I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the Beeb live Ukraine feed from a couple of hours ago saying this, given it puts some shade on Johnson being Zelensky’s best mate
“When he arrived, Zelensky was almost immediately interrupted by a call from the French president, Emmanuel Macron. "I'll have to call you back, I'm with the BBC," he said. According to Zelensky, the two are on friendly terms.
Interactions with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and US President Joe Biden were more formal, Zelensky said, but he was grateful for their supplies of weapons.”
People on here who wonder how the Rwanda scheme will work are missing the point. The scheme isn't intended to "work". It is intended to suggest the government is on top of the migrant problem in adopting proactive muscular policies, while the opposition carps about human rights and practical difficulties. That suggestion and therefore the scheme needs to remain plausible until the next election, after which it is likely to be abandoned. Australia has gone through at least three of these schemes already.
Indeed the whole point is that it doesnt work because leftie lawyers keep obstructing it. It is performative cruelty to play to the cheap seats.
I am not sure it will work. This government has come up with all sorts of gimmicks and wheezes (without quite the moral vacuity of this one) such as freeports, tax increases disguised as social care support and so on. None of them seemed to have worked.
From the report that's come today though, this scheme seems like it won't work, not because the principle doesn't work but because of the details.
The Australian scheme since 2013, which has succeeded at all of its goals, was that all boats who weren't turned around would be taken to Nauru. Since then the boats almost completely stopped and the extremely few who attempted were able to be turned around, because who actually wants to go to Nauru?
The details I heard on the report earlier today said this scheme would be for "some people" with a total number of 100-500 people quoted. When 600 people a day are making the crossing, 500 people in total is utterly inconsequential.
For it to work properly, it needs to be a blanket "everybody" who makes the crossing by boat. Once that happens, then it will probably be like Australia with single digit attempts at making the crossing after that.
Bottom line: no value judgements either way, but Brits aren't Aussies.
Forget the practicalities- though the lack of international waters in the English Channel makes it harder to go full-on Australian.
Just consider the YouGov poll from earlier. Processing questionable migrants in Rwanda has minority support, and the rhetoric of this scheme goes further than that. I can't see passing the buck to another country being sellable to the public. We may want less immigration, we may hate the tiny boats, but we don't want to be shown how they will be stopped. I suspect our Australian friends are more comfortable with being more robust.
It's like sausages. Massive difference between eating them and being shown how that are made.
Perhaps we should rewild by reintroducing salt water crocodiles to deter them
If the crocs would eat all the illegally released beavers, I'd be for it.
At the mention of eating beaver I expect TSE to join the discussion...
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
As well as a vital mobile phone dropping to the bottom of the North Sea and a laptop going on the fritz, Rebekah Vardy's IT expert is now claiming to have lost the password needed to access Vardy's WhatsApp back-ups. Such bad luck!
This is the Chat Spat?
Goof job it is .. er .. "civil".
Don't the constabulary have a power to demand passwords, under pain of a prison sentence, and "I forgot" is not a defence?
You do know we held the 2010 election under the current electoral First Past the Post system? What should the parties have done given the electorate failed to provide any of them with a majority? Perhaps we should have immediately held an election and kept going until someone won a majority?
Nothing to do with PR against which, rather like "the public sector", you seem to have an irrational and incomprehensible dislike.
Yes but pr means more coalitions, coalitions means politicians getting together in smokey rooms to decide after we have voted what we voted on. It is that simple
FPTP doesn't always provide for majority Governments and even majority Governments renege on manifesto promises. I don't know why you are so against politicians compromising to produce stable Government. The Conservatives were only too happy to work with the DUP in 2017 when it suited them to stay in power when that election produced no overall majority.
I suppose if we had a permanent dictatorship none of this would happen - would you consider dictatorship (presumably as long as it's doing what you want) preferable to imperfect democracy? I think Churchill had a view on that.
As well as a vital mobile phone dropping to the bottom of the North Sea and a laptop going on the fritz, Rebekah Vardy's IT expert is now claiming to have lost the password needed to access Vardy's WhatsApp back-ups. Such bad luck!
This is the Chat Spat?
Goof job it is .. er .. "civil".
Don't the constabulary have a power to demand passwords, under pain of a prison sentence, and "I forgot" is not a defence?
< PR is even more undemocratic in my view and if it is brought in I wont even bother with politics anymore.
Currently we have this is what we say we will do ( and yes I accept its often a lie) vote for us
You want us to move to
Vote for us then once we have your mandate we will tell you what we will do
Yeah but no thanks
I voted in 2010 for one of the parties in the coalition. When they formed the coalition and gave a revised manifesto I went yeah can I have my vote back now because I would have voted against you. Thats pr and coalition for you
You do know we held the 2010 election under the current electoral First Past the Post system? What should the parties have done given the electorate failed to provide any of them with a majority? Perhaps we should have immediately held an election and kept going until someone won a majority?
Nothing to do with PR against which, rather like "the public sector", you seem to have an irrational and incomprehensible dislike.
Yes but pr means more coalitions, coalitions means politicians getting together in smokey rooms to decide after we have voted what we voted on. It is that simple
It is up to each party to come up with a manifesto so impressive that it attracts over half the vote and they can have a majority. Fail in that, and you have to share power. Sounds fair enough to me.
FPTP isn't the worst possible system, but it is close to the bottom of the list.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
@Dura had it right. It is just a giant elephant trap for Lab and Lab are almost sure to fall into it.
The problem with the Rwanda gimmick, or if you will the genius of it, is that it is so wrong for so many reasons. There is no one objection that people will hold onto.
* and one of the ways it is wrong is that it is meant to be an elephant trap. There is no other purpose for it.
Yep.
Costs, far away, far away African country of now much-improved but previously dubious human rights record, logistics, illogicality.
Nothing that you can drop on your foot.
They appear to be about to be sent to detention centres rather than be allowed to roam free while their cases are being processed. So I continue to ask why not detain them in the UK then send them home to Rwanda.
She claimed not - said they would be housed in hostels or hotels while their asylum applications were considered, and that they had huge numbers of refugees (from DRC and Libya) so were used to processing them. Asked if gay people would be welcome, she said, "People - any people - will be welcome." Asked about human rights, she agreed that problems arose, but so they did in other countries, including Britain, no?
As I said, impressive. But note that she said Rwanda would be paid approximately the same amount that processing the case in Britain would cost - so we won't actually save any money (but Rwanda will make a profit). And if their applications for asylum in Rwanda fail, I wasn't clear what happens then.
The main angle for Labour to latch onto is the trivial number of cases agreed. That makes it simply an expensive gimmick.
Or a pilot scheme… if they were doing 50,000 in year 1 you’d accuse them of being reckless
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
Thoughts and prayers for the aide that had to tell that news to Putin.
Bortnikov: you tell him (looking at Lavrov) Lavrov: no, you tell him (looking at Medvedev) Medvedev: no, this is a government matter, you tell him (looking at Mishustin) Mishustin: no, it's a military matter, the Minister of Defense should tell him (looks round for Shoygu). Medvedev: Good idea! (Turns to flunky) Tell him he's free on condition he tells Putin. Five minutes later, a nervous aide enters. Flunky: I apologise, excellencies, but Shoygu committed suicide rather than carry out the order. Lavrov, Medvedev and Mishustin, in chorus: You mean he was murdered! This is a breach of security! (All turn to Bortnikov) Now you've *got* to fucking tell him.
< PR is even more undemocratic in my view and if it is brought in I wont even bother with politics anymore.
Currently we have this is what we say we will do ( and yes I accept its often a lie) vote for us
You want us to move to
Vote for us then once we have your mandate we will tell you what we will do
Yeah but no thanks
I voted in 2010 for one of the parties in the coalition. When they formed the coalition and gave a revised manifesto I went yeah can I have my vote back now because I would have voted against you. Thats pr and coalition for you
You do know we held the 2010 election under the current electoral First Past the Post system? What should the parties have done given the electorate failed to provide any of them with a majority? Perhaps we should have immediately held an election and kept going until someone won a majority?
Nothing to do with PR against which, rather like "the public sector", you seem to have an irrational and incomprehensible dislike.
Yes but pr means more coalitions, coalitions means politicians getting together in smokey rooms to decide after we have voted what we voted on. It is that simple
You do know we held the 2010 election under the current electoral First Past the Post system? What should the parties have done given the electorate failed to provide any of them with a majority? Perhaps we should have immediately held an election and kept going until someone won a majority?
Nothing to do with PR against which, rather like "the public sector", you seem to have an irrational and incomprehensible dislike.
Yes but pr means more coalitions, coalitions means politicians getting together in smokey rooms to decide after we have voted what we voted on. It is that simple
FPTP doesn't always provide for majority Governments and even majority Governments renege on manifesto promises. I don't know why you are so against politicians compromising to produce stable Government. The Conservatives were only too happy to work with the DUP in 2017 when it suited them to stay in power when that election produced no overall majority.
I suppose if we had a permanent dictatorship none of this would happen - would you consider dictatorship (presumably as long as it's doing what you want) preferable to imperfect democracy? I think Churchill had a view on that.
Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
I take the view these days he would say "democracy is someone shitting on your head but the others forms of governement are like people shitting on your head while having explosive diahorreha"
I like the concept of democracy I really do. I merely think the current western form of democracy is not delivering for people but has been suborned by multinational interests who can buy and sell politicians. Politics is about doing what helps most people. Its not about business interests or donors. All our politicians have their hands deep in the pockets of others and it has to stop.
From the report that's come today though, this scheme seems like it won't work, not because the principle doesn't work but because of the details.
The Australian scheme since 2013, which has succeeded at all of its goals, was that all boats who weren't turned around would be taken to Nauru. Since then the boats almost completely stopped and the extremely few who attempted were able to be turned around, because who actually wants to go to Nauru?
The details I heard on the report earlier today said this scheme would be for "some people" with a total number of 100-500 people quoted. When 600 people a day are making the crossing, 500 people in total is utterly inconsequential.
For it to work properly, it needs to be a blanket "everybody" who makes the crossing by boat. Once that happens, then it will probably be like Australia with single digit attempts at making the crossing after that.
Bottom line: no value judgements either way, but Brits aren't Aussies.
Forget the practicalities- though the lack of international waters in the English Channel makes it harder to go full-on Australian.
Just consider the YouGov poll from earlier. Processing questionable migrants in Rwanda has minority support, and the rhetoric of this scheme goes further than that. I can't see passing the buck to another country being sellable to the public. We may want less immigration, we may hate the tiny boats, but we don't want to be shown how they will be stopped. I suspect our Australian friends are more comfortable with being more robust.
It's like sausages. Massive difference between eating them and being shown how that are made.
True, but isn't that because you're not used to seeing how they're made?
Back in the day, every granny knew how to dispatch a chicken in the backyard - and did.
That was then, of course.
This is here and now.
(FWIW, I reckon the government could have got away with processing in Rwanda, and allowing approved refugees into the UK subsequently. By auto-refusing young men in boats, Boris and Priti have either jumped the shark, or they are knowingly trolling the left.)
My point is that if the chips were down (and modern life wasn't quite so clinical) people would soon get used to it again.
We live very insulated lives that allow us to make ideological choices rather than real choices.
< PR is even more undemocratic in my view and if it is brought in I wont even bother with politics anymore.
Currently we have this is what we say we will do ( and yes I accept its often a lie) vote for us
You want us to move to
Vote for us then once we have your mandate we will tell you what we will do
Yeah but no thanks
I voted in 2010 for one of the parties in the coalition. When they formed the coalition and gave a revised manifesto I went yeah can I have my vote back now because I would have voted against you. Thats pr and coalition for you
You do know we held the 2010 election under the current electoral First Past the Post system? What should the parties have done given the electorate failed to provide any of them with a majority? Perhaps we should have immediately held an election and kept going until someone won a majority?
Nothing to do with PR against which, rather like "the public sector", you seem to have an irrational and incomprehensible dislike.
Yes but pr means more coalitions, coalitions means politicians getting together in smokey rooms to decide after we have voted what we voted on. It is that simple
'smokey rooms'. You're being out of date again.
They're just choosing to ignore a law they disagree with.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
As well as a vital mobile phone dropping to the bottom of the North Sea and a laptop going on the fritz, Rebekah Vardy's IT expert is now claiming to have lost the password needed to access Vardy's WhatsApp back-ups. Such bad luck!
This is the Chat Spat?
Goof job it is .. er .. "civil".
Don't the constabulary have a power to demand passwords, under pain of a prison sentence, and "I forgot" is not a defence?
In such circs can the Judge summarily declare "I don't believe you - 30 Days in the Cells, or until you remember."? Are they not very much the Fat Controller of their own Court?
Did that not happen to a very rich divorcee in the last few years, who was locked up because the Judge believed he was not disclosing his wealth?
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
TechCrunch not impressed by Musk's offer for Twitter:
"Musk isn’t just unconcerned with things like harassment and misinformation, two of Twitter’s most pressing threats to the social order; he’s a notorious vector for both."
"It’s not hard to imagine Musk reversing Twitter’s progress on hate and harassment and generally derailing a lot of important, thoughtful work at the company."
< PR is even more undemocratic in my view and if it is brought in I wont even bother with politics anymore.
Currently we have this is what we say we will do ( and yes I accept its often a lie) vote for us
You want us to move to
Vote for us then once we have your mandate we will tell you what we will do
Yeah but no thanks
I voted in 2010 for one of the parties in the coalition. When they formed the coalition and gave a revised manifesto I went yeah can I have my vote back now because I would have voted against you. Thats pr and coalition for you
You do know we held the 2010 election under the current electoral First Past the Post system? What should the parties have done given the electorate failed to provide any of them with a majority? Perhaps we should have immediately held an election and kept going until someone won a majority?
Nothing to do with PR against which, rather like "the public sector", you seem to have an irrational and incomprehensible dislike.
Yes but pr means more coalitions, coalitions means politicians getting together in smokey rooms to decide after we have voted what we voted on. It is that simple
'smokey rooms'. You're being out of date again.
They're just choosing to ignore a law they disagree with.
Smoking is not banned in the palace of westminster at least in bars as I understand
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
My understanding is that if they get sent to Rwanda they can only apply for asylum in Rwanda not the UK.
Not so much offshoring as dumping.
Yes, they can only apply there. Not sure how strict the rules are there. Also, apparently, they won't be put in a camp, but scattered round hostels etc. Britain will pay the same as we pay for accommodation in Britain (that's how Rwanda makes a profit).
The numbers are too small for it to affect crossings much - "if you go to Britain there is a 1% chance you will end up in Rwanda in two years' time". "Meh, whatever."
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
Juries (not the judiciary) sometimes throw out unjust or oppressive laws. Isn't that something you were just arguing for?
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
So it's ok for you to ignore a law that you believe is crap but the Coulson protestors were bang out of line for ignoring a law they thought was crap?
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
My understanding is that if they get sent to Rwanda they can only apply for asylum in Rwanda not the UK.
Not so much offshoring as dumping.
Yes, they can only apply there. Not sure how strict the rules are there. Also, apparently, they won't be put in a camp, but scattered round hostels etc. Britain will pay the same as we pay for accommodation in Britain (that's how Rwanda makes a profit).
The numbers are too small for it to affect crossings much - "if you go to Britain there is a 1% chance you will end up in Rwanda in two years' time". "Meh, whatever."
Ankit Panda @nktpnd Experiencing the largest loss of a warship in combat since WWII just days after a joint Swedish-Finnish press conference on future NATO membership: all part of Putin's 14-dimensional chess game.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
Juries (not the judiciary) sometimes throw out unjust or oppressive laws. Isn't that something you were just arguing for?
Yes and as above I agreed it was the juries choice, doesnt mean I have to agree with them but accept it. Also I didnt hear the evidence so can not fairly comment
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
It wasn't a referendum, it was a poll conducted by a newspaper. It didn't meet BP C standards.
That said, the general feeling when I lived there particularly among the non white community was that it should stay up to remind people of where the money to build the city came from.
Rees didn't agree, but Rees needed, shall we say, a distraction from his abject performance as mayor. Colston's statue was his answer to Rwanda.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
So it's ok for you to ignore a law that you believe is crap but the Coulson protestors were bang out of line for ignoring a law they thought was crap?
They ignored it they went to court for it just as I would for a law I was ignoring and got a verdict. Where is that hypocritical?
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
So it's ok for you to ignore a law that you believe is crap but the Coulson protestors were bang out of line for ignoring a law they thought was crap?
They ignored it they went to court for it just as I would for a law I was ignoring and got a verdict. Where is that hypocritical?
I did comment that ignoring what the people said they wanted in the town was hypocritical certainly as most of those pulling down the statue werent from bristol. So yes when there is a popular mandate saying keep it up deciding you know better seems a little....odd regardless of law
From the report that's come today though, this scheme seems like it won't work, not because the principle doesn't work but because of the details.
The Australian scheme since 2013, which has succeeded at all of its goals, was that all boats who weren't turned around would be taken to Nauru. Since then the boats almost completely stopped and the extremely few who attempted were able to be turned around, because who actually wants to go to Nauru?
The details I heard on the report earlier today said this scheme would be for "some people" with a total number of 100-500 people quoted. When 600 people a day are making the crossing, 500 people in total is utterly inconsequential.
For it to work properly, it needs to be a blanket "everybody" who makes the crossing by boat. Once that happens, then it will probably be like Australia with single digit attempts at making the crossing after that.
Bottom line: no value judgements either way, but Brits aren't Aussies.
Forget the practicalities- though the lack of international waters in the English Channel makes it harder to go full-on Australian.
Just consider the YouGov poll from earlier. Processing questionable migrants in Rwanda has minority support, and the rhetoric of this scheme goes further than that. I can't see passing the buck to another country being sellable to the public. We may want less immigration, we may hate the tiny boats, but we don't want to be shown how they will be stopped. I suspect our Australian friends are more comfortable with being more robust.
It's like sausages. Massive difference between eating them and being shown how that are made.
Perhaps we should rewild by reintroducing salt water crocodiles to deter them
If the crocs would eat all the illegally released beavers, I'd be for it.
At the mention of eating beaver I expect TSE to join the discussion...
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Russian Federation Navy has announced that Moskva has sunk "after being taken under tow". So it seems a good proportion of the crew has likely died.
Just a quite word about Kaliningrad. Some are saying that there are some serious food shortages and availablity of food is severely rationed. The exclave is, of course, totally isolated from the rest of Russia. However, they are more aware of western media, so probably know more about the true situation in Ukraine. Medevedev threatened to put nukes in the Kaliningradskaya Oblast, if Finland and Sweden were to join NATO, but It is a pretty witless threat, since tactical nukes have probably been there for years already. While we are all concentrating on the coming battle in Donbas, we should not ignore that a crisis is brewing in several other parts of the Russian Federation, after the high death toll in units from Dagestan and Buryatia, any increase in conscription in Western Russia could trigger a very strong backlash.
The "work to rule" in Belarus is also causing the Russian armed forces some significant problems and Lukashanka is in deep trouble.
A Russian friend of mine said that he does not see his country surviving in its current form. I think that is probably a given. The question is what form, if any, it does survive in?
The next three weeks are likely to be critical. The battle will be cruelly fought but the situation for Russia is weakening by the day, while Ukraine is growing stronger. The determination of Putin to get some kind of "result" by May 9th is actually placing impossible demands on the Russian forces. More haste, less speed, might be wiser, but the regime is now arresting generals, its own spies and any possible dissident voices. It is some insane fever dream of disaster, and still the general public in Russia does not know the scale of the unfolding catastrophe.
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
It wasn't a referendum, it was a poll conducted by a newspaper. It didn't meet BP C standards.
That said, the general feeling when I lived there particularly among the non white community was that it should stay up to remind people of where the money to build the city came from.
Rees didn't agree, but Rees needed, shall we say, a distraction from his abject performance as mayor. Colston's statue was his answer to Rwanda.
I wasn't aware was a newspaper poll indeed so thanks for the info. But it sounds like the general feeling was still keep it up but people who knew better took it out of their hands
Are we sure there will be a Wakefield by election?
If there’s a general election in June it would be part of that?
I can't see any way a general election in June could happen, realistically speaking.
I have been in Yorkshire three days and yet to meet someone who thinks removing the Churchillian leader of the West whilst they are at war battling Evil Putin could ever happen. PB.com is hopelessly behind the curve here - just as Maggie was trusted because she was Iron Lady, Boris is completely Transforming into similar iconic image. It doesn’t work on me, but it’s a real thing going on. If Boris runs this June he definitely wins 5 years to play with.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
So it's ok for you to ignore a law that you believe is crap but the Coulson protestors were bang out of line for ignoring a law they thought was crap?
They ignored it they went to court for it just as I would for a law I was ignoring and got a verdict. Where is that hypocritical?
I did comment that ignoring what the people said they wanted in the town was hypocritical certainly as most of those pulling down the statue werent from bristol. So yes when there is a popular mandate saying keep it up deciding you know better seems a little....odd regardless of law
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
Juries (not the judiciary) sometimes throw out unjust or oppressive laws. Isn't that something you were just arguing for?
I was beginning to wonder if it was entirely sensible to tow a burning ship full of munitions into a naval harbour. Alas, we'll never know the answer now. In a parallel universe Sevastopol has just been blasted into orbit.
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Russian Federation Navy has announced that Moskva has sunk "after being taken under tow". So it seems a good proportion of the crew has likely died.
Just a quite word about Kaliningrad. Some are saying that there are some serious food shortages and availablity of food is severely rationed. The exclave is, of course, totally isolated from the rest of Russia. However, they are more aware of western media, so probably know more about the true situation in Ukraine. Medevedev threatened to put nukes in the Kaliningradskaya Oblast, if Finland and Sweden were to join NATO, but It is a pretty witless threat, since tactical nukes have probably been there for years already. While we are all concentrating on the coming battle in Donbas, we should not ignore that a crisis is brewing in several other parts of the Russian Federation, after the high death toll in units from Dagestan and Buryatia, any increase in conscription in Western Russia could trigger a very strong backlash.
The "work to rule" in Belarus is also causing the Russian armed forces some significant problems and Lukashanka is in deep trouble.
A Russian friend of mine said that he does not see his country surviving in its current form. I think that is probably a given. The question is what form, if any, it does survive in?
The next three weeks are likely to be critical. The battle will be cruelly fought but the situation for Russia is weakening by the day, while Ukraine is growing stronger. The determination of Putin to get some kind of "result" by May 9th is actually placing impossible demands on the Russian forces. More haste, less speed, might be wiser, but the regime is now arresting generals, its own spies and any possible dissident voices. It is some insane fever dream of disaster, and still the general public in Russia does not know the scale of the unfolding catastrophe.
In any rational world "Kaliningrad" should have been given back to Poland decades ago.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
So it's ok for you to ignore a law that you believe is crap but the Coulson protestors were bang out of line for ignoring a law they thought was crap?
They ignored it they went to court for it just as I would for a law I was ignoring and got a verdict. Where is that hypocritical?
I did comment that ignoring what the people said they wanted in the town was hypocritical certainly as most of those pulling down the statue werent from bristol. So yes when there is a popular mandate saying keep it up deciding you know better seems a little....odd regardless of law
Not 'most', 3 of the 4 accused were from Brissle.
From Bristol, or at uni in Bristol? I think only one was actually from Bristol, but I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong.
The one who said he'd never been to Bristol, never seen it, but was still offended by it because reasons, just came across as an utter bellend. However, that is true of many such protestors. Look at another Bristol student, the out and out Fascist wannabe dictator Robin Boardman-Petterson who 'demands a citizens assembly.'
Russian Federation Navy has announced that Moskva has sunk "after being taken under tow". So it seems a good proportion of the crew has likely died.
Just a quite word about Kaliningrad. Some are saying that there are some serious food shortages and availablity of food is severely rationed. The exclave is, of course, totally isolated from the rest of Russia. However, they are more aware of western media, so probably know more about the true situation in Ukraine. Medevedev threatened to put nukes in the Kaliningradskaya Oblast, if Finland and Sweden were to join NATO, but It is a pretty witless threat, since tactical nukes have probably been there for years already. While we are all concentrating on the coming battle in Donbas, we should not ignore that a crisis is brewing in several other parts of the Russian Federation, after the high death toll in units from Dagestan and Buryatia, any increase in conscription in Western Russia could trigger a very strong backlash.
The "work to rule" in Belarus is also causing the Russian armed forces some significant problems and Lukashanka is in deep trouble.
A Russian friend of mine said that he does not see his country surviving in its current form. I think that is probably a given. The question is what form, if any, it does survive in?
The next three weeks are likely to be critical. The battle will be cruelly fought but the situation for Russia is weakening by the day, while Ukraine is growing stronger. The determination of Putin to get some kind of "result" by May 9th is actually placing impossible demands on the Russian forces. More haste, less speed, might be wiser, but the regime is now arresting generals, its own spies and any possible dissident voices. It is some insane fever dream of disaster, and still the general public in Russia does not know the scale of the unfolding catastrophe.
In any rational world "Kaliningrad" should have been given back to Poland decades ago.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
So it's ok for you to ignore a law that you believe is crap but the Coulson protestors were bang out of line for ignoring a law they thought was crap?
They ignored it they went to court for it just as I would for a law I was ignoring and got a verdict. Where is that hypocritical?
I did comment that ignoring what the people said they wanted in the town was hypocritical certainly as most of those pulling down the statue werent from bristol. So yes when there is a popular mandate saying keep it up deciding you know better seems a little....odd regardless of law
Not 'most', 3 of the 4 accused were from Brissle.
Still the point being seems despite it being a newspaper poll most wanted to keep it up and I wonder if the jury that acquitted them were given that info.....as I said didnt really follow the case so didnt see the evidence either way just generally aware of it
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Omigod.
Only 99.9% nerd.
Abject failure
I shall never hold my head up on PB again.
Btw, think you're Derbyshire? Your boys had a really good day at the office today, didn't they, even if it was only against Sussex.
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Omigod.
Only 99.9% nerd.
Abject failure
Worse - he’s been blackballed from the cricket badger club. There is no way back.
Are we sure there will be a Wakefield by election?
If there’s a general election in June it would be part of that?
I can't see any way a general election in June could happen, realistically speaking.
I have been in Yorkshire three days and yet to meet someone who thinks removing the Churchillian leader of the West whilst they are at war battling Evil Putin could ever happen. PB.com is hopelessly behind the curve here - just as Maggie was trusted because she was Iron Lady, Boris is completely Transforming into similar iconic image. It doesn’t work on me, but it’s a real thing going on. If Boris runs this June he definitely wins 5 years to play with.
You probably need to meet some outside your bubble then. The vast majority of non Tory voters think it is fine to change, and about a quarter of Tories. No way is there going to be a June election happening, but if it did it would dwarf the 2017 GE for a spectacular own goal.
Meanwhile, in France, the polls continue to drip away from Le Pen, making Macron the hot favourite. But - Le Pen is deliberately stoking clear policy differences between them, a selfish, nationalist platform opposed to the interns list one, and, if the polls tighten late on they can transform behind poll blackout because a lot of anti establishment abstentions turn into Le Pen votes if the believe it’s possible she wins. Leaning Macron but not over.
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Omigod.
Only 99.9% nerd.
Abject failure
Worse - he’s been blackballed from the cricket badger club. There is no way back.
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Omigod.
Only 99.9% nerd.
Abject failure
Worse - he’s been blackballed from the cricket badger club. There is no way back.
I was beginning to wonder if it was entirely sensible to tow a burning ship full of munitions into a naval harbour. Alas, we'll never know the answer now. In a parallel universe Sevastopol has just been blasted into orbit.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
People are free to ignore any law they think is crap. They then have to argue why its crap in front of a jury of their peers. Most sane people are fairly on the same page about killing, theft, sexual assault so never going to work out for you if you are arguing you shouldnt have to obey those. However a lot of people got off on for example possession charges because people saw it as individual choice and no one was harmed. You ignore bad laws as you see them doesnt mean you wont have to defend that in court
Same with getting rid of statues of slavers which had been left up despite repeated protests.
If you are referring to colston statue....I believe they actually had a referendum in bristol and the consensus was to leave it up but put an explanatory plaque. The fact some arseholes decided to go against the democratic decision because they were twats is irrelevant
The jury backed the iconoclasts though, as they sometimes do for extinction rebellion.
Which just points to the judiciary being totally crap as well in both cases they caused criminal damage. Believing they were doing it for the good of mankind doesnt count as an excuse no more than it would if I said I was exterminating race x for the good of mankind
So it's ok for you to ignore a law that you believe is crap but the Coulson protestors were bang out of line for ignoring a law they thought was crap?
They ignored it they went to court for it just as I would for a law I was ignoring and got a verdict. Where is that hypocritical?
I did comment that ignoring what the people said they wanted in the town was hypocritical certainly as most of those pulling down the statue werent from bristol. So yes when there is a popular mandate saying keep it up deciding you know better seems a little....odd regardless of law
Not 'most', 3 of the 4 accused were from Brissle.
Still the point being seems despite it being a newspaper poll most wanted to keep it up and I wonder if the jury that acquitted them were given that info.....as I said didnt really follow the case so didnt see the evidence either way just generally aware of it
Let me be clear here to explain my position
if the majority of bristolians had said tear it down but the council said no I would applaud them for doing it
If the majority of bristolians want it left but the council said no I will castigate them
The people of bristol get to decide not the council nor a few fringe people
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Omigod.
Only 99.9% nerd.
Abject failure
Worse - he’s been blackballed from the cricket badger club. There is no way back.
Russian Federation Navy has announced that Moskva has sunk "after being taken under tow". So it seems a good proportion of the crew has likely died.
Just a quite word about Kaliningrad. Some are saying that there are some serious food shortages and availablity of food is severely rationed. The exclave is, of course, totally isolated from the rest of Russia. However, they are more aware of western media, so probably know more about the true situation in Ukraine. Medevedev threatened to put nukes in the Kaliningradskaya Oblast, if Finland and Sweden were to join NATO, but It is a pretty witless threat, since tactical nukes have probably been there for years already. While we are all concentrating on the coming battle in Donbas, we should not ignore that a crisis is brewing in several other parts of the Russian Federation, after the high death toll in units from Dagestan and Buryatia, any increase in conscription in Western Russia could trigger a very strong backlash.
The "work to rule" in Belarus is also causing the Russian armed forces some significant problems and Lukashanka is in deep trouble.
A Russian friend of mine said that he does not see his country surviving in its current form. I think that is probably a given. The question is what form, if any, it does survive in?
The next three weeks are likely to be critical. The battle will be cruelly fought but the situation for Russia is weakening by the day, while Ukraine is growing stronger. The determination of Putin to get some kind of "result" by May 9th is actually placing impossible demands on the Russian forces. More haste, less speed, might be wiser, but the regime is now arresting generals, its own spies and any possible dissident voices. It is some insane fever dream of disaster, and still the general public in Russia does not know the scale of the unfolding catastrophe.
In any rational world "Kaliningrad" should have been given back to Poland decades ago.
"Back" to Poland? It hasn't been Polish since 1660, and has never been home to Poles.
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Omigod.
Only 99.9% nerd.
Abject failure
I shall never hold my head up on PB again.
Btw, think you're Derbyshire? Your boys had a really good day at the office today, didn't they, even if it was only against Sussex.
Roughly.
I hopped back over the border into Notts a few years ago, but it is only a mile away.
Russian Federation Navy has announced that Moskva has sunk "after being taken under tow". So it seems a good proportion of the crew has likely died.
Just a quite word about Kaliningrad. Some are saying that there are some serious food shortages and availablity of food is severely rationed. The exclave is, of course, totally isolated from the rest of Russia. However, they are more aware of western media, so probably know more about the true situation in Ukraine. Medevedev threatened to put nukes in the Kaliningradskaya Oblast, if Finland and Sweden were to join NATO, but It is a pretty witless threat, since tactical nukes have probably been there for years already. While we are all concentrating on the coming battle in Donbas, we should not ignore that a crisis is brewing in several other parts of the Russian Federation, after the high death toll in units from Dagestan and Buryatia, any increase in conscription in Western Russia could trigger a very strong backlash.
The "work to rule" in Belarus is also causing the Russian armed forces some significant problems and Lukashanka is in deep trouble.
A Russian friend of mine said that he does not see his country surviving in its current form. I think that is probably a given. The question is what form, if any, it does survive in?
The next three weeks are likely to be critical. The battle will be cruelly fought but the situation for Russia is weakening by the day, while Ukraine is growing stronger. The determination of Putin to get some kind of "result" by May 9th is actually placing impossible demands on the Russian forces. More haste, less speed, might be wiser, but the regime is now arresting generals, its own spies and any possible dissident voices. It is some insane fever dream of disaster, and still the general public in Russia does not know the scale of the unfolding catastrophe.
In any rational world "Kaliningrad" should have been given back to Poland decades ago.
"Back" to Poland? It hasn't been Polish since 1660, and has never been home to Poles.
Poland didn't want it in 1991, nor did Lithuania.
And the population is all new since World War II, almost all Russian, so giving it back to Germany - the only other logical claimant - isn't feasible either.
It's a mess, a silly anomaly that can't be resolved.
Well, short of Russia removing the population and handing the whole lot over, empty, to Poland. But we're trying to stop them from ethnic cleansing not encourage them.
I was beginning to wonder if it was entirely sensible to tow a burning ship full of munitions into a naval harbour. Alas, we'll never know the answer now. In a parallel universe Sevastopol has just been blasted into orbit.
There may well be several Russian nukes at the bottom of the Black Sea now.
If @Cicero is right about the Russian Generals being pressured into a quick attack, they may well get into a very sticky situation. The Ukranian military command seem to play their own game, not Russias.
Disappointed by this retelling of the story from the Beeb..
“ Earlier in the conflict the Moskva gained notoriety after calling on Ukrainian border troops defending Snake Island in the Black Sea to surrender - to which they memorably radioed a message of refusal which loosely translates as "go to hell".”
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Everything you post is funny. 🙂 Yorkshire are missing Root and Bairstow otherwise etc but Harry Brooks runs could set up the innings win Saturday afternoon.
Russian Federation Navy has announced that Moskva has sunk "after being taken under tow". So it seems a good proportion of the crew has likely died.
Just a quite word about Kaliningrad. Some are saying that there are some serious food shortages and availablity of food is severely rationed. The exclave is, of course, totally isolated from the rest of Russia. However, they are more aware of western media, so probably know more about the true situation in Ukraine. Medevedev threatened to put nukes in the Kaliningradskaya Oblast, if Finland and Sweden were to join NATO, but It is a pretty witless threat, since tactical nukes have probably been there for years already. While we are all concentrating on the coming battle in Donbas, we should not ignore that a crisis is brewing in several other parts of the Russian Federation, after the high death toll in units from Dagestan and Buryatia, any increase in conscription in Western Russia could trigger a very strong backlash.
The "work to rule" in Belarus is also causing the Russian armed forces some significant problems and Lukashanka is in deep trouble.
A Russian friend of mine said that he does not see his country surviving in its current form. I think that is probably a given. The question is what form, if any, it does survive in?
The next three weeks are likely to be critical. The battle will be cruelly fought but the situation for Russia is weakening by the day, while Ukraine is growing stronger. The determination of Putin to get some kind of "result" by May 9th is actually placing impossible demands on the Russian forces. More haste, less speed, might be wiser, but the regime is now arresting generals, its own spies and any possible dissident voices. It is some insane fever dream of disaster, and still the general public in Russia does not know the scale of the unfolding catastrophe.
In any rational world "Kaliningrad" should have been given back to Poland decades ago.
It was German - Koenigsberg.
If only there were a way to bridge the gap between nations.
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Everything you post is funny. 🙂 Yorkshire are missing Root and Bairstow otherwise etc but Harry Brooks runs could set up the innings win Saturday afternoon.
Hey, I'm not the one who thinks Yorkshire's a first class county....
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
My understanding is that if they get sent to Rwanda they can only apply for asylum in Rwanda not the UK.
Not so much offshoring as dumping.
Yes, they can only apply there. Not sure how strict the rules are there. Also, apparently, they won't be put in a camp, but scattered round hostels etc. Britain will pay the same as we pay for accommodation in Britain (that's how Rwanda makes a profit).
The numbers are too small for it to affect crossings much - "if you go to Britain there is a 1% chance you will end up in Rwanda in two years' time". "Meh, whatever."
Does that not break international treaties?
Yes, article 31 of the UN Convention on refugees.
Hardly working hard with everyone else to make a bad situation better approach, is it?
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
A reasonable start by Yorkshire. They've saved the follow on. Now to see if they can last to day 4. If they can, maybe we can start thinking about them as a possible first class county again.
Follow on is 150 in a 4 day game
How did I overlook that?
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Everything you post is funny. 🙂 Yorkshire are missing Root and Bairstow otherwise etc but Harry Brooks runs could set up the innings win Saturday afternoon.
Hey, I'm not the one who thinks Yorkshire's a first class county....
32 titles. How many do minor county west have, just the one?
I was beginning to wonder if it was entirely sensible to tow a burning ship full of munitions into a naval harbour. Alas, we'll never know the answer now. In a parallel universe Sevastopol has just been blasted into orbit.
There may well be several Russian nukes at the bottom of the Black Sea now.
If @Cicero is right about the Russian Generals being pressured into a quick attack, they may well get into a very sticky situation. The Ukranian military command seem to play their own game, not Russias.
It does seem rather like the Russian commanders are being forced to repeat in the East what they were told to do in the North, with even less prep and at least 20% fewer resources.
Comments
“When he arrived, Zelensky was almost immediately interrupted by a call from the French president, Emmanuel Macron. "I'll have to call you back, I'm with the BBC," he said. According to Zelensky, the two are on friendly terms.
Interactions with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and US President Joe Biden were more formal, Zelensky said, but he was grateful for their supplies of weapons.”
Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.
Goof job it is .. er .. "civil".
Don't the constabulary have a power to demand passwords, under pain of a prison sentence, and "I forgot" is not a defence?
eg https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/prosecuted-for-your-password/
I suppose if we had a permanent dictatorship none of this would happen - would you consider dictatorship (presumably as long as it's doing what you want) preferable to imperfect democracy? I think Churchill had a view on that.
tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1…
https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1514694898221518856
FPTP isn't the worst possible system, but it is close to the bottom of the list.
So did you, I see ;-)
Lavrov: no, you tell him (looking at Medvedev)
Medvedev: no, this is a government matter, you tell him (looking at Mishustin)
Mishustin: no, it's a military matter, the Minister of Defense should tell him (looks round for Shoygu).
Medvedev: Good idea! (Turns to flunky) Tell him he's free on condition he tells Putin.
Five minutes later, a nervous aide enters.
Flunky: I apologise, excellencies, but Shoygu committed suicide rather than carry out the order.
Lavrov, Medvedev and Mishustin, in chorus: You mean he was murdered! This is a breach of security! (All turn to Bortnikov) Now you've *got* to fucking tell him.
I take the view these days he would say "democracy is someone shitting on your head but the others forms of governement are like people shitting on your head while having explosive diahorreha"
I like the concept of democracy I really do. I merely think the current western form of democracy is not delivering for people but has been suborned by multinational interests who can buy and sell politicians. Politics is about doing what helps most people. Its not about business interests or donors. All our politicians have their hands deep in the pockets of others and it has to stop.
We live very insulated lives that allow us to make ideological choices rather than real choices.
And Thomas the Tank Engine *was* created by a Vicar.
Mr or Mrs Johnson would have had the skivvy pick the dog turd up and dispose of it.
What is the point of publicly funded hired help if one does the dirty work oneself?
That Easter without rules is magic.
Did that not happen to a very rich divorcee in the last few years, who was locked up because the Judge believed he was not disclosing his wealth?
Penalty review that the ref cannot watch.
FWIW - Not a penalty.
"Musk isn’t just unconcerned with things like harassment and misinformation, two of Twitter’s most pressing threats to the social order; he’s a notorious vector for both."
"It’s not hard to imagine Musk reversing Twitter’s progress on hate and harassment and generally derailing a lot of important, thoughtful work at the company."
https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/14/elon-musk-twitter-takeover-bro-log-off/
https://hotair.com/headlines/2022/04/14/auto-draft-527-n462484
@nktpnd
Experiencing the largest loss of a warship in combat since WWII just days after a joint Swedish-Finnish press conference on future NATO membership: all part of Putin's 14-dimensional chess game.
It wasn't a referendum, it was a poll conducted by a newspaper. It didn't meet BP C standards.
That said, the general feeling when I lived there particularly among the non white community was that it should stay up to remind people of where the money to build the city came from.
Rees didn't agree, but Rees needed, shall we say, a distraction from his abject performance as mayor. Colston's statue was his answer to Rwanda.
Russian warship, what are you sinking?
https://twitter.com/ukraine/status/1514698388926873604
Just a quite word about Kaliningrad. Some are saying that there are some serious food shortages and availablity of food is severely rationed. The exclave is, of course, totally isolated from the rest of Russia. However, they are more aware of western media, so probably know more about the true situation in Ukraine. Medevedev threatened to put nukes in the Kaliningradskaya Oblast, if Finland and Sweden were to join NATO, but It is a pretty witless threat, since tactical nukes have probably been there for years already. While we are all concentrating on the coming battle in Donbas, we should not ignore that a crisis is brewing in several other parts of the Russian Federation, after the high death toll in units from Dagestan and Buryatia, any increase in conscription in Western Russia could trigger a very strong backlash.
The "work to rule" in Belarus is also causing the Russian armed forces some significant problems and Lukashanka is in deep trouble.
A Russian friend of mine said that he does not see his country surviving in its current form. I think that is probably a given. The question is what form, if any, it does survive in?
The next three weeks are likely to be critical. The battle will be cruelly fought but the situation for Russia is weakening by the day, while Ukraine is growing stronger. The determination of Putin to get some kind of "result" by May 9th is actually placing impossible demands on the Russian forces. More haste, less speed, might be wiser, but the regime is now arresting generals, its own spies and any possible dissident voices. It is some insane fever dream of disaster, and still the general public in Russia does not know the scale of the unfolding catastrophe.
So they still have a bit of work to do.
At least they're lucky the Gloucestershire are missing three first choice players. Otherwise they really might be in strife.
Isn't it - "we won't find this one guilty".
Only 99.9% nerd.
Abject failure
The one who said he'd never been to Bristol, never seen it, but was still offended by it because reasons, just came across as an utter bellend. However, that is true of many such protestors. Look at another Bristol student, the out and out Fascist wannabe dictator Robin Boardman-Petterson who 'demands a citizens assembly.'
Btw, think you're Derbyshire? Your boys had a really good day at the office today, didn't they, even if it was only against Sussex.
if the majority of bristolians had said tear it down but the council said no I would applaud them for doing it
If the majority of bristolians want it left but the council said no I will castigate them
The people of bristol get to decide not the council nor a few fringe people
But enough of boaring people with badger puns.
I hopped back over the border into Notts a few years ago, but it is only a mile away.
And the population is all new since World War II, almost all Russian, so giving it back to Germany - the only other logical claimant - isn't feasible either.
It's a mess, a silly anomaly that can't be resolved.
Well, short of Russia removing the population and handing the whole lot over, empty, to Poland. But we're trying to stop them from ethnic cleansing not encourage them.
If @Cicero is right about the Russian Generals being pressured into a quick attack, they may well get into a very sticky situation. The Ukranian military command seem to play their own game, not Russias.
“ Earlier in the conflict the Moskva gained notoriety after calling on Ukrainian border troops defending Snake Island in the Black Sea to surrender - to which they memorably radioed a message of refusal which loosely translates as "go to hell".”
At least they’ve untied their knots
Moskva was 12,500 tones the Argentinian Curser Belgrano was 12,200, I can think of any other big ships at lest not recently?