So can Truss turn this round for the Tories – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Stripping someone of citizenship is easier than putting them in prison; because to do the latter you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime in relation to the laws of your own country.rkrkrk said:
The whole removing citizenship thing is super shady... and is just pointless populist nonsense.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
The safest place for terrorists is (obviously) prison. The whole debate should be flipped around to be... why don't you want terrorists in prison as opposed to free?
There are other cases Moazzam Begg talks about on twitter where you have to wonder whether stripping someone of citizenship is just an easy get-out for the authorities who are embarassed about intelligence operations gone wrong.
0 -
I mostly agree apart from ‘stick her in prison’. Needs to be trial first, and I suspect this is where the issue is. Has she committed crimes that the U.K. can try her for? Because if not, she comes home and is free.CorrectHorseBattery3 said:Begum was born and raised here. She is our problem. Stick her in prison.
Just like we don’t make people that commit terrible crimes stateless. We present proper justice and process to the world and we take the good with the bad.
At Fishmongers Hall, one of the men who saved countless lives was on day release after committing murders. If we had made him stateless it’s likely a lot more people would have died.3 -
You know that do you?Leon said:OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
0 -
OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the modern British Left
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
= 100,000 white girls raped, abused, tortured and even murdered by racist Muslim grooming gangs
0 -
The courts ruled otherwise.TOPPING said:
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.1 -
For those wondering why the Ukrainian advance seems slow, I want to say it’s not. It’s unprecedented. The Ukrainians are trying to advance without air supremacy and tactical air support (the prerequisite for almos all successful offensive campaigns since 1939 or even 1918)
https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/status/1565248503630159872
1 -
But you are allowing no mitigation in your opinion of what should happen to Begum?BartholomewRoberts said:
If they killed someone at 20 they'd be an murderer, yes. Their terrible backstory might be taken into account as mitigation at any sentencing, just as if she's charged where she's chosen to live with any crimes then she ought to be able to plead mitigation there.TOPPING said:
So by this logic you could kidnap a 10-yr old, groom them continuously for 10 years and then send them out to kill someone and they would bear full criminal responsibility.BartholomewRoberts said:
She wasn't a minor where she had sex. Unless she did in this country, which hasn't ever been reported, she was above the age of consent there.RochdalePioneers said:
Because she was groomed and trafficked as a minor.BartholomewRoberts said:
So 16 year olds aren't raped if they have consensual sex in a country with 16 as age of consent, but 15 year olds are if they have consensual sex in a country with 15 as age of consent?Daveyboy1961 said:
Of course not, but 15 Yr olds are.BartholomewRoberts said:
Age of consent in this country is 16, in other countries its 18, in Syria its 15.Theuniondivvie said:
Well, we have an early winner for today’s worst point made.BartholomewRoberts said:
What evidence do you have that she was raped? She chose to get married and was above the age of consent.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Western intelligence could have intervened and said hold onto this girl, she's a vulnerable minor and a British citizen, we will come and get her and bring her home. They chose not to and let her be trafficked to Islamic state, where she got raped. Why?bondegezou said:
It’s about agency. She wasn’t trafficked at the behest of Western intelligence. The Western intelligence asset did not do everything he did under the direction of Western intelligence. It is, thus, wrong to say she was trafficked by Western intelligence.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
There is no proof that she was stripped of her citizenship to prevent the intelligence involvement coming out. I can entirely believe she was stripped of her citizenship by a racist government wanting to scapegoat a brown girl while looking Tough on Terrorism.
It is an important case. That is why it is important to get the facts straight.
We only have a few facts, it is true. I am operating on the principle that the more we find out the worse it will look, which is generally the case with these sorts of situations. I may be wrong of course, but I think that anyone who takes the government's word on any of this is naive beyond belief.
Age of consent in Syria is 15.
If 16 years olds from countries with an 18 age of consent move to this country are they "raped" if they engage in consensual sex?
FFS, are you on the spectrum or something? You have no check box in your mind about not upsetting people have you.
How do you explain that one?
That it?0 -
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.NickPalmer said:
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?Cookie said:
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.OnlyLivingBoy said:
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.noneoftheabove said:
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.eek said:
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.BartholomewRoberts said:Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.0 -
I'm not saying she should be on trial in this country am I?TOPPING said:
But you are allowing no mitigation in your opinion of what should happen to Begum?BartholomewRoberts said:
If they killed someone at 20 they'd be an murderer, yes. Their terrible backstory might be taken into account as mitigation at any sentencing, just as if she's charged where she's chosen to live with any crimes then she ought to be able to plead mitigation there.TOPPING said:
So by this logic you could kidnap a 10-yr old, groom them continuously for 10 years and then send them out to kill someone and they would bear full criminal responsibility.BartholomewRoberts said:
She wasn't a minor where she had sex. Unless she did in this country, which hasn't ever been reported, she was above the age of consent there.RochdalePioneers said:
Because she was groomed and trafficked as a minor.BartholomewRoberts said:
So 16 year olds aren't raped if they have consensual sex in a country with 16 as age of consent, but 15 year olds are if they have consensual sex in a country with 15 as age of consent?Daveyboy1961 said:
Of course not, but 15 Yr olds are.BartholomewRoberts said:
Age of consent in this country is 16, in other countries its 18, in Syria its 15.Theuniondivvie said:
Well, we have an early winner for today’s worst point made.BartholomewRoberts said:
What evidence do you have that she was raped? She chose to get married and was above the age of consent.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Western intelligence could have intervened and said hold onto this girl, she's a vulnerable minor and a British citizen, we will come and get her and bring her home. They chose not to and let her be trafficked to Islamic state, where she got raped. Why?bondegezou said:
It’s about agency. She wasn’t trafficked at the behest of Western intelligence. The Western intelligence asset did not do everything he did under the direction of Western intelligence. It is, thus, wrong to say she was trafficked by Western intelligence.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
There is no proof that she was stripped of her citizenship to prevent the intelligence involvement coming out. I can entirely believe she was stripped of her citizenship by a racist government wanting to scapegoat a brown girl while looking Tough on Terrorism.
It is an important case. That is why it is important to get the facts straight.
We only have a few facts, it is true. I am operating on the principle that the more we find out the worse it will look, which is generally the case with these sorts of situations. I may be wrong of course, but I think that anyone who takes the government's word on any of this is naive beyond belief.
Age of consent in Syria is 15.
If 16 years olds from countries with an 18 age of consent move to this country are they "raped" if they engage in consensual sex?
FFS, are you on the spectrum or something? You have no check box in your mind about not upsetting people have you.
How do you explain that one?
That it?
If the country she lives in want to put her on trial, that's their issue to deal with.0 -
Whether she has British citizenship is somewhat up in the air. She has been given the right to appeal the removal of her British citizenship in a British court. However, the Government was also found to be within its rights to prevent her entering the UK on security grounds. This leaves her in something of a limbo.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She is an adult now and I have no sympathy for the positions she espouses. However, why should Rojava be lumbered with her? Leaving ISIL brides in camps in Syria is not a sensible long-term solution.0 -
Other countries have managed it0
-
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.BartholomewRoberts said:
The courts ruled otherwise.TOPPING said:
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.3 -
People should have rights irrespective of whether public opinion likes you or not. This is why politicians, who want to be popular, shouldn't have the power to make these kinds of decisions.Leon said:OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either3 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Leon, it's worth remembering that boys were abused too. I believe the Rotherham figure for girls is over 1,000, and for boys over 100.0 -
I see Bart has gone off to do some googling.0
-
"She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts." Well, the court process has not concluded. A court stripped her of citizenship. She was given the right to appeal. The Govt said she couldn't come to the country to appeal. A court said she could. A higher court said she couldn't, but said she still has the right to appeal (she just can't for practical reasons at this time).BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.0 -
While I broadly agree with you that innocent would-be immigrants should take priority over immigrants with dodgy pasts (leaving aside the fact that she wasn't an immigrant but British), it really is special pleading to say that what would count as rape in this country is OK because the girl was trafficked to a country where the age of consent is lower.BartholomewRoberts said:
She wasn't a minor where she had sex. Unless she did in this country, which hasn't ever been reported, she was above the age of consent there.
As Leon says, letting her back would be unpopular. Nonetheless, I like to think that Britain will attempt to treat its citizens fairly, even when that's unpopular. If that's not the case, which of us is entirely safe?2 -
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.Stocky said:
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.NickPalmer said:
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?Cookie said:
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.OnlyLivingBoy said:
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.noneoftheabove said:
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.eek said:
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.BartholomewRoberts said:Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.3 -
Quire right- sickening commentsTOPPING said:
Bart do you really want to go down the usage of "raped" road?BartholomewRoberts said:
Age of consent in this country is 16, in other countries its 18, in Syria its 15.Theuniondivvie said:
Well, we have an early winner for today’s worst point made.BartholomewRoberts said:
What evidence do you have that she was raped? She chose to get married and was above the age of consent.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Western intelligence could have intervened and said hold onto this girl, she's a vulnerable minor and a British citizen, we will come and get her and bring her home. They chose not to and let her be trafficked to Islamic state, where she got raped. Why?bondegezou said:
It’s about agency. She wasn’t trafficked at the behest of Western intelligence. The Western intelligence asset did not do everything he did under the direction of Western intelligence. It is, thus, wrong to say she was trafficked by Western intelligence.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
There is no proof that she was stripped of her citizenship to prevent the intelligence involvement coming out. I can entirely believe she was stripped of her citizenship by a racist government wanting to scapegoat a brown girl while looking Tough on Terrorism.
It is an important case. That is why it is important to get the facts straight.
We only have a few facts, it is true. I am operating on the principle that the more we find out the worse it will look, which is generally the case with these sorts of situations. I may be wrong of course, but I think that anyone who takes the government's word on any of this is naive beyond belief.
Age of consent in Syria is 15.
If 16 years olds from countries with an 18 age of consent move to this country are they "raped" if they engage in consensual sex?
That way I fear lies big trouble.
"A young girl walking down the road in Rotherham out of her mind on crack with a short skirt was "raped"."
See how it looks?
You have daughters - get a fucking grip.1 -
She is British. She is our problem to deal with.TOPPING said:
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.BartholomewRoberts said:
The courts ruled otherwise.TOPPING said:
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.0 -
If I'm reading this right:Alistair said:
Final result 51.47% to 48.53% for the dem candidate.another_richard said:
Alaska gives another illustration of how important candidate selection is in US elections.Pulpstar said:Put £20 on Democrats holding the house last night. Feels possible, oh and £120 on Putin winning the next Russian election at a smidgen under evens which is surely wrong
https://smarkets.com/event/42623628/politics/europe/2025/01/01/00-00/russia/2024/04/07/12-00/2024-russian-presidential-election
Hat tip @Quincel for the Putin bet, there's £69 @ 1.96 for anyone who wants to follow me in. If the bet's a loser then tbh you've probably won more than your stake back on your energy bill anyway.
A standard GOP candidate would have won comfortably but Palin had a -10% personal vote.
This does not bode well for GOP chances in the Senate with the Trump endorsed candidates.
A triumph for AV!
Did not see that coming, thought Palin would have enough transfers to get over the line but she truly was completely toxic.
Would love to dig into what that means for trasnfers vs did not have a trasnfer vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Alaska's_at-large_congressional_district_special_election
Then first round:
Peltola 74,807
Palin 58,328
Begich 52,504
Total 185,639
became final round:
Peltola 91,206 +16,399
Palin 85,987 +27,659
Total 177,193 -8,446
Suggesting approximately 30% of Begich votes went to Peltola and 15% didn't transfer and that about 15% of GOP voters would rather vote for a Dem than Palin.
A more general problem that the GOP has is that their candidates who are extreme enough to win primary elections are going to be too extreme to win general elections.1 -
I am also very upset about that, I just object to double standards.Leon said:OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the modern British Left
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
= 100,000 white girls raped, abused, tortured and even murdered by racist Muslim grooming gangs0 -
The polls are pretty clearDaveyboy1961 said:
You know that do you?Leon said:OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
I’ve said it multiple times, Begum should be tried in Syria or Iraq, where she committed her crimes against Syrian/Iraqi people (crimes like owning a Yazidi sex slave)
They will execute her
0 -
Amongst the richest fifth of UK white households 84% are married. Amongst the poorest fifth though just 19% are married.Foxy said:
Yes it would. As you move down the social scale fewer and fewer men marry, and those that do are more likely to divorce. On top of that cohabiting couples are twice as likely to split up.Jim_Miller said:FPT: When I read the BBC article on the attacks in Chorley, I was struck by what wasn't in it: fathers. Of either the attackers or the vicims.
Would the absence of fathers be common in such areas?
(I have long thought that, were some enterprising reporter to investigate, they would find that few of Jeffrey Epstein's victimshad fathers in their lives.)
This social class inequality has worsened in recent years too. Half of children are born out of wedlock, and half of fathers have little or no contact with their children. Rates tend to be worst in post industrial areas as part of a general disintegration of traditional family life.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-marriage-gap
For all the talk of social conservatism in the working classes, it is actually middle class professionals in urban areas that have the most 1950s like family values, and are more likely to attend religious services etc.
Poor Chinese and Indian children though are much more likely to still have married parents and that shows up in their well above average exam results
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/forget-race-or-class-marriage-is-the-big-social-divide1 -
No she wasn't - let's repeat things in simple terms.bondegezou said:
"She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts." Well, the court process has not concluded. A court stripped her of citizenship. She was given the right to appeal. The Govt said she couldn't come to the country to appeal. A court said she could. A higher court said she couldn't, but said she still has the right to appeal (she just can't for practical reasons at this time).BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The prosecution said she had / had right to citizenship in Bangladesh.
Because of that her citizenship was revoked.
Bangladesh then pointed out she didn't have any right to citizenship there...
So her citizenship was removed by a court based on a lie (now that lie may have been unintentional but it's still a lie)..3 -
Jumped the shark:
TIME spoke to "Gender Queer" author and illustrator Maia Kobabe on about eir work, the efforts to restrict access to eir writing, and what ey make of the current cultural moment
https://twitter.com/TIME/status/15651733502378721290 -
It's a funny one with Bart (probably still furiously googling as we speak).RochdalePioneers said:
She is British. She is our problem to deal with.TOPPING said:
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.BartholomewRoberts said:
The courts ruled otherwise.TOPPING said:
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
He is usually logically precise but on this one he is all over the place on his own terms.2 -
Begum's lawyers had argued for a judgment already at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that there should be a judgment that the removal of citizenship was unlawful and should be overturned. That argument was rejected by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.TOPPING said:
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.BartholomewRoberts said:
The courts ruled otherwise.TOPPING said:
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
So no we are not simply "the last ones holding the parcel".
Yes she's allowed further appeals, but they've not happened yet, and the Supreme Court has ruled that public safety is allowed to ensure she's kept out of the country for the time being. Again, rule of law applying.0 -
Our sovereignty champions are probably going to say that Britain can dictate who Bangladesh should or shouldn't accept as citizens.eek said:
No she wasn't - let's repeat things in simple terms.bondegezou said:
"She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts." Well, the court process has not concluded. A court stripped her of citizenship. She was given the right to appeal. The Govt said she couldn't come to the country to appeal. A court said she could. A higher court said she couldn't, but said she still has the right to appeal (she just can't for practical reasons at this time).BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The prosecution said she had / had right to citizenship in Bangladesh.
Because of that her citizenship was revoked.
Bangladesh then pointed out she didn't have any right to citizenship there...
So her citizenship was removed by a court based on a lie (now that lie may have been unintentional but it's still a lie)..1 -
A deliberate lie. Told by ministers wanting to score political brownie points.eek said:
No she wasn't - let's repeat things in simple terms.bondegezou said:
"She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts." Well, the court process has not concluded. A court stripped her of citizenship. She was given the right to appeal. The Govt said she couldn't come to the country to appeal. A court said she could. A higher court said she couldn't, but said she still has the right to appeal (she just can't for practical reasons at this time).BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The prosecution said she had / had right to citizenship in Bangladesh.
Because of that her citizenship was revoked.
Bangladesh then pointed out she didn't have any right to citizenship there...
So her citizenship was removed by a court based on a lie (now that lie may have been unintentional but it's still a lie)..0 -
Lovely technicality there - you can appeal if you get into the country - however unless she arrives at Dover via a dinghy she has zero chance of actually getting here.TOPPING said:
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.BartholomewRoberts said:
The courts ruled otherwise.TOPPING said:
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
And if she arrives via a dinghy that action would be used as justification for not listening to her case..2 -
I thought they said at one point Begum had Canadian citizenship0
-
On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now0 -
Are there you are. Good google?BartholomewRoberts said:
Begum's lawyers had argued for a judgment already at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that there should be a judgment that the removal of citizenship was unlawful and should be overturned. That argument was rejected by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.TOPPING said:
Wrong. They ruled that she couldn't appeal while she was out of the country. A million miles from your contention that they ruled she wasn't a British citizen.BartholomewRoberts said:
The courts ruled otherwise.TOPPING said:
The country where supposedly she has citizenship (Bangladesh) has said she is not a Bangladeshi citizen (and I'm assuming they would know). She also had British citizenship so we are the last ones holding the parcel. Sadly for you but them's the breaks.BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
Funny that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary are paramount, until they issue a ruling you disagree with.
So no we are not simply "the last ones holding the parcel".
Yes she's allowed further appeals, but they've not happened yet, and the Supreme Court has ruled that public safety is allowed to ensure she's kept out of the country for the time being. Again, rule of law applying.
Your post, now that you have had a chance to look it up, directly contradicts your earlier ones that the judiciary found she was not a British citizen.
They have simply said that she can't appeal unless she is in this country and (go Priti!) the UK has not allowed her into this country to appeal.2 -
Indeed, the rule of law is being followed. The courts making decisions often allow for appeals etc and quite right too.bondegezou said:
"She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts." Well, the court process has not concluded. A court stripped her of citizenship. She was given the right to appeal. The Govt said she couldn't come to the country to appeal. A court said she could. A higher court said she couldn't, but said she still has the right to appeal (she just can't for practical reasons at this time).BartholomewRoberts said:
She was stripped of that with due process, its been before the courts.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She was born a British citizen in Britain. She has been stripped of that without due process at the whim of a politician. She will always be British just as you would still be British if some politician decided to strip you of your citizenship.BartholomewRoberts said:
She's not British, she has no British citizenship.OnlyLivingBoy said:
She's not an immigrant, she's British.BartholomewRoberts said:
She chose to leave this country, her decision. Part of libertarianism is taking on the consequences of your own choices. I'm OK with people making their own decisions and owning the consequences, she doesn't want to own the consequences of her own decisions.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The complacency from you is off the scale. An odd position for a self declared libertarian that it's totally fine for the state to be complicit in the trafficking of a 15yo schoolgirl to a war zone where she gets raped, loses three babies and then stripped of all rights, leaving her stateless, while the same state covers up all evidence of its involvement. Next time you start frothing about the overbearing state power evident in local planning decisions I'll bear it in mind.BartholomewRoberts said:
Wow, the conspiracy ranting here by you is off the scale.OnlyLivingBoy said:
A western intelligence asset traffics a 15yo British schoolgirl to Islamic state, it gets covered up by the authorities and the girl gets stripped of her citizenship, probably to prevent the intelligence involvement ever coming out in court, and it's the semantics of my comment that bothers you? OK.bondegezou said:
She wasn’t trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence. She was trafficked into Syria by a trafficker, who was also selling information to Western intelligence. There may be problematic issues around that and, more generally, about how the UK government has dealt with Begum, but it seems unhelpful to elide informant with spy.OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
Imagine if she was one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.
If murderous terrorists whom we're not obliged to let back into the country volunteer to leave the country to try to kill people, then we absolutely have the right to say "goodbye" to them and not let them back into the country afterwards.
I'm a big fan of immigration but I'd rather we allow people with clean criminal records into the country, than murderous terrorists who'd voluntarily left it.
I am not aware of any evidence that she murdered anyone.
She was a vulnerable minor, who was trafficked to Syria with the knowledge of Western Intelligence and was raped. She lost three babies. She made a stupid decision in travelling to Turkey. A bad decision. She may well have a case to answer, and should face due legal process and punishment if so.
I am deeply troubled that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship with no proper due process. That is an overreach of state power. I am deeply troubled that almost everyone this has happened to has been a person of colour. That is unequal treatment under the law. I am deeply troubled that all of this happened with the knowledge of Western intelligence, and they never intervened to protect her - a British citizen, a child. Isn't that their job? I am deeply troubled that the involvement of Western intelligence has been covered up. How can they be held to account if we never know what they're up to?
For a libertarian like you to go along with this is surprising.
She wasn't to the best of my knowledge raped either, engaging in consensual sex above the age of consent is not rape.
Have you any evidence Western intelligence knew she was going to be smuggled, before she was?
Yes she made stupid decisions, now she has to live with the consequences of them. Her choice. Let her rebuild her life wherever will take her, she's volunteered not to be our problem anymore.
She made a stupid, bad decision as a child. She should face due legal process for any crimes.
Simply saying she will always be British does not make her so.
The idea this is just the Home Secretary and nothing else is a complete fallacy. This has been before the Courts repeatedly and if the rule of law wasn't being followed the Supreme Court or other Courts would have been able to rule so. That the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter and the current position is entirely within what the Supreme Court has ruled to be lawful, pending any appeal on the terms laid down by the Supreme Court regarding safety, is again the rule of law in action.0 -
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
New sweepstake: guess the percentage share of the vote won by Sunak and Truss
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScTwm4TlJihFQTXGb3gVsnEk_dLS-uBnWl0NJqwilI7szsHbw/viewform?usp=sf_link0 -
Isn't active support for IS a crime, so I presume she could be found guilty of that? I doubt treason charges would stick.turbotubbs said:
I mostly agree apart from ‘stick her in prison’. Needs to be trial first, and I suspect this is where the issue is. Has she committed crimes that the U.K. can try her for? Because if not, she comes home and is free.CorrectHorseBattery3 said:Begum was born and raised here. She is our problem. Stick her in prison.
Just like we don’t make people that commit terrible crimes stateless. We present proper justice and process to the world and we take the good with the bad.
At Fishmongers Hall, one of the men who saved countless lives was on day release after committing murders. If we had made him stateless it’s likely a lot more people would have died.
Things she did in Syria wouldn't normally constitute crimes that the UK can try her for, unless they counted as war crimes. The vast majority of what's been reported in terms of what she did in Syria wouldn't count. There is one report that she was helping make bomb jackets for suicide bombers (in Syria, for targets in Syria). I doubt that would be sufficient to count under UK war crime legislation.
There is a bigger question here. There was a war. What do you do after the war ends? Was every wife of a Nazi imprisoned after World War II ended? No. There are camps -- sort of refugee camps, sort of prison camps -- in Rojava full of ISIS brides. What should be their fate? Many of them are not Syrian nationals? Should we leave them to the Syrians to deal with, or should they be returned to their nations of origin?0 -
65/35rottenborough said:John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
New sweepstake: guess the percentage share of the vote won by Sunak and Truss
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScTwm4TlJihFQTXGb3gVsnEk_dLS-uBnWl0NJqwilI7szsHbw/viewform?usp=sf_link0 -
"Go faster overall" even works as a three word slogan.RochdalePioneers said:
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.Stocky said:
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.NickPalmer said:
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?Cookie said:
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.OnlyLivingBoy said:
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.noneoftheabove said:
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.eek said:
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.BartholomewRoberts said:Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
It's not intuitive, but it's true. You just need a bit of leadership from the people who aspire to be leaders.1 -
@Leon
I've been alerted to some 'woke' stuff you may want to look in to.
He Pua pua in New Zealand.
It is an emerging policy of the progressive government, designed to achieve Maori Equality, in response to the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Puapua
The particularly eye raising objectives are...
- Maori will be exercising exclusive and/or shared authority over claimed land, territories and resources and over matters related with sacred land and culture.
- Tribal/clan governance structures will be established, with their authority recognised.
Equity...
- There will be equality of outcome between peoples, which means that Maori authority is recognised and respected.
- All Maori will enjoy equality of outcome.
"University of Queensland law professor James Allan called He Puapua “radical”. In his report, he said “[He Puapua] is a radical Report. Its recommendations are radical. Were those recommendations to be fulfilled to any considerable degree they would undercut majoritarian democracy; they would impinge upon elements of the Rule of Law; and they would exchange newer, worse, more aristocratic constitutional arrangements for older, better, more democratic ones.”0 -
Liz Truss’s allies will blame Rishi Sunak for everything once she is in power. How the former chancellor responds will tell us what kind of a politician he intends to be
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/08/liz-truss-economic-crisis-rishi-sunak0 -
Exactly this.MoonRabbit said:“ You don’t get to be PM without being good at politics, “
Hmm. 🤔
To some extent it’s always been the teams and advisors they have around themselves. The better governments where you appoint talent not cheerleaders.
In this age of populism, cakeism from voters, maybe the old rules don’t apply.
Fluffing the Tory gammons to win the leadership will explicitly make it harder to actually govern.
How is that "good" politics?1 -
Mori finds Boris is now 4th of PMs voters think did a good job, after Churchill, Thatcher and Blair.
Though he also tops the list of PMs seen as doing a bad job
https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1565203988324253697?s=20&t=z-S1ssC-6aqMnumvGzuiOw0 -
Retailers in London are hiring private prosecutors to take on shoplifters, as the CPS are unwilling to prosecute store thieves.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/31/shoplifters-let-even-when-caught-cctv-stealing-goods-worth-hundreds/
Even though the thief was caught on CCTV stealing £640 worth of perfume from a top London store and recorded confessing to the crime, the CPS decided it was not in the public interest for TM Eye to prosecute the alleged shoplifter.1 -
I genuinely didn’t know that. My god. 10% of the victims are boys? Presumably this pattern is repeated across the UK, as all the other patterns are repeatedMorris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Leon, it's worth remembering that boys were abused too. I believe the Rotherham figure for girls is over 1,000, and for boys over 100.
Our inability as a nation to address this fucking enormous crime - 100,000+ victims - the biggest crime in modern British history - says something really bad about us. I reckon we just can’t cope with it, the way Catholics, for years, couldn’t begin to address clerical child abuse. Instead people eagerly spend endless hours debating the rights of one stupid girl who willingly joined a Nazi death cult in a war zone
We are beyond decadent0 -
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you Ibought from Regents Parkcreated on the web".0 -
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.0 -
Ahem.Alistair said:
Final result 51.47% to 48.53% for the dem candidate.another_richard said:
Alaska gives another illustration of how important candidate selection is in US elections.Pulpstar said:Put £20 on Democrats holding the house last night. Feels possible, oh and £120 on Putin winning the next Russian election at a smidgen under evens which is surely wrong
https://smarkets.com/event/42623628/politics/europe/2025/01/01/00-00/russia/2024/04/07/12-00/2024-russian-presidential-election
Hat tip @Quincel for the Putin bet, there's £69 @ 1.96 for anyone who wants to follow me in. If the bet's a loser then tbh you've probably won more than your stake back on your energy bill anyway.
A standard GOP candidate would have won comfortably but Palin had a -10% personal vote.
This does not bode well for GOP chances in the Senate with the Trump endorsed candidates.
A triumph for AV!
Did not see that coming, thought Palin would have enough transfers to get over the line but she truly was completely toxic.
Would love to dig into what that means for trasnfers vs did not have a trasnfer vote.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/08/21/why-the-alternative-vote-system-is-proving-awesome-once-more/
2 -
No.CorrectHorseBattery3 said:I thought they said at one point Begum had Canadian citizenship
The Canadian involvement is that the trafficker who got her into Syria was also giving intelligence to the Canadian intelligence services.0 -
Traffic flow is like water flow. Create a blockage and the back pressure wave can go back a long way. So when there is a lane drop its instructive to see the people who don't merge in turn as recommended by the Highway Code, but instead join a really long queue a long way back from the lane drop. Then inch up and brake hard to keep people out of the queue they themselves are creating by their actions.Stuartinromford said:
"Go faster overall" even works as a three word slogan.RochdalePioneers said:
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.Stocky said:
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.NickPalmer said:
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?Cookie said:
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.OnlyLivingBoy said:
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.noneoftheabove said:
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.eek said:
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.BartholomewRoberts said:Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
It's not intuitive, but it's true. You just need a bit of leadership from the people who aspire to be leaders.2 -
57/43 (value IMO at 6 with Smarkets 55-60 band)Big_G_NorthWales said:
65/35rottenborough said:John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
New sweepstake: guess the percentage share of the vote won by Sunak and Truss
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScTwm4TlJihFQTXGb3gVsnEk_dLS-uBnWl0NJqwilI7szsHbw/viewform?usp=sf_link0 -
How would the CPS get said shoplifter through the courts? It isn't in the public interest because cuts have buggered our legal system to the point where it is barely functional. Vote Conservative.Sandpit said:Retailers in London are hiring private prosecutors to take on shoplifters, as the CPS are unwilling to prosecute store thieves.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/31/shoplifters-let-even-when-caught-cctv-stealing-goods-worth-hundreds/
Even though the thief was caught on CCTV stealing £640 worth of perfume from a top London store and recorded confessing to the crime, the CPS decided it was not in the public interest for TM Eye to prosecute the alleged shoplifter.0 -
So 4% of respondents are willing to answer surveys for IPSOS but have not heard of Bozo?HYUFD said:Mori finds Boris is now 4th of PMs voters think did a good job, after Churchill, Thatcher and Blair.
Though he also tops the list of PMs seen as doing a bad job
https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1565203988324253697?s=20&t=z-S1ssC-6aqMnumvGzuiOw0 -
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his lifeTOPPING said:
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you Ibought from Regents Parkcreated on the web".0 -
This is one reason why this 'removal of citizenship' phenomenon is troubling, it is really all about removing rights.OnlyLivingBoy said:
People should have rights irrespective of whether public opinion likes you or not. This is why politicians, who want to be popular, shouldn't have the power to make these kinds of decisions.Leon said:OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either
1 -
Mr. Leon, I don't know the precise figures, unfortunately.
During the initial reporting of the Rotherham abuse the rough numbers were mentioned but the male victims hardly ever get a line (the clear majority of victims were female, of course).
I do think it's worth repeating now and then to avoid the assumption that victims can only be female, while bearing in mind they are the majority by a long way.0 -
Surely you're familiar with getting carried away by your own rhetoric to the point where you say something really stupid ?Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now0 -
"Cockamamie"TheScreamingEagles said:
Ahem.Alistair said:
Final result 51.47% to 48.53% for the dem candidate.another_richard said:
Alaska gives another illustration of how important candidate selection is in US elections.Pulpstar said:Put £20 on Democrats holding the house last night. Feels possible, oh and £120 on Putin winning the next Russian election at a smidgen under evens which is surely wrong
https://smarkets.com/event/42623628/politics/europe/2025/01/01/00-00/russia/2024/04/07/12-00/2024-russian-presidential-election
Hat tip @Quincel for the Putin bet, there's £69 @ 1.96 for anyone who wants to follow me in. If the bet's a loser then tbh you've probably won more than your stake back on your energy bill anyway.
A standard GOP candidate would have won comfortably but Palin had a -10% personal vote.
This does not bode well for GOP chances in the Senate with the Trump endorsed candidates.
A triumph for AV!
Did not see that coming, thought Palin would have enough transfers to get over the line but she truly was completely toxic.
Would love to dig into what that means for trasnfers vs did not have a trasnfer vote.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/08/21/why-the-alternative-vote-system-is-proving-awesome-once-more/
0 -
Weddings are quite expensive though - there's going to be a growing portion of unmarried stable two parent families particularly as you go down the income scale.HYUFD said:
Amongst the richest fifth of UK white households 84% are married. Amongst the poorest fifth though just 19% are married.Foxy said:
Yes it would. As you move down the social scale fewer and fewer men marry, and those that do are more likely to divorce. On top of that cohabiting couples are twice as likely to split up.Jim_Miller said:FPT: When I read the BBC article on the attacks in Chorley, I was struck by what wasn't in it: fathers. Of either the attackers or the vicims.
Would the absence of fathers be common in such areas?
(I have long thought that, were some enterprising reporter to investigate, they would find that few of Jeffrey Epstein's victimshad fathers in their lives.)
This social class inequality has worsened in recent years too. Half of children are born out of wedlock, and half of fathers have little or no contact with their children. Rates tend to be worst in post industrial areas as part of a general disintegration of traditional family life.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-marriage-gap
For all the talk of social conservatism in the working classes, it is actually middle class professionals in urban areas that have the most 1950s like family values, and are more likely to attend religious services etc.
Poor Chinese and Indian children though are much more likely to still have married parents and that shows up in their well above average exam results
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/forget-race-or-class-marriage-is-the-big-social-divide0 -
I wonder who is more likely racist - OLB or people (eg you) who don't give 2 shits about girls being raped unless it's by muslims?Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now2 -
There you go - like a puppy dog coming to heel. As I said, makes you look a bit of a fool tbh.Leon said:
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his lifeTOPPING said:
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you Ibought from Regents Parkcreated on the web".
Plus doesn't particularly add anything to the exchange. "You're stupid" (albeit with added Leon flourish) isn't the most incisive rhetorical device.0 -
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.2 -
OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads1 -
The 4% is pale grey so "don't know"noneoftheabove said:
So 4% of respondents are willing to answer surveys for IPSOS but have not heard of Bozo?HYUFD said:Mori finds Boris is now 4th of PMs voters think did a good job, after Churchill, Thatcher and Blair.
Though he also tops the list of PMs seen as doing a bad job
https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1565203988324253697?s=20&t=z-S1ssC-6aqMnumvGzuiOw
Interestingly no respondents seem to say they've never heard of Boris or Cameron but looks like 1% have never heard of Churchill.
You'd assume it was dodgy results to pollsters but I have met adults who genuinely didn't know who Churchill was. Shocking but true.0 -
Petty spite is incredibly unproductive on the roads. I always try and get in as late as possible, and if I'm in the lane doing the letting in let that Beemer fly in in front of me. We're helping the traffic flow no matter what people think.RochdalePioneers said:
Traffic flow is like water flow. Create a blockage and the back pressure wave can go back a long way. So when there is a lane drop its instructive to see the people who don't merge in turn as recommended by the Highway Code, but instead join a really long queue a long way back from the lane drop. Then inch up and brake hard to keep people out of the queue they themselves are creating by their actions.Stuartinromford said:
"Go faster overall" even works as a three word slogan.RochdalePioneers said:
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.Stocky said:
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.NickPalmer said:
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?Cookie said:
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.OnlyLivingBoy said:
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.noneoftheabove said:
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.eek said:
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.BartholomewRoberts said:Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
It's not intuitive, but it's true. You just need a bit of leadership from the people who aspire to be leaders.3 -
Interesting thread.
Though hopefully of really compelling interest only to viral evolution nerds at this point...
https://twitter.com/LongDesertTrain/status/1565184527428980737
Today I discovered an extraordinary microlineage of BA.2.3. What makes it extraordinary? A colossal genetic saltation (10 spike mutations) combined with striking geographic spread for a very small number of sequences (just 4 so far). 1/251 -
Two greats, then Blair and Johnson vying for "best of the rest".HYUFD said:Mori finds Boris is now 4th of PMs voters think did a good job, after Churchill, Thatcher and Blair.
Though he also tops the list of PMs seen as doing a bad job
https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1565203988324253697?s=20&t=z-S1ssC-6aqMnumvGzuiOw
Amusingly, on net scores May (-13) is now doing better than Johnson (-16).
The Conservatives have a tricky manoevre to perform here. Embracing enough of the Johnson inheritance to keep the superfans on board, whilst being a fresh enough start to retrieve some of those who have floated away. Not easy at the best of times, and (to stay with the thread of conversation) the party is having to change drivers whilst doing seventy on a foggy motorway with several complex junctions coming up.0 -
Leaving aside Shazza Begum herself (who should be brought home) it was indefensible to leave her kids, two of whom were British citizens, to die in the refugee camp.darkage said:
This is one reason why this 'removal of citizenship' phenomenon is troubling, it is really all about removing rights.OnlyLivingBoy said:
People should have rights irrespective of whether public opinion likes you or not. This is why politicians, who want to be popular, shouldn't have the power to make these kinds of decisions.Leon said:OnlyLivingBoy said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/01/shamima-begum-justin-trudeau-to-follow-up-canadian-spy-claim
Shamima Begum was a 15 year old schoolgirl trafficked into Syria by Western intelligence, a fact that was covered up by British intelligence and the police. And you wonder why the government won't let her back in the country to face trial?
They won’t let her back in because 80% of the country loathes the idea and despises Begum. It would be a truly brave politician to go against that
Labour wouldn’t do it, either3 -
Lucky, lucky people.noneoftheabove said:
So 4% of respondents are willing to answer surveys for IPSOS but have not heard of Bozo?HYUFD said:Mori finds Boris is now 4th of PMs voters think did a good job, after Churchill, Thatcher and Blair.
Though he also tops the list of PMs seen as doing a bad job
https://twitter.com/benatipsos/status/1565203988324253697?s=20&t=z-S1ssC-6aqMnumvGzuiOw1 -
Divorce on grounds of incompatibility ?
The man who married a hologram in Japan can no longer communicate with his virtual wife
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/426715
The software that allowed the interaction is no longer supported...0 -
To an extent but you can just have a simple wedding of less than 50 guests and a reception at the local pub, it doesn't need to be a huge affair.Pulpstar said:
Weddings are quite expensive though - there's going to be a growing portion of unmarried stable two parent families particularly as you go down the income scale.HYUFD said:
Amongst the richest fifth of UK white households 84% are married. Amongst the poorest fifth though just 19% are married.Foxy said:
Yes it would. As you move down the social scale fewer and fewer men marry, and those that do are more likely to divorce. On top of that cohabiting couples are twice as likely to split up.Jim_Miller said:FPT: When I read the BBC article on the attacks in Chorley, I was struck by what wasn't in it: fathers. Of either the attackers or the vicims.
Would the absence of fathers be common in such areas?
(I have long thought that, were some enterprising reporter to investigate, they would find that few of Jeffrey Epstein's victimshad fathers in their lives.)
This social class inequality has worsened in recent years too. Half of children are born out of wedlock, and half of fathers have little or no contact with their children. Rates tend to be worst in post industrial areas as part of a general disintegration of traditional family life.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-marriage-gap
For all the talk of social conservatism in the working classes, it is actually middle class professionals in urban areas that have the most 1950s like family values, and are more likely to attend religious services etc.
Poor Chinese and Indian children though are much more likely to still have married parents and that shows up in their well above average exam results
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/forget-race-or-class-marriage-is-the-big-social-divide
Plus as I said poor British Indian and Chinese couples still manage to afford to get married0 -
Bullseye tho, right?TOPPING said:
There you go - like a puppy dog coming to heel. As I said, makes you look a bit of a fool tbh.Leon said:
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his lifeTOPPING said:
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you Ibought from Regents Parkcreated on the web".
Plus doesn't particularly add anything to the exchange. "You're stupid" (albeit with added Leon flourish) isn't the most incisive rhetorical device.0 -
It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.4
-
Indeed. Remember, you aren't "stuck in traffic" - you are traffic.Pulpstar said:
Petty spite is incredibly unproductive on the roads. I always try and get in as late as possible, and if I'm in the lane doing the letting in let that Beemer fly in in front of me. We're helping the traffic flow no matter what people think.RochdalePioneers said:
Traffic flow is like water flow. Create a blockage and the back pressure wave can go back a long way. So when there is a lane drop its instructive to see the people who don't merge in turn as recommended by the Highway Code, but instead join a really long queue a long way back from the lane drop. Then inch up and brake hard to keep people out of the queue they themselves are creating by their actions.Stuartinromford said:
"Go faster overall" even works as a three word slogan.RochdalePioneers said:
The whole point in smart motorways is to slow traffic peak speeds down and thus increase average speeds. Same with variable speed limits - everyone goes faster when a 50 limit than getting stuck in the congestion created by fast slow fast slow.Stocky said:
I think that the motorway limit is too low at 70 (been that for decades) is a commonly-held view - anyone who drives (non-smart) motorways and is honest will know that the ambient speed in the third lane is 80-85. So it is illegal but custom and practice.NickPalmer said:
I agree with that (confession: I used to get speeding points quite regularly), though I think the cases where the limit seems counter-intuitive undermine respect for the law. There is a dual carriageway leading into Croydon with a 20 limit, and that seems just mad. On motorways, a limit of 80 with cameras everywhere would probably be more sensible than a 70 limit that people routinely exceed. My pet dislike is motorbikes, which *all* seem to treat speed limits as a minimum and who weave perilously in and out at 100+ - don't cameras work for them?Cookie said:
I think people are much more safety conscious. I also think of some of the roads where I grew up - broad, but unclassified suburban roads with 30mph limits - 30 years ago, speeds of 50 on these were commonplace, speeds as low as 30 rare unless there was a police car watching. Now, comparatively unusual to see more than a few mph over 30.OnlyLivingBoy said:
People are definitely driving more slowly than before. Why? Cost of fuel? Speed monitors in the car for insurance? People in less of a hurry? I tend to do about 75-80 on the mway and it feels like suddenly I'm the fastest thing on the road.noneoftheabove said:
When I started driving about 30 years ago, the average pace of free flowing traffic on a clear motorway was early 80s, now it is mid sixties despite safer and more fuel efficient cars. The limit is rarely enforced below 80 anyway so this seems to be a public choice rather than driven by the limit.eek said:
Driving down the M1 last week and back up it on Tuesday I can tell you one thing - far fewer cars are doing 80+ than was previously the case.BartholomewRoberts said:Its amusing to see the attacks coming primarily from left-wingers because of Truss simply saying she'd look into abolish motorway speed limits (not even that she'd do it).
We should like into doing more things like European countries like Germany do. No, not that!
Personally I wouldn't go faster than 70mph much myself even if it were legal simply due to fuel efficiency, my cars fuel efficiency drops like a rock past 70mph. But I don't think people who do 80mph on the motorway should be criminals breaking the law.
Abolishing the national speed limit for cars on the motorway for the stretches of it where the national speed limit applies is a sensible solution. The speed limit is treated as a speed target by too many rather than a limit, so lifting the limit to 80 would be a bad idea, but nor should those who do 80 be criminalised for doing so.
Its far safer doing 80 on a motorway than 40 in a town.
It's ironic that any desperate plan to win votes by removing the speed limit is being done at the first time I remember seeing fewer people breaking it...
Not sure it works well with her core vote either, they are old, and like to buy cars capable of doing 150mph but drive them at no more than 57mph whatever the road or conditions.
In the real world I find no-one who likes smart motorways - a few on PB though I see!
Other than the lack of hard shoulder, the disadvantage is that drivers suspect that there is a monitored 70 limit on smart motorways even when no speed limit is displayed and the system appears turned off and the road empty. This means that speeds are lower on smart motorways even when they are not busy. A consequence of this rarely mentioned is that drivers adapt their routes to avoid smart motorway sections. For example I loop round Warwick and Evesham to avoid the Worcester section of the M5. Previously the M5 was fastest (assuming 80-85 in third lane) but now the non-motorway option is fastest because I have to stick to 70mph if I take the motorway option. Smart motorways are, therefore, diverting people to non-motorway roads which I can't believe was the intention.
It's not intuitive, but it's true. You just need a bit of leadership from the people who aspire to be leaders.1 -
Yes, Topping hit your capacity to argue in the manner of a playground child quite accurately.Leon said:
Bullseye tho, right?TOPPING said:
There you go - like a puppy dog coming to heel. As I said, makes you look a bit of a fool tbh.Leon said:
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his lifeTOPPING said:
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you Ibought from Regents Parkcreated on the web".
Plus doesn't particularly add anything to the exchange. "You're stupid" (albeit with added Leon flourish) isn't the most incisive rhetorical device.0 -
Have you got a spreadsheet or something? You're fucking obssessed with everyone's intelligence relative to that of the Mentat of Camden.Leon said:
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his lifeTOPPING said:
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you Ibought from Regents Parkcreated on the web".0 -
I once dated an eminent professor's daughter (Who was unmarried to his very long term partner) in the most middle class stable guardian two parent household you could possibly imagine.HYUFD said:
To an extent but you can just have a simple wedding of less than 50 guests and a reception at the local pub, it doesn't need to be a huge affair.Pulpstar said:
Weddings are quite expensive though - there's going to be a growing portion of unmarried stable two parent families particularly as you go down the income scale.HYUFD said:
Amongst the richest fifth of UK white households 84% are married. Amongst the poorest fifth though just 19% are married.Foxy said:
Yes it would. As you move down the social scale fewer and fewer men marry, and those that do are more likely to divorce. On top of that cohabiting couples are twice as likely to split up.Jim_Miller said:FPT: When I read the BBC article on the attacks in Chorley, I was struck by what wasn't in it: fathers. Of either the attackers or the vicims.
Would the absence of fathers be common in such areas?
(I have long thought that, were some enterprising reporter to investigate, they would find that few of Jeffrey Epstein's victimshad fathers in their lives.)
This social class inequality has worsened in recent years too. Half of children are born out of wedlock, and half of fathers have little or no contact with their children. Rates tend to be worst in post industrial areas as part of a general disintegration of traditional family life.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-marriage-gap
For all the talk of social conservatism in the working classes, it is actually middle class professionals in urban areas that have the most 1950s like family values, and are more likely to attend religious services etc.
Poor Chinese and Indian children though are much more likely to still have married parents and that shows up in their well above average exam results
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/forget-race-or-class-marriage-is-the-big-social-divide
Plus as I said poor British Indian and Chinese couples still manage to afford to get married0 -
No but it does mean that the rule of law is being followed, does it not?Cyclefree said:It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
The courts could at any stage have ruled that the rule of law is not being followed. The current situation is in fitting with the decisions of the Supreme Court, is it not?0 -
It upsets me that you seem to care so much more about the lives of white girls than brown ones. It upsets me a lot. Maybe because I have two mixed race daughters. My comment was aimed at your hypocrisy and double standards, but if it conveyed an impression that I don't care about any victim of rape or abuse then I am very sorry. It was a million miles from my intention and I phrased it poorly.Leon said:OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
And incidentally, the same gangs of abusers also abused brown girls, but I've never heard you express even a tiny shred of sympathy for those victims.0 -
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.northern_monkey said:
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.6 -
US war-gamed with Ukraine ahead of counteroffensive and encouraged more limited mission - CNN citing sources
Ukraine was initially considering a broader counteroffensive in Kherson Oblast, but narrowed it in recent weeks, US and Ukrainian officials said.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/15652594145834885180 -
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.Cyclefree said:It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
1 -
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid becauseCyclefree said:It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....
0 -
I’ve got you down as a pretty impressive IQ136 on the Stanford-Binet/Wechsler Scale, but you’re alsoDura_Ace said:
Have you got a spreadsheet or something? You're fucking obssessed with everyone's intelligence relative to that of the Mentat of Camden.Leon said:
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his lifeTOPPING said:
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you Ibought from Regents Parkcreated on the web".
on the mental health spreadsheet for manic depression and suicidality, and my actuarial PB
spreadsheet says you might not see 2025. On the other hand, I’m not dissimilar-1 -
“ one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about”OnlyLivingBoy said:
It upsets me that you seem to care so much more about the lives of white girls than brown ones. It upsets me a lot. Maybe because I have two mixed race daughters. My comment was aimed at your hypocrisy and double standards, but if it conveyed an impression that I don't care about any victim of rape or abuse then I am very sorry. It was a million miles from my intention and I phrased it poorly.Leon said:OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
And incidentally, the same gangs of abusers also abused brown girls, but I've never heard you express even a tiny shred of sympathy for those victims.
That will stay with you forever. Sorry0 -
Wasn't the claim that Bangladesh has stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship put before the tribunal? So presumably the tribunal rejected that claim?eek said:
While that is the case - it still went to a tribunal where it was argued that the removal was valid becauseCyclefree said:It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
"In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent", so removing her British nationality wouldn't make her stateless."
even though Bangladesh has continually stated that she doesn't have (nor qualifies for) Bangladesh Citizenship.....0 -
How was the Rule of Law followed? "We revoked her citizenship because she is eligible to be Bangladeshi" / "Ok then". But she *wasn't* eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship and never had been.BartholomewRoberts said:
No but it does mean that the rule of law is being followed, does it not?Cyclefree said:It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
The courts could at any stage have ruled that the rule of law is not being followed. The current situation is in fitting with the decisions of the Supreme Court, is it not?
When the government openly lie to the court and get away with it that is not following the rule of law.1 -
Not the most reliable of commentators, but he was Trump's lawyer...
Michael Cohen believes Trump is likely keeping copies of top-secret documents at his children's homes, Bedminster, and Trump Tower
https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-trump-copies-top-secret-files-at-other-homes-2022-90 -
Again hasn't the claim that she isn't eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship been put before the courts at the time? It was certainly brought up ad nauseum here before the Supreme Court ruling that led to the current legal situation.RochdalePioneers said:
How was the Rule of Law followed? "We revoked her citizenship because she is eligible to be Bangladeshi" / "Ok then". But she *wasn't* eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship and never had been.BartholomewRoberts said:
No but it does mean that the rule of law is being followed, does it not?Cyclefree said:It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
The courts could at any stage have ruled that the rule of law is not being followed. The current situation is in fitting with the decisions of the Supreme Court, is it not?
When the government openly lie to the court and get away with it that is not following the rule of law.0 -
Do you want to express any sympathy for the non white, Muslim victims of these gangs?Leon said:
“ one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about”OnlyLivingBoy said:
It upsets me that you seem to care so much more about the lives of white girls than brown ones. It upsets me a lot. Maybe because I have two mixed race daughters. My comment was aimed at your hypocrisy and double standards, but if it conveyed an impression that I don't care about any victim of rape or abuse then I am very sorry. It was a million miles from my intention and I phrased it poorly.Leon said:OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
And incidentally, the same gangs of abusers also abused brown girls, but I've never heard you express even a tiny shred of sympathy for those victims.
That will stay with you forever. Sorry0 -
Note this is a city which they occupy.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1565267641803186176
Since 5 am, September 1, the Russian occupying forces have not stopped constant mortar shelling of Enerhodar, Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Machine guns can be heard, announces Dmytro Orlov, Mayor of Enerhodar.0 -
But as @Morris_Dancer has shown us, a non trivial number of the grooming victims are boysCyclefree said:
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.northern_monkey said:
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.
I had not known that. Bleakness upon bleakness0 -
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.Pulpstar said:
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.Cyclefree said:It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..2 -
Absolutely. And I have in fact expressed this many times. The gangs also go after Sikh girls, I believe. Just as appallingOnlyLivingBoy said:
Do you want to express any sympathy for the non white, Muslim victims of these gangs?Leon said:
“ one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about”OnlyLivingBoy said:
It upsets me that you seem to care so much more about the lives of white girls than brown ones. It upsets me a lot. Maybe because I have two mixed race daughters. My comment was aimed at your hypocrisy and double standards, but if it conveyed an impression that I don't care about any victim of rape or abuse then I am very sorry. It was a million miles from my intention and I phrased it poorly.Leon said:OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't care what colour they are. I wouldn't think I needed to say that I find the rape and abuse of women and children absolutely abhorrent and that the perpetrators deserve to face the full force of the law. But I am more than happy to make that clear.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
To be honest, since we have gone into the calling people a racist territory (something I try to avoid) I've always had the impression that you were the racist one, since you always seem to want to point out that the girls were white and the rapists were brown and Muslims, as though that somehow made it worse.
No. The Muslim gangs rape the girls BECAUSE they are white. The trials are full of evidence that prove this. References to “White sluts”. “White meat”. “White whores”. They avoid predating brown Muslim girls, because they are “good”
The rapes are racist. This is a huge racist crime. That’s why race is a prominent element
Again I refer to your comment, which you have not really explained
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
Replace the word “white” with “black” and see how it reads
And incidentally, the same gangs of abusers also abused brown girls, but I've never heard you express even a tiny shred of sympathy for those victims.
That will stay with you forever. Sorry
They tend to avoid Muslim girls for obvious reasons0 -
But the Rule of Law was followed...!!!!eek said:
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.Pulpstar said:
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.Cyclefree said:It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..0 -
The courts reviewed the decision to determine whether it was unlawful as claimed. The fact that they say that there are no grounds for declaring it unlawful means that the challenge fails. The decision by the Home Secretary to remove citizenship stands.Pulpstar said:
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.Cyclefree said:It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
Separately the courts have also reviewed the decision of the HS not to allow her back into the country to pursue her appeal (it being accepted that she cannot pursue an appeal from Syria) and said that there is no basis for challenging that decision either.
So the decisions in this case have all rightly been taken by politicians. Even if the courts had declared those decisions unlawful, that would not necessarily mean that Shamima would get her citizenship back or be allowed to travel here. That would depend on the reasons the court gives. It could well be that the decision would need to be taken again by the HS on the correct grounds and if done so it could well end up being the same decision.0 -
As I said you would be best to not worry about this kind of stuff. It might comfort you but actually you are too smart really to think it's a killing move. Really, if you think about it.Leon said:
Bullseye tho, right?TOPPING said:
There you go - like a puppy dog coming to heel. As I said, makes you look a bit of a fool tbh.Leon said:
I have you down for an IQ of about 122. Born with money so did well, but nothing exceptional in his lifeTOPPING said:
Aside from the topic, your rhetorical device of declaiming how every poster on here isn't that intelligent is in danger of backfiring. You have already stated that PB is the best internet forum evs, and that it is like a pub where you go to meet your friends.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
It increasingly says more about you than anyone else, and positions you as the laughing stock of the group, if you continue to tell everyone how dim they are.
Just a friendly observation.
Cue: "you really are dim, TOPPING, here's a picture of you Ibought from Regents Parkcreated on the web".
Plus doesn't particularly add anything to the exchange. "You're stupid" (albeit with added Leon flourish) isn't the most incisive rhetorical device.0 -
Bloody hell. It's normally low key and urbane in the morning, stuff like anti-muslim ranting coming much later on. God knows where we'll be at 10pm at this rate.0
-
So you know better than the Supreme Court?RochdalePioneers said:
But the Rule of Law was followed...!!!!eek said:
If she had Bangladeshi citizenship then yes the decision may have been correct - however given that she hasn't got Bangladesh citizenship it's hard to justify the case.Pulpstar said:
It was the courts that decided the decision though. Which is entirely correct I think.Cyclefree said:It was not the British courts which stripped Shamima Begum of her citizenship. It was the Home Secretary. That decision was challenged by her lawyers and the challenge failed. As did the challenge to the Home Secretary's decision not to allow her to return to this country to pursue an appeal. But that does not mean that it was the courts which took the decision.
It's even harder to justify the case when the argument wasn't that she has Bangladeshi citizenship but that she qualified for it...
And harder again when you are told by Bangladesh that she doesn't have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.
And that's before the final point - which is we should look and take responsibility for our own mistakes..
The current legal situation is one determined by the Supreme Court and other courts before it, not simply the Home Secretary unilaterally.0 -
Well, yes, that as well. That would be nice. I know some swordsmen who get a very high number of conquests because they see it purely as a numbers game, the women are only there for their self-gratification. They play women shamelessly, say whatever they want to hear, shift from woman to woman constantly as soon as the women begin to suspect they're a swine. It's unfortunately quite a successful model, if you're amoral enough to go for it. And plenty are.Cyclefree said:
Or perhaps a system that does not produce so many men and boys who think women and girls are merely orifices to be screwed. That attitude is not just limited to the poor, young or damaged.northern_monkey said:
The thing is, the right didn't, and still doesn't, care about poor white girls until they become a pawn in the kulturkampf.Leon said:On this pleasantly mild autumn day, I am really struggling to get past that statement by @OnlyLivingBoy
“one of these white girls from Rotherham that people on here get so worked up about.”
He’s talking about 100,000 raped girls, and doing it in a tone that OOZES racist contempt for poor white girls. I can’t see it any other way. I hope I’m wrong as, while I have little regard for @OnlyLivingBoy’s intellect, he’s never struck me as racist, before now
If the police and social services etc soft-pedalled on the gangs because they were made up of Muslim men then there should be, in that dreaded term, 'lessons learned', and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. The people who committed the crimes should be punished accordingly.
Rich people get to have sex with poor damaged girls who self-medicate with drugs, but somehow it seems much less seedier if you think of them as 'escorts', I suppose.
We need a system that doesn't produce such large numbers of damaged, poor young girls.0
This discussion has been closed.