with the first crash hold and as long as they don't have a definitive cause I would expect the entire MAX fleet to be grounded

Nigelb said:

Streeter said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

But surely more could have been done to stop these three schoolgirls joining ISIS?

One curious aspect of this whole affair is that the security services seemed not to notice or wonder about three unaccompanied minors flying on one-way tickets on a known route to ISIS. Burgess and Maclean could escape to Russia because the MI5 teams following Maclean only worked 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. It seems any lessons learned have been forgotten.

By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.

But then what?

I don't know.

I'm afraid those three words are exactly the point.

No they are not because I am not the government or MI5, whose job it is to have a plan. The point is they did not even notice the schoolgirls leaving despite it being fairly obvious, so the only conclusion is the security services were not even looking.

The point is, what were they expected to do instead? Unless you have a reasonable alternative course of action, your criticism isn't valid. It's ridiculous to say 'they should do something' and then say 'I don't know' when asked 'what, exactly?'

Perhaps they should have spotted them. Perhaps they should have tried to do something. But this is ultimately about a 15-year old. She was old enough to know what she was doing. Unfortunately she made a very bad choice. Just as there is a limit to what can be done about a 15 year old boy who joins a gang, so there is a limit to what can be done here.

You’re a teacher, I believe. In loco parentis.

I can only be thankful my children do not attend your school.

Gang members, are they ?

kle4 said:

Chris said:

Whatever sort of consideration you may think it is, can you explain why another country should be expected to take responsibility?

I didn't say I thought they should be expected to, but I don't think it is a relevant question for them about being 'expected' to take it on - if we take this latest example Bangladesh would quite rightly be furious if Begum becomes their responsibility because, despite their wishes, she is entitled to their citizenship and we got in their first and removed her British rights (this assumes Javid's advice was correct that she could claim Bangladeshi citizenship, if that is wrong he is in even more trouble). I wonder if Hunt was consulted about the decision because I would think Bangladesh would cause a ruckus over it as a result. Javid should have taken that into consideration

But it still isn't about being their being expected to take on responsibility, it's a legal question of responsibility, and their not wanting to have that responsibility is irrelevant. If it is right for this country to do it, if it is legal for this country to do it, and if accepting the diplomatic headache that comes with it seem far more relevant questions. Let's say Begun definitely had Bangladeshi citizenship, no question at all, would it be unacceptable to remove her citizenship still because she was British born?

That seems like an argument against ever removing citizenship at all, which is an entirely separate argument.

ydoethur said:

nico67 said:

I

brendan16 said:

nico67 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1104714513289498624

Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .

Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.

Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian

And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).

My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.

She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.

So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!

I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .

Indeed. Goebbels had a doctorate from one of Europe's oldest and most prestigious universities, for example.

malcolmg said:

nico67 said:

I

brendan16 said:

nico67 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1104714513289498624

Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .

Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.

Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian

And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).

My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.

She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.

So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!

I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .

You did say that leavers were thick compared to Remainers, which suggests you are likely to be on the thick side yourself giving how stupid that is.

malcolmg said:

nico67 said:

I

brendan16 said:

nico67 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1104714513289498624

Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .

Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.

Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian

And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).

My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.

She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.

So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!

I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .

You did say that leavers were thick compared to Remainers, which suggests you are likely to be on the thick side yourself giving how stupid that is.

notme2 said:

nico67 said:

Foxy said:

nico67 said:

I

brendan16 said:

nico67 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1104714513289498624

Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .

Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.

a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian

And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).

She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.

So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!

I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .

It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/da4760e4-42b1-11e9-b2a3-e9b8ad72e51b

The original study was carried out last June . You can find the results if you google privacy foundation Brexit .

Fascinating results there especially on the Dunning Kruger effect especially related to men .

Not sure, some of the smarter people I have met are as much susceptible to confirmation bias and their own righteousness as dim people.

I was getting howled down by some climate change activists the other week for reading out passages from the IPPC report for 2018 on climate change which was not saying what they were saying it said. People who would consider themselves educated, reasoned and intelligent, bare faced refused to accepted that what they thought the report said wasn’t what it actually said.

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

nico67 said:

I

brendan16 said:

nico67 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1104714513289498624

Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .

Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.

Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian

And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).

My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.

She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.

So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!

I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .

Indeed. Goebbels had a doctorate from one of Europe's oldest and most prestigious universities, for example.

Limbs in the Loch murderer, William Beggs, has a PhD.

And Jeremy Corbyn, a Remainer, failed a polytechnic course.

Edit - although come to think of it, that is in itself quite an achievement given the nature of North London Poly.

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1104754200809037825

Yes, it's most dispiriting to know that our PM will probably have to go cap in hand to the EU and grovel for crumbs. What a humiliation, especially considering that just a few years ago we practically running the show.

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1104754200809037825

Yes, it's most dispiriting to know that our PM will probably have to go cap in hand to the EU and grovel for crumbs. What a humiliation, especially considering that just a few years ago we practically running the show.

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

Oh dear. No. Obviously the reason we're having this discussion - as has already been explained ad nauseam above - is that that isn't what currently happens.

The point is that as things are now the minister makes the decision, and that decision takes effect immediately. The person no longer has British citizenship from that point. They have to wait - perhaps several years - for the judicial appeal (not review). During that time all kinds of things may happen.

In the context of the present discussion, a family member may not have access to medical treatment as a result of the political decision, and may die.

You appear to be suggesting that after Shamina’s lawyer went on a media offensive a couple of weeks ago, the British government should have moved mountains to get them back ‘home’ before her sick child succumbed to the lack of medicine in a war zone.

As I understand it the judicial review should take weeks rather than years - if the subject isn’t currently in Syria wishing death on the West.

Chris said:

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

Oh dear. No. Obviously the reason we're having this discussion - as has already been explained ad nauseam above - is that that isn't what currently happens.

The point is that as things are now the minister makes the decision, and that decision takes effect immediately. The person no longer has British citizenship from that point. They have to wait - perhaps several years - for the judicial appeal (not review). During that time all kinds of things may happen.

In the context of the present discussion, a family member may not have access to medical treatment as a result of the political decision, and may die.

You appear to be suggesting that after Shamina’s lawyer went on a media offensive a couple of weeks ago, the British government should have moved mountains to get them back ‘home’ before her sick child succumbed to the lack of medicine in a war zone.

As I understand it the judicial review should take weeks rather than years - if the subject isn’t currently in Syria wishing death on the West.

No, I didn't say what you're suggesting I said.

Let me explain again. Words of as few syllables as possible.

Situation now: Politician makes order depriving person of British citizenship. Person is no longer a British citizen. Person must wait for outcome of judicial appeal (not review). Until that outcome person does not have any of the rights of a British citizen.

What I'm suggesting: Decision should be taken by a court. Perhaps after a politician has initiated the process, if appropriate. Until court decision person remains a British citizen.

As for how long an appeal is likely to take:
Any challenge is likely to take time and she would probably have to stay in northern Syria for at least two years, a former independent reviewer of UK terrorism laws, Alex Carlile, told the BBC.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/isis-teen-a-bit-shocked-after-uk-revokes-her-citizenship-1.827991

Foxy said:

nico67 said:

I

brendan16 said:

nico67 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1104714513289498624

Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .

Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.

Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian

And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).

My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.

She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.

So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!

I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .

It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/da4760e4-42b1-11e9-b2a3-e9b8ad72e51b

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

Oh dear. No. Obviously the reason we're having this discussion - as has already been explained ad nauseam above - is that that isn't what currently happens.

The point is that as things are now the minister makes the decision, and that decision takes effect immediately. The person no longer has British citizenship from that point. They have to wait - perhaps several years - for the judicial appeal (not review). During that time all kinds of things may happen.

In the context of the present discussion, a family member may not have access to medical treatment as a result of the political decision, and may die.

You appear to be suggesting that after Shamina’s lawyer went on a media offensive a couple of weeks ago, the British government should have moved mountains to get them back ‘home’ before her sick child succumbed to the lack of medicine in a war zone.

As I understand it the judicial review should take weeks rather than years - if the subject isn’t currently in Syria wishing death on the West.

No, I didn't say what you're suggesting I said.

Let me explain again. Words of as few syllables as possible.

Situation now: Politician makes order depriving person of British citizenship. Person is no longer a British citizen. Person must wait for outcome of judicial appeal (not review). Until that outcome person does not have any of the rights of a British citizen.

What I'm suggesting: Decision should be taken by a court. Perhaps after a politician has initiated the process, if appropriate. Until court decision person remains a British citizen.

As for how long an appeal is likely to take:
Any challenge is likely to take time and she would probably have to stay in northern Syria for at least two years, a former independent reviewer of UK terrorism laws, Alex Carlile, told the BBC.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/isis-teen-a-bit-shocked-after-uk-revokes-her-citizenship-1.827991

Oh well, she’s been there for a few years already, what difference will a couple more make?

Foxy said:

It doesn't matter much.

This is a democracy where there is no morality or intelligence test on voting. Any mendacious fool has a vote that counts as much as the greatest and most saintly in the land.

ydoethur said:

Streeter said:

Nigelb said:

Streeter said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

But surely more could have been done to stop these three schoolgirls joining ISIS?

One curious aspect of this whole affair is that the security services seemed not to notice or wonder about three unaccompanied minors flying on one-way tickets on a known route to ISIS. Burgess and Maclean could escape to Russia because the MI5 teams following Maclean only worked 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. It seems any lessons learned have been forgotten.

By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.

But then what?

I don't know.

I'm afraid those three words are exactly the point.

No they are not because I am not the government or MI5, whose job it is to have a plan. The point is they did not even notice the schoolgirls leaving despite it being fairly obvious, so the only conclusion is the security services were not even looking.

The point is, what were they expected to do instead? Unless you have a reasonable alternative course of action, your criticism isn't valid. It's ridiculous to say 'they should do something' and then say 'I don't know' when asked 'what, exactly?'

Perhaps they should have spotted them. Perhaps they should have tried to do something. But this is ultimately about a 15-year old. She was old enough to know what she was doing. Unfortunately she made a very bad choice. Just as there is a limit to what can be done about a 15 year old boy who joins a gang, so there is a limit to what can be done here.

You’re a teacher, I believe. In loco parentis.

I can only be thankful my children do not attend your school.

Gang members, are they ?

No, we don’t live in Cannock.

If it's any consolation, your earlier expressed feeling is mutual. And if your children are anything like you, I am especially glad I do not have the misfortune to teach them.

You are ignorant, rude and unpleasant. I can see how you fit right in with Corbyn's party.