Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
International law trumps domestic law .
That's not true. There is no international sovereign.
What’s sovereign got to do with it . It’s a matter of fact , international law trumps domestic law.
To give you an example during the Brexit wars . The no dealers said the government shouldn’t lay the statutory instruments needed to extend the transition period and therefore by their idiotic logic the UK would leave without a deal . It had to be explained to them that in international law terms the UK hadn’t left as the PM had already signed the agreement .
The UK can of course do what it likes if it pulls out of the ECHR and all the other conventions in relation to refugees as they would no longer have any bearing on domestic laws . Good luck with getting that through the Commons, the UK government cannot remove the rights of citizens without a parliamentary vote .
That was the impact of the Article 50 case and anyone who wants to live in a democratic country should be eternally thankful the SC ruled in that way .
Your argument is self-contradictory on multiple levels.
Can a country be considered democratic if its people are prevented from voting for things that go against the wishes of an external body?
It’s not self-contradictory . Remind me who voted for the Rwandan policy . If a party wants to run on leaving all the international agreements re refugees and people vote for it then the government can do whatever it likes . Please show me the section of the Tory manifesto where they said they’d do that !
That's the contradiction. If a government can change the law to do what it likes, then in what sense are they trumped by international law?
Obviously any country can renegue on international agreements. Equally obviously there will be consequences of reneguing on international agreements. Because agreements involve two parties, and no two parties would make agreements unless they both benefitted.
It's all pretty obvious, and it's a mystery why it needs to be explained to anyone of average intelligence. But maybe too many people here are of less than average intelligence?
As someone of above average intelligence, how do you explain the existence of refugees from countries that are party to these international agreements?
That's about as stupid as asking why - if murder is against the law - why people still get murdered.
Try to think.
Murderers haven't voluntarily entered into a contract saying that they won't commit murder. It's a law imposed on them by society, so not at all comparable to international treaties.
You're the one saying governments are free to do what they like regardless of international law.
What's puzzling you? Why not talk to a friend privately and get them to explain it to you?
I went for a swim today, and found that the leisure centre's chip-and-pin system was not working. As I did not have cash on me, they let me swim for free, as long as I paid double next time I come. They did not debit any account, or take any note of my entry.
I will, of course, mention this on Friday when I next swim. But how many people would not?
Good of the swimming pool to allow that. Even if a few people do sneak a one time free swim, it costs the pool very little extra money (may be the price of running a hot air hand dryer a couple of times and some more hot water in the shower). The good marketing they get from this is surely much better in the long term.
Also a thumbs up for your honesty.
Well, I haven't paid yet.
But it got me thinking a little about society and the nature of trust and honesty. Then I'd realise I was thinking of that instead of concentrating on my breathing, and that I was not-so-gently drowning...
The vast majority of people would be honest in that scenario. Very few would deliberately steal from a local swimming pool, they’re simply forgetting is a more likely risk.
In any case, you are rumbled. You once claimed you always kept a £20 note in your wallet/phone case. Gotcha!
Yeah, I used that the other day. Oddly enough, because the Co-op (again) had no electronic payments. At the bake sale at my son's school on Friday, I had to use my emergency locker-room pound coin to buy two cupcakes.
I need to make a trip to the cashpoint.
You must live in a weird backwater. I haven't needed to use cash for anything in the UK for years. The bake sale needs to get SumUp. £19.99 and they will make more money. We use it for sales at the rugby club barbecue. Revenues quickly rose. Absolute winner.
Your local Co-Op sounds farcically shit.
LOL. No. Need pound coins for lockers at the pool and for the supermarket trolleys. As for the Co-Op; it's noting to do with them. As I've mentioned before, scrotes keep on nicking the telecoms cables. (I've no idea why they can't/don't use 5G or whatever.)
Perhaps because you and I have different needs, interests and hobbies, our need for cash is different?
Do people still carry around 'pound coins'? FFS.
Well, yes. If you want to use the lockers. Or the local Mozzie's supermarket trolleys.
So yeah.
You don't need coins... FFS
Look, a word to the wise. If you're going to troll, never push things too far.
I'm not trolling. How is pointing out the truth to a load of cash-fetishist nostalgics trolling?
I went for a swim today, and found that the leisure centre's chip-and-pin system was not working. As I did not have cash on me, they let me swim for free, as long as I paid double next time I come. They did not debit any account, or take any note of my entry.
I will, of course, mention this on Friday when I next swim. But how many people would not?
Good of the swimming pool to allow that. Even if a few people do sneak a one time free swim, it costs the pool very little extra money (may be the price of running a hot air hand dryer a couple of times and some more hot water in the shower). The good marketing they get from this is surely much better in the long term.
Also a thumbs up for your honesty.
Well, I haven't paid yet.
But it got me thinking a little about society and the nature of trust and honesty. Then I'd realise I was thinking of that instead of concentrating on my breathing, and that I was not-so-gently drowning...
The vast majority of people would be honest in that scenario. Very few would deliberately steal from a local swimming pool, they’re simply forgetting is a more likely risk.
In any case, you are rumbled. You once claimed you always kept a £20 note in your wallet/phone case. Gotcha!
Yeah, I used that the other day. Oddly enough, because the Co-op (again) had no electronic payments. At the bake sale at my son's school on Friday, I had to use my emergency locker-room pound coin to buy two cupcakes.
I need to make a trip to the cashpoint.
You must live in a weird backwater. I haven't needed to use cash for anything in the UK for years. The bake sale needs to get SumUp. £19.99 and they will make more money. We use it for sales at the rugby club barbecue. Revenues quickly rose. Absolute winner.
Your local Co-Op sounds farcically shit.
LOL. No. Need pound coins for lockers at the pool and for the supermarket trolleys. As for the Co-Op; it's noting to do with them. As I've mentioned before, scrotes keep on nicking the telecoms cables. (I've no idea why they can't/don't use 5G or whatever.)
Perhaps because you and I have different needs, interests and hobbies, our need for cash is different?
Do people still carry around 'pound coins'? FFS.
It's the one coin you do actually need for swimming bath lockers and trolleys.
I went for a swim today, and found that the leisure centre's chip-and-pin system was not working. As I did not have cash on me, they let me swim for free, as long as I paid double next time I come. They did not debit any account, or take any note of my entry.
I will, of course, mention this on Friday when I next swim. But how many people would not?
Good of the swimming pool to allow that. Even if a few people do sneak a one time free swim, it costs the pool very little extra money (may be the price of running a hot air hand dryer a couple of times and some more hot water in the shower). The good marketing they get from this is surely much better in the long term.
Also a thumbs up for your honesty.
Well, I haven't paid yet.
But it got me thinking a little about society and the nature of trust and honesty. Then I'd realise I was thinking of that instead of concentrating on my breathing, and that I was not-so-gently drowning...
The vast majority of people would be honest in that scenario. Very few would deliberately steal from a local swimming pool, they’re simply forgetting is a more likely risk.
In any case, you are rumbled. You once claimed you always kept a £20 note in your wallet/phone case. Gotcha!
Yeah, I used that the other day. Oddly enough, because the Co-op (again) had no electronic payments. At the bake sale at my son's school on Friday, I had to use my emergency locker-room pound coin to buy two cupcakes.
I need to make a trip to the cashpoint.
You must live in a weird backwater. I haven't needed to use cash for anything in the UK for years. The bake sale needs to get SumUp. £19.99 and they will make more money. We use it for sales at the rugby club barbecue. Revenues quickly rose. Absolute winner.
Your local Co-Op sounds farcically shit.
LOL. No. Need pound coins for lockers at the pool and for the supermarket trolleys. As for the Co-Op; it's noting to do with them. As I've mentioned before, scrotes keep on nicking the telecoms cables. (I've no idea why they can't/don't use 5G or whatever.)
Perhaps because you and I have different needs, interests and hobbies, our need for cash is different?
Do people still carry around 'pound coins'? FFS.
It's the one coin you do actually need for swimming bath lockers and trolleys.
The Home Bargains trolleys use pound coins.
In Reactionary and Luddite news from the frozen north, all local supermarkets take £1 coins for trolleys, our local Lidl has no self-checkout facility whatsoever, and Booths (the northern equivalent of Waitrose) has just announced they are abolishing the facility. Discussion on the street is about whether Henry VI or Edward IV have the better claim to be king.
And don't even think about attending most of the Christmas Fair season events in village halls and churches without actual hard cash and treasury notes in hand.
As so often the truth is in the middle of the 2 extremes. I do need a pound coin for a Tesco trolley but I don't need one for the locker at the pool. I use a padlock for that. A combination lock so as not to be troubled with a key secreted in my trunks while I'm swimming. The combination is ... ha what sort of fool do you think I am. Only I know the combination and we'll keep it that way if you don't mind.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
International law trumps domestic law .
That's not true. There is no international sovereign.
What’s sovereign got to do with it . It’s a matter of fact , international law trumps domestic law.
To give you an example during the Brexit wars . The no dealers said the government shouldn’t lay the statutory instruments needed to extend the transition period and therefore by their idiotic logic the UK would leave without a deal . It had to be explained to them that in international law terms the UK hadn’t left as the PM had already signed the agreement .
The UK can of course do what it likes if it pulls out of the ECHR and all the other conventions in relation to refugees as they would no longer have any bearing on domestic laws . Good luck with getting that through the Commons, the UK government cannot remove the rights of citizens without a parliamentary vote .
That was the impact of the Article 50 case and anyone who wants to live in a democratic country should be eternally thankful the SC ruled in that way .
Your argument is self-contradictory on multiple levels.
Can a country be considered democratic if its people are prevented from voting for things that go against the wishes of an external body?
It’s not self-contradictory . Remind me who voted for the Rwandan policy . If a party wants to run on leaving all the international agreements re refugees and people vote for it then the government can do whatever it likes . Please show me the section of the Tory manifesto where they said they’d do that !
That's the contradiction. If a government can change the law to do what it likes, then in what sense are they trumped by international law?
Obviously any country can renegue on international agreements. Equally obviously there will be consequences of reneguing on international agreements. Because agreements involve two parties, and no two parties would make agreements unless they both benefitted.
It's all pretty obvious, and it's a mystery why it needs to be explained to anyone of average intelligence. But maybe too many people here are of less than average intelligence?
As someone of above average intelligence, how do you explain the existence of refugees from countries that are party to these international agreements?
That's about as stupid as asking why - if murder is against the law - why people still get murdered.
Try to think.
Murderers haven't voluntarily entered into a contract saying that they won't commit murder. It's a law imposed on them by society, so not at all comparable to international treaties.
It's probably just the countries that are below average intelligence that have refugees. Half of all countries must be below average, after all.
Half of all countries, yes (if your definition of average is a median). But in a self-selecting group like the posters here, it can be a lot more than half, on any definition.
Those inflation figures are nowhere near as good as the government are making out. Sunak doing a victory dance is very premature when you take out the energy cap fudge. It ain't over yet.
Core inflation is down a chunk, although not as much as the headline rate. I don't see inflation going up again anytime soon but it will probably be stickier after this. Interest rates have probably peaked now. That will help the mortgage market a bit.
And it sure beats talking about a 5-0 thumping.
Absolutely a long way to go until the CPI will return to the 2% target. We still have high core inflation and rapid wage growth at least for some..We will hopefully see a gentle drift down during 2024 and may be at 3% at end 2024.
2% unlikely to be reached on a sustained basis until 2026.
So the pound coin in your pocket will continue to lose real value for some time to come!
The Crown Office seems to be doing its best to help by not giving us a wage increase this year. We should at least get a ribbon showing our efforts in the war against inflation or something.
As so often the truth is in the middle of the 2 extremes. I do need a pound coin for a Tesco trolley but I don't need one for the locker at the pool. I use a padlock for that. A combination lock so as not to be troubled with a key secreted in my trunks while I'm swimming. The combination is ... ha what sort of fool do you think I am. Only I know the combination and we'll keep it that way if you don't mind.
The only thing I can think of is the local Arcade with my daughter. We have to get a tenner out of the cash point at the Sainsbo's opposite, then turn it into pound coins which we immediately feed into the machines.
Now they're ten, they're going to start practicing getting the bus to school, and I'll stick and emergency 2 quid in their school bag in case their "Rooster" contactless card fails for some reason.
Aside from that the last hold out was school fetes, and they've long since switched to SumUp.
SumUp is bloody great. We use it at the rugby club I volunteer for. It is quick easier and most of all it has increased our revenues at barbecues etc. Nobody ever had the right change, sometimes people forget to bring enough cash to satisfy their hunger. Kids managed to 'lose' the fiver their mums gave them for a burger. Now the punters just keep buying and we coin it in (well not literally, we digitally transfer it in via a modern BACS-based system, but you catch my drift).
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
NYT (via Seattle Times) - In Texas, a fight over gender and school theater takes an unexpected turn
SHERMAN, Texas — A school district in the conservative town of Sherman, Texas, made national headlines last week when it put a stop to a high school production of the musical “Oklahoma!” after a transgender student was cast in a lead role.
The district’s administrators decided, and communicated to parents, that the school would cast only students “born as females in female roles and students born as males in male roles.” Not only did several transgender and nonbinary students lose their parts, but so too did girls cast in male roles. Publicly, the district said the problem was the profane and sexual content of the 1943 musical.
At one point, the theater teacher, who objected to the decision, was escorted out of the school by the principal. The set, a sturdy mock-up of a settler’s house that took students two months to build, was demolished.
But then something even more unusual happened in Sherman, a rural college town that has been rapidly drawn into the expanding orbit of Dallas to its south. The school district reversed course. In a late-night vote Monday, the school board voted unanimously to restore the original casting. The decision rebuked efforts to bring the fight over transgender participation in student activities into the world of theater, which has long provided a haven for gay, lesbian and transgender students, and it reflected just how deeply the controversy had unsettled the town.
The district’s restriction had been exceptional. Fights have erupted over the kinds of plays students can present, but few if any school districts appear to have attempted to restrict gender roles in theater. And while legislatures across the country, including in Texas, have adopted laws restricting transgender students’ participation in sports, no such legislation has been introduced to restrict theater roles, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The board’s vote came after students and outraged parents began organizing. In recent days, the district’s administrators, seeking a compromise, offered to recast the students in a version of the musical meant for middle schoolers or younger that omitted solos and included roles as cattle and birds. Students balked.
After the vote, the school board announced a special meeting for Friday to open an investigation and to consider taking action against the district superintendent, Tyson Bennett, who oversaw the district’s handling of “Oklahoma!,” including “possible administrative leave.”
Suddenly, improbably, the students had won. . . .
SSI - To millions of Americans, for whom student productions of "Oklahoma" have been a staple of high school theater for over a half-century, banning this much-beloved musical truly exposes the wackiness of the ideologically-inspired, politically-motivated War on Woke.
Boys playing girls?!!! Shakespeare would be… actually he’d be utterly relaxed.
See also single sex schools the world over.
Honestly, in theatre, this isn’t a “trans issue” it’s just business as usual. But then the folk who made an issue of it presumably don’t see much theatre.
"just get a keyring token from Amazon" is supposed to be easier than having a tin of coins in the car.
Righty ho.
You don't need a tin of coins, you only need the one since you get it back each time. I keep mine in the ashtray.
You could drill a hole in it and whack a keyring through the hole, although technically then you'd be committing a crime by defacing/destroying the King's shilling. Tut tut.
Those inflation figures are nowhere near as good as the government are making out. Sunak doing a victory dance is very premature when you take out the energy cap fudge. It ain't over yet.
Core inflation is down a chunk, although not as much as the headline rate. I don't see inflation going up again anytime soon but it will probably be stickier after this. Interest rates have probably peaked now. That will help the mortgage market a bit.
And it sure beats talking about a 5-0 thumping.
Absolutely a long way to go until the CPI will return to the 2% target. We still have high core inflation and rapid wage growth at least for some..We will hopefully see a gentle drift down during 2024 and may be at 3% at end 2024.
2% unlikely to be reached on a sustained basis until 2026.
So the pound coin in your pocket will continue to lose real value for some time to come!
This was on my local news this morning. Now I may be stupid but its been standing since 1958 without issue, so why did they need to evacuate everyone last night?
I don't know, and it'll be interesting to see. From something I read yesterday, they suddenly realised it would not be structurally safe in a fire or explosion (think Ronan Point). My loose understanding was that the building was nearing the end of its life, and they sent surveyors in to see if its lifetime could be extended, or whether it should be demolished. Whilst doing so, they discovered it is not as shown on the plans, and is unsafe.
Also, materials degrade over time. A BBC article shows large, long-standing cracks in the building. Perhaps they're not structural; but they never look good in a big building.
I totally get the buildings degrade and clearly no-one should be left in an unsafe building. And you can point to Aberfan and say that it had never been an issue until it was. It just seems that it may have been a bit of an over reaction. Happy to be wrong.
I don't know enough about it, and I daresay more information will come out soon. But I expect the issue is that it hasn't been 'safe' for some years, and they've only just realised..
"Not being built to plan" may well be one of the things that contributed to the Miami condo collapse a couple of years ago. Or, more stunningly, the Korean shopping centre collapse that killed hundreds of people.
Wasn't Ronan Point also not properly stuck together? Though I don't know how far that contributed to the collapse. I see that the current problem block is also a large panel system design, but it sounds as if duff assembly is much more of an issue than actual basic design in this case.
Ronan Point was a gas explosion. I thought they'd stopped using gas in tower blocks after this.
It was, initially, a kitchen gas explosion. But it triggered a failure mode that shouldn't have happened IIRC. Basically once one bit failed, the next bit up failed, like a zip fastener. Chain of dominoes sort of thing.
I went for a swim today, and found that the leisure centre's chip-and-pin system was not working. As I did not have cash on me, they let me swim for free, as long as I paid double next time I come. They did not debit any account, or take any note of my entry.
I will, of course, mention this on Friday when I next swim. But how many people would not?
Good of the swimming pool to allow that. Even if a few people do sneak a one time free swim, it costs the pool very little extra money (may be the price of running a hot air hand dryer a couple of times and some more hot water in the shower). The good marketing they get from this is surely much better in the long term.
Also a thumbs up for your honesty.
Well, I haven't paid yet.
But it got me thinking a little about society and the nature of trust and honesty. Then I'd realise I was thinking of that instead of concentrating on my breathing, and that I was not-so-gently drowning...
The vast majority of people would be honest in that scenario. Very few would deliberately steal from a local swimming pool, they’re simply forgetting is a more likely risk.
In any case, you are rumbled. You once claimed you always kept a £20 note in your wallet/phone case. Gotcha!
Yeah, I used that the other day. Oddly enough, because the Co-op (again) had no electronic payments. At the bake sale at my son's school on Friday, I had to use my emergency locker-room pound coin to buy two cupcakes.
I need to make a trip to the cashpoint.
You must live in a weird backwater. I haven't needed to use cash for anything in the UK for years. The bake sale needs to get SumUp. £19.99 and they will make more money. We use it for sales at the rugby club barbecue. Revenues quickly rose. Absolute winner.
Your local Co-Op sounds farcically shit.
LOL. No. Need pound coins for lockers at the pool and for the supermarket trolleys. As for the Co-Op; it's noting to do with them. As I've mentioned before, scrotes keep on nicking the telecoms cables. (I've no idea why they can't/don't use 5G or whatever.)
Perhaps because you and I have different needs, interests and hobbies, our need for cash is different?
Do people still carry around 'pound coins'? FFS.
It's the one coin you do actually need for swimming bath lockers and trolleys.
I found one on the pavement today.
You're rich!
Yep. When I was 17 that was a night out, £1. 4 pints and a bag of chips.
You have youth on your side. when I was 17, 4 pints a chips was about 66p. For £1 you dined at the Ritz and took home a performing bear as well.
NEW: Can confirm at least one Labour shadow minister has written their resignation letter ready to step down today ahead of the potential Gaza vote.
They’ll be voting for a ceasefire.
Several others are expecting to be sacked today
Tory civil war or Labour civil war, which will be the biggest headline tomorrow?
Starmer has been lucky because of the timing . The right wing papers will of course be desperate to big up Labour splits but it looks rather desperate given Sunaks flagship policy has just sunk without trace .
The difference between the parties is simple. Starmer has proposed a compromise amendment and will sack anyone who votes with the government. Issue then over as the malcontents slink off to the back benches.
Sunak? What is his way out of this? The nutjobs are massing and they want policies drawn by Braverman in crayon to just be done regardless of legality or practicality. And if Sunak pleads reality they just point to ReFUK for whom reality is a dirty word.
Nineteen percent in the latest poll (and they did publish their full tables). A Remoaner as Foreign Secretary, and a Rwanda-Refuser in the Home Office. A putsch is brewing.
Suella claims she had taken legal advice and done the preliminary work on her policy submissions to Sunak. I see no reason to doubt her on that.
I know it's not usually a good idea to sue a lawyer, but if Sue Ellen Braverman took advice on the Rwanda scheme and proceeded with it on the basis of that advice, then in the light of the unanimous ruling of five Supreme Court judges maybe she has a case against her advisors.
She won’t have “taken advice” in the way rooke usually think of it. Legal advice will have been submitted to her as part of the usual ministerial submission process for all policies by the Government Legal service, possibly including a commission for a KC. Like the policy advice, it will have been heavily caveated.
KC advice always, always says “on the one had X, on the other hand Y, it’s all very complicated here’s my bill”.
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Those inflation figures are nowhere near as good as the government are making out. Sunak doing a victory dance is very premature when you take out the energy cap fudge. It ain't over yet.
Core inflation is down a chunk, although not as much as the headline rate. I don't see inflation going up again anytime soon but it will probably be stickier after this. Interest rates have probably peaked now. That will help the mortgage market a bit.
And it sure beats talking about a 5-0 thumping.
Absolutely a long way to go until the CPI will return to the 2% target. We still have high core inflation and rapid wage growth at least for some..We will hopefully see a gentle drift down during 2024 and may be at 3% at end 2024.
2% unlikely to be reached on a sustained basis until 2026.
So the pound coin in your pocket will continue to lose real value for some time to come!
For the last 5 months the total month on month inflation is running at 0.5%, or 1.2% annualised.
An awful lot of inflation drops out of the calc from Feb to May next year and there's no sign in the input pipeline of it getting replaced.
This was on my local news this morning. Now I may be stupid but its been standing since 1958 without issue, so why did they need to evacuate everyone last night?
I don't know, and it'll be interesting to see. From something I read yesterday, they suddenly realised it would not be structurally safe in a fire or explosion (think Ronan Point). My loose understanding was that the building was nearing the end of its life, and they sent surveyors in to see if its lifetime could be extended, or whether it should be demolished. Whilst doing so, they discovered it is not as shown on the plans, and is unsafe.
Also, materials degrade over time. A BBC article shows large, long-standing cracks in the building. Perhaps they're not structural; but they never look good in a big building.
I totally get the buildings degrade and clearly no-one should be left in an unsafe building. And you can point to Aberfan and say that it had never been an issue until it was. It just seems that it may have been a bit of an over reaction. Happy to be wrong.
I don't know enough about it, and I daresay more information will come out soon. But I expect the issue is that it hasn't been 'safe' for some years, and they've only just realised..
"Not being built to plan" may well be one of the things that contributed to the Miami condo collapse a couple of years ago. Or, more stunningly, the Korean shopping centre collapse that killed hundreds of people.
Wasn't Ronan Point also not properly stuck together? Though I don't know how far that contributed to the collapse. I see that the current problem block is also a large panel system design, but it sounds as if duff assembly is much more of an issue than actual basic design in this case.
AFAICR from uni it was constructed correctly, but the entire design was flawed. But it was a terrible design, as they found when they demolished it. From Wiki:
"Sam Webb, an architect who had given evidence to the Griffiths inquiry, predicted that after approximately 15 years, Ronan Point would develop structural problems and collapse.[10] Webb's concerns eventually led the council to evacuate the building, and then to demolish it in 1986 in a piecemeal manner (rather than, for example, using explosives). When this was done, the extent of the defects found shocked even some of the activists, including Webb himself. On the lower floors, cracks were found in the concrete where it had been point-loaded, and it was alleged that the extra pressure on those points during a high wind (such as during the Great Storm of 1987, barely a year after the demolition) would soon have led to building collapse.[9]"
Remarkably the government, instead of being quietly grateful for a SC judgement which puts a policy that cannot work to a well deserved rest, is making the mistake of stirring the embers.
If it produces something then, unavoidably and at our expense, most of the same +30 barristers and their solicitors will be employed on ensuring that a challenge goes through the same 3 courts (Divisional, Appeal, SU) as the last lot.
This means, of course, that the next election will be on us or close by the time Lord Pannick KC stands up in the SC to represent the government in this futile cause.
While Rishi will want to set traps for Labour, this one is too costly.
They won't care about the cost.
As traps go though, it's a crap one. Everyone but the bonkers GBNews lot can see that the policy doesn't work, is hugely expensive, and cruel.
Sort out safe routes, get an agreement with Europe (and especially France), and try to sort some of the problems at source.
Surely that is why newly minted grown-up Rishi has brought in seasoned statesman Dave to knock some sense into the EU.
When the dust settles, Jimmy Cleverly will quietly dispose of the Rwanda fiasco. Or at least if he has any sense he will.
NEW: Can confirm at least one Labour shadow minister has written their resignation letter ready to step down today ahead of the potential Gaza vote.
They’ll be voting for a ceasefire.
Several others are expecting to be sacked today
Tory civil war or Labour civil war, which will be the biggest headline tomorrow?
Starmer has been lucky because of the timing . The right wing papers will of course be desperate to big up Labour splits but it looks rather desperate given Sunaks flagship policy has just sunk without trace .
The difference between the parties is simple. Starmer has proposed a compromise amendment and will sack anyone who votes with the government. Issue then over as the malcontents slink off to the back benches.
Sunak? What is his way out of this? The nutjobs are massing and they want policies drawn by Braverman in crayon to just be done regardless of legality or practicality. And if Sunak pleads reality they just point to ReFUK for whom reality is a dirty word.
Nineteen percent in the latest poll (and they did publish their full tables). A Remoaner as Foreign Secretary, and a Rwanda-Refuser in the Home Office. A putsch is brewing.
Suella claims she had taken legal advice and done the preliminary work on her policy submissions to Sunak. I see no reason to doubt her on that.
I know it's not usually a good idea to sue a lawyer, but if Sue Ellen Braverman took advice on the Rwanda scheme and proceeded with it on the basis of that advice, then in the light of the unanimous ruling of five Supreme Court judges maybe she has a case against her advisors.
She won’t have “taken advice” in the way rooke usually think of it. Legal advice will have been submitted to her as part of the usual ministerial submission process for all policies by the Government Legal service, possibly including a commission for a KC. Like the policy advice, it will have been heavily caveated.
KC advice always, always says “on the one had X, on the other hand Y, it’s all very complicated here’s my bill”.
Obviously if she took advice and ignored all the caveats she might as well not have taken advice ...
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
International law trumps domestic law .
That's not true. There is no international sovereign.
What’s sovereign got to do with it . It’s a matter of fact , international law trumps domestic law.
To give you an example during the Brexit wars . The no dealers said the government shouldn’t lay the statutory instruments needed to extend the transition period and therefore by their idiotic logic the UK would leave without a deal . It had to be explained to them that in international law terms the UK hadn’t left as the PM had already signed the agreement .
The UK can of course do what it likes if it pulls out of the ECHR and all the other conventions in relation to refugees as they would no longer have any bearing on domestic laws . Good luck with getting that through the Commons, the UK government cannot remove the rights of citizens without a parliamentary vote .
That was the impact of the Article 50 case and anyone who wants to live in a democratic country should be eternally thankful the SC ruled in that way .
Your argument is self-contradictory on multiple levels.
Can a country be considered democratic if its people are prevented from voting for things that go against the wishes of an external body?
It’s not self-contradictory . Remind me who voted for the Rwandan policy . If a party wants to run on leaving all the international agreements re refugees and people vote for it then the government can do whatever it likes . Please show me the section of the Tory manifesto where they said they’d do that !
That's the contradiction. If a government can change the law to do what it likes, then in what sense are they trumped by international law?
Obviously any country can renegue on international agreements. Equally obviously there will be consequences of reneguing on international agreements. Because agreements involve two parties, and no two parties would make agreements unless they both benefitted.
It's all pretty obvious, and it's a mystery why it needs to be explained to anyone of average intelligence. But maybe too many people here are of less than average intelligence?
As someone of above average intelligence, how do you explain the existence of refugees from countries that are party to these international agreements?
That's about as stupid as asking why - if murder is against the law - why people still get murdered.
Try to think.
Murderers haven't voluntarily entered into a contract saying that they won't commit murder. It's a law imposed on them by society, so not at all comparable to international treaties.
You're the one saying governments are free to do what they like regardless of international law.
What's puzzling you? Why not talk to a friend privately and get them to explain it to you?
Have another go at answering my question about refugees from countries subject to international law. Surely all that needs to happen is for legal action to be taken against them to make sure they comply, and then there would be no refugee problem.
This was on my local news this morning. Now I may be stupid but its been standing since 1958 without issue, so why did they need to evacuate everyone last night?
I don't know, and it'll be interesting to see. From something I read yesterday, they suddenly realised it would not be structurally safe in a fire or explosion (think Ronan Point). My loose understanding was that the building was nearing the end of its life, and they sent surveyors in to see if its lifetime could be extended, or whether it should be demolished. Whilst doing so, they discovered it is not as shown on the plans, and is unsafe.
Also, materials degrade over time. A BBC article shows large, long-standing cracks in the building. Perhaps they're not structural; but they never look good in a big building.
I totally get the buildings degrade and clearly no-one should be left in an unsafe building. And you can point to Aberfan and say that it had never been an issue until it was. It just seems that it may have been a bit of an over reaction. Happy to be wrong.
I don't know enough about it, and I daresay more information will come out soon. But I expect the issue is that it hasn't been 'safe' for some years, and they've only just realised..
"Not being built to plan" may well be one of the things that contributed to the Miami condo collapse a couple of years ago. Or, more stunningly, the Korean shopping centre collapse that killed hundreds of people.
Wasn't Ronan Point also not properly stuck together? Though I don't know how far that contributed to the collapse. I see that the current problem block is also a large panel system design, but it sounds as if duff assembly is much more of an issue than actual basic design in this case.
AFAICR from uni it was constructed correctly, but the entire design was flawed. But it was a terrible design, as they found when they demolished it. From Wiki:
"Sam Webb, an architect who had given evidence to the Griffiths inquiry, predicted that after approximately 15 years, Ronan Point would develop structural problems and collapse.[10] Webb's concerns eventually led the council to evacuate the building, and then to demolish it in 1986 in a piecemeal manner (rather than, for example, using explosives). When this was done, the extent of the defects found shocked even some of the activists, including Webb himself. On the lower floors, cracks were found in the concrete where it had been point-loaded, and it was alleged that the extra pressure on those points during a high wind (such as during the Great Storm of 1987, barely a year after the demolition) would soon have led to building collapse.[9]"
You missed the best bit. ..Hodge survived, having been blown across the room and clear of the collapsing walls by the explosion – as did her gas stove, which she took to her new address...
Those inflation figures are nowhere near as good as the government are making out. Sunak doing a victory dance is very premature when you take out the energy cap fudge. It ain't over yet.
Core inflation is down a chunk, although not as much as the headline rate. I don't see inflation going up again anytime soon but it will probably be stickier after this. Interest rates have probably peaked now. That will help the mortgage market a bit.
And it sure beats talking about a 5-0 thumping.
Absolutely a long way to go until the CPI will return to the 2% target. We still have high core inflation and rapid wage growth at least for some..We will hopefully see a gentle drift down during 2024 and may be at 3% at end 2024.
2% unlikely to be reached on a sustained basis until 2026.
So the pound coin in your pocket will continue to lose real value for some time to come!
For the last 5 months the total month on month inflation is running at 0.5%, or 1.2% annualised.
An awful lot of inflation drops out of the calc from Feb to May next year and there's no sign in the input pipeline of it getting replaced.
Another poster mentioned the last 5 months inflation earlier today. So I could be wrong! It's not unknown!
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
I think they should replace Stop The Boats with a new policy of Stop Banging On About The Boats.
Serious point, banging on about Stop the Boats gives Labour an opportunity. If the goal is to stop the boats, then the policy measure is relatively simple – make it easier to enter the UK legally, then process claims onshore.
It is the prohibition placed upon entry that creates the demands for the boats.
Remarkably the government, instead of being quietly grateful for a SC judgement which puts a policy that cannot work to a well deserved rest, is making the mistake of stirring the embers.
If it produces something then, unavoidably and at our expense, most of the same +30 barristers and their solicitors will be employed on ensuring that a challenge goes through the same 3 courts (Divisional, Appeal, SU) as the last lot.
This means, of course, that the next election will be on us or close by the time Lord Pannick KC stands up in the SC to represent the government in this futile cause.
While Rishi will want to set traps for Labour, this one is too costly.
They won't care about the cost.
As traps go though, it's a crap one. Everyone but the bonkers GBNews lot can see that the policy doesn't work, is hugely expensive, and cruel.
Sort out safe routes, get an agreement with Europe (and especially France), and try to sort some of the problems at source.
Surely that is why newly minted grown-up Rishi has brought in seasoned statesman Dave to knock some sense into the EU.
When the dust settles, Jimmy Cleverly will quietly dispose of the Rwanda fiasco. Or at least if he has any sense he will.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
It wouldn’t be a good look. Joe Biden would snub us.
Being snarled at by Joe Biden, and being able to deflect such an attack politely, generously, diplomatically, and firmly, without creating an ongoing rift, is what I want to see in a future PM.
Liz Truss was bold enough to piss him off but unable or unwilling to defend her policy when he attacked it. Rishi Sunak would never have the stones even to differ politely. Boris said 'fuck the Americans' - but after he left office. Nobody can just be normal. We know the USA is a hugely dominant force, yet other countries seem to carry on without cravenly acquiescing on every single issue. How does Ireland keep a 12% Corporation Tax level against what must be huge US pressure in its campaign to force everyone else to raise it?
A pity ROI are having to make that concession, but here we can only dream of a 15% CT rate - the difference in approach is still stark.
Another example - the Swedes went to COP20 and declared that sadly the global situation would mean their emissions would probably have to rise 10% (afaicr). It is impossible to imagine the posturing ninnies in our Government having the balls or the brains to make an honest and adult admission of that sort.
Other Governments work within the framework of international organisations and movements, but with the basic premise that they're in the game to look after the interests of their own citizens.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
International law trumps domestic law .
That's not true. There is no international sovereign.
What’s sovereign got to do with it . It’s a matter of fact , international law trumps domestic law.
To give you an example during the Brexit wars . The no dealers said the government shouldn’t lay the statutory instruments needed to extend the transition period and therefore by their idiotic logic the UK would leave without a deal . It had to be explained to them that in international law terms the UK hadn’t left as the PM had already signed the agreement .
The UK can of course do what it likes if it pulls out of the ECHR and all the other conventions in relation to refugees as they would no longer have any bearing on domestic laws . Good luck with getting that through the Commons, the UK government cannot remove the rights of citizens without a parliamentary vote .
That was the impact of the Article 50 case and anyone who wants to live in a democratic country should be eternally thankful the SC ruled in that way .
Your argument is self-contradictory on multiple levels.
Can a country be considered democratic if its people are prevented from voting for things that go against the wishes of an external body?
It’s not self-contradictory . Remind me who voted for the Rwandan policy . If a party wants to run on leaving all the international agreements re refugees and people vote for it then the government can do whatever it likes . Please show me the section of the Tory manifesto where they said they’d do that !
That's the contradiction. If a government can change the law to do what it likes, then in what sense are they trumped by international law?
Obviously any country can renegue on international agreements. Equally obviously there will be consequences of reneguing on international agreements. Because agreements involve two parties, and no two parties would make agreements unless they both benefitted.
It's all pretty obvious, and it's a mystery why it needs to be explained to anyone of average intelligence. But maybe too many people here are of less than average intelligence?
As someone of above average intelligence, how do you explain the existence of refugees from countries that are party to these international agreements?
That's about as stupid as asking why - if murder is against the law - why people still get murdered.
Try to think.
Murderers haven't voluntarily entered into a contract saying that they won't commit murder. It's a law imposed on them by society, so not at all comparable to international treaties.
You're the one saying governments are free to do what they like regardless of international law.
What's puzzling you? Why not talk to a friend privately and get them to explain it to you?
Have another go at answering my question about refugees from countries subject to international law. Surely all that needs to happen is for legal action to be taken against them to make sure they comply, and then there would be no refugee problem.
Is it actually against international law for a country to - for example - have laws that discriminate against specific sexual orientations to the point that it places those individuals at risk?
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
I think they should replace Stop The Boats with a new policy of Stop Banging On About The Boats.
Serious point, banging on about Stop the Boats gives Labour an opportunity. If the goal is to stop the boats, then the policy measure is relatively simple – make it easier to enter the UK legally, then process claims onshore.
It is the prohibition placed upon entry that creates the demands for the boats.
Stop the boats != stop immigration.
Shhhh you’re giving the Tories ideas. But yes, Labour is hardly going to call for the Rwanda plan if it’s dropped.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
International law trumps domestic law .
That's not true. There is no international sovereign.
What’s sovereign got to do with it . It’s a matter of fact , international law trumps domestic law.
To give you an example during the Brexit wars . The no dealers said the government shouldn’t lay the statutory instruments needed to extend the transition period and therefore by their idiotic logic the UK would leave without a deal . It had to be explained to them that in international law terms the UK hadn’t left as the PM had already signed the agreement .
The UK can of course do what it likes if it pulls out of the ECHR and all the other conventions in relation to refugees as they would no longer have any bearing on domestic laws . Good luck with getting that through the Commons, the UK government cannot remove the rights of citizens without a parliamentary vote .
That was the impact of the Article 50 case and anyone who wants to live in a democratic country should be eternally thankful the SC ruled in that way .
Your argument is self-contradictory on multiple levels.
Can a country be considered democratic if its people are prevented from voting for things that go against the wishes of an external body?
It’s not self-contradictory . Remind me who voted for the Rwandan policy . If a party wants to run on leaving all the international agreements re refugees and people vote for it then the government can do whatever it likes . Please show me the section of the Tory manifesto where they said they’d do that !
That's the contradiction. If a government can change the law to do what it likes, then in what sense are they trumped by international law?
Obviously any country can renegue on international agreements. Equally obviously there will be consequences of reneguing on international agreements. Because agreements involve two parties, and no two parties would make agreements unless they both benefitted.
It's all pretty obvious, and it's a mystery why it needs to be explained to anyone of average intelligence. But maybe too many people here are of less than average intelligence?
As someone of above average intelligence, how do you explain the existence of refugees from countries that are party to these international agreements?
That's about as stupid as asking why - if murder is against the law - why people still get murdered.
Try to think.
Murderers haven't voluntarily entered into a contract saying that they won't commit murder. It's a law imposed on them by society, so not at all comparable to international treaties.
You're the one saying governments are free to do what they like regardless of international law.
What's puzzling you? Why not talk to a friend privately and get them to explain it to you?
Have another go at answering my question about refugees from countries subject to international law. Surely all that needs to happen is for legal action to be taken against them to make sure they comply, and then there would be no refugee problem.
Tricky to know what's going on in your head.
Considering you started out saying countries could do what they liked regardless of international law, and now you are asking me to explain how countries can do what they like regardless of international law.
NEW: Can confirm at least one Labour shadow minister has written their resignation letter ready to step down today ahead of the potential Gaza vote.
They’ll be voting for a ceasefire.
Several others are expecting to be sacked today
Tory civil war or Labour civil war, which will be the biggest headline tomorrow?
Starmer has been lucky because of the timing . The right wing papers will of course be desperate to big up Labour splits but it looks rather desperate given Sunaks flagship policy has just sunk without trace .
The difference between the parties is simple. Starmer has proposed a compromise amendment and will sack anyone who votes with the government. Issue then over as the malcontents slink off to the back benches.
Sunak? What is his way out of this? The nutjobs are massing and they want policies drawn by Braverman in crayon to just be done regardless of legality or practicality. And if Sunak pleads reality they just point to ReFUK for whom reality is a dirty word.
Nineteen percent in the latest poll (and they did publish their full tables). A Remoaner as Foreign Secretary, and a Rwanda-Refuser in the Home Office. A putsch is brewing.
Suella claims she had taken legal advice and done the preliminary work on her policy submissions to Sunak. I see no reason to doubt her on that.
I know it's not usually a good idea to sue a lawyer, but if Sue Ellen Braverman took advice on the Rwanda scheme and proceeded with it on the basis of that advice, then in the light of the unanimous ruling of five Supreme Court judges maybe she has a case against her advisors.
She won’t have “taken advice” in the way rooke usually think of it. Legal advice will have been submitted to her as part of the usual ministerial submission process for all policies by the Government Legal service, possibly including a commission for a KC. Like the policy advice, it will have been heavily caveated.
KC advice always, always says “on the one had X, on the other hand Y, it’s all very complicated here’s my bill”.
This is in fact unsurprising. KCs are only asked for advice when there is more than one possible answer to be located by rational argument.
Look at today's SC judgement, the last of three in the matter; distinguished judges have come to different conclusions on the same law and evidence in the course of the proceedings.
How else are impoverished silks to afford the monstrous price of chocolate money to place in the toe of their children's Christmas stockings?
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
International law trumps domestic law .
That's not true. There is no international sovereign.
What’s sovereign got to do with it . It’s a matter of fact , international law trumps domestic law.
To give you an example during the Brexit wars . The no dealers said the government shouldn’t lay the statutory instruments needed to extend the transition period and therefore by their idiotic logic the UK would leave without a deal . It had to be explained to them that in international law terms the UK hadn’t left as the PM had already signed the agreement .
The UK can of course do what it likes if it pulls out of the ECHR and all the other conventions in relation to refugees as they would no longer have any bearing on domestic laws . Good luck with getting that through the Commons, the UK government cannot remove the rights of citizens without a parliamentary vote .
That was the impact of the Article 50 case and anyone who wants to live in a democratic country should be eternally thankful the SC ruled in that way .
Your argument is self-contradictory on multiple levels.
Can a country be considered democratic if its people are prevented from voting for things that go against the wishes of an external body?
It’s not self-contradictory . Remind me who voted for the Rwandan policy . If a party wants to run on leaving all the international agreements re refugees and people vote for it then the government can do whatever it likes . Please show me the section of the Tory manifesto where they said they’d do that !
That's the contradiction. If a government can change the law to do what it likes, then in what sense are they trumped by international law?
Obviously any country can renegue on international agreements. Equally obviously there will be consequences of reneguing on international agreements. Because agreements involve two parties, and no two parties would make agreements unless they both benefitted.
It's all pretty obvious, and it's a mystery why it needs to be explained to anyone of average intelligence. But maybe too many people here are of less than average intelligence?
As someone of above average intelligence, how do you explain the existence of refugees from countries that are party to these international agreements?
That's about as stupid as asking why - if murder is against the law - why people still get murdered.
Try to think.
Murderers haven't voluntarily entered into a contract saying that they won't commit murder. It's a law imposed on them by society, so not at all comparable to international treaties.
You're the one saying governments are free to do what they like regardless of international law.
What's puzzling you? Why not talk to a friend privately and get them to explain it to you?
Have another go at answering my question about refugees from countries subject to international law. Surely all that needs to happen is for legal action to be taken against them to make sure they comply, and then there would be no refugee problem.
Tricky to know what's going on in your head.
Considering you started out saying countries could do what they liked regardless of international law, and now you are asking me to explain how countries can do what they like regardless of international law.
Perhaps you are indulging in rhetoric?
I'm trying to see how you reconcile your view of how things ought to work under the current system with how they actually work in reality.
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
Since it's been a while since yours truly last attended a performance of "Oklahoma!" can some kind soul with a theatrical bent (in literal sense) please tell me, what precisely is the "profane and sexual content" of this allegedly proto-Woke musical?"
Non-monogamy The participants often flirt with two or more people, thus:
Laurey with Curly and Jud
Annie with Will and Ali
Curly with Gertie and Laurey
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Violence and threat
Curly fight with Jud
Jud threatens Laurey
Curly kills Jud in self-defense.
Drugs
Laurey uses a bottle of smelling salts to force a dream state
Sexual violence and advances without consent
Jud threatens Laurey
Jud tries to kiss Laurey
Jud sneers that Laurey will never be rid of him
Breach of promise
Curly dishonestly offers Laurey a surrey (a coach) with a fringe on top, despite not having funds for neither the surrey nor the fringe.
Other
People try to buy favours by buying hampers etc
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Summary
In short. Jud is rapey, Gertie is slutty, nobody is faithful to anybody, Curly is a vigilante murder, guns are frequently handled in breach of NRA guidelines resulting in unwarranted discharge, drugs are used, there is lies and deceit. The only thing wholesome about the whole affair is that it is in fact a beautiful morning.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
International law trumps domestic law .
That's not true. There is no international sovereign.
What’s sovereign got to do with it . It’s a matter of fact , international law trumps domestic law.
To give you an example during the Brexit wars . The no dealers said the government shouldn’t lay the statutory instruments needed to extend the transition period and therefore by their idiotic logic the UK would leave without a deal . It had to be explained to them that in international law terms the UK hadn’t left as the PM had already signed the agreement .
The UK can of course do what it likes if it pulls out of the ECHR and all the other conventions in relation to refugees as they would no longer have any bearing on domestic laws . Good luck with getting that through the Commons, the UK government cannot remove the rights of citizens without a parliamentary vote .
That was the impact of the Article 50 case and anyone who wants to live in a democratic country should be eternally thankful the SC ruled in that way .
Your argument is self-contradictory on multiple levels.
Can a country be considered democratic if its people are prevented from voting for things that go against the wishes of an external body?
It’s not self-contradictory . Remind me who voted for the Rwandan policy . If a party wants to run on leaving all the international agreements re refugees and people vote for it then the government can do whatever it likes . Please show me the section of the Tory manifesto where they said they’d do that !
That's the contradiction. If a government can change the law to do what it likes, then in what sense are they trumped by international law?
Obviously any country can renegue on international agreements. Equally obviously there will be consequences of reneguing on international agreements. Because agreements involve two parties, and no two parties would make agreements unless they both benefitted.
It's all pretty obvious, and it's a mystery why it needs to be explained to anyone of average intelligence. But maybe too many people here are of less than average intelligence?
As someone of above average intelligence, how do you explain the existence of refugees from countries that are party to these international agreements?
That's about as stupid as asking why - if murder is against the law - why people still get murdered.
Try to think.
Murderers haven't voluntarily entered into a contract saying that they won't commit murder. It's a law imposed on them by society, so not at all comparable to international treaties.
You're the one saying governments are free to do what they like regardless of international law.
What's puzzling you? Why not talk to a friend privately and get them to explain it to you?
Have another go at answering my question about refugees from countries subject to international law. Surely all that needs to happen is for legal action to be taken against them to make sure they comply, and then there would be no refugee problem.
Tricky to know what's going on in your head.
Considering you started out saying countries could do what they liked regardless of international law, and now you are asking me to explain how countries can do what they like regardless of international law.
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
It certainly tickles all the Telegraph's erogenous spots.
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
According to him this was said by another senior civil servant. I see absolutely no evidence that there has been any improvement in the last 12 years, if anything the reverse.
Since it's been a while since yours truly last attended a performance of "Oklahoma!" can some kind soul with a theatrical bent (in literal sense) please tell me, what precisely is the "profane and sexual content" of this allegedly proto-Woke musical?"
Non-monogamy The participants often flirt with two or more people, thus:
Laurey with Curly and Jud
Annie with Will and Ali
Curly with Gertie and Laurey
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Violence and threat
Curly fight with Jud
Jud threatens Laurey
Curly kills Jud in self-defense.
Drugs
Laurey uses a bottle of smelling salts to force a dream state
Sexual violence and advances without consent
Jud threatens Laurey
Jud tries to kiss Laurey
Jud sneers that Laurey will never be rid of him
Breach of promise
Curly dishonestly offers Laurey a surrey (a coach) with a fringe on top, despite not having funds for neither the surrey nor the fringe.
Other
People try to buy favours by buying hampers etc
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Summary
In short. Jud is rapey, Gertie is slutty, nobody is faithful to anybody, Curly is a vigilante murder, guns are frequently handled in breach of NRA guidelines resulting in unwarranted discharge, drugs are used, there is lies and deceit. The only thing wholesome about the whole affair is that it is in fact a beautiful morning.
I look forward to the woked up version of Julius Caesar, in which senators diligently discuss planning matters for three hours.
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE. 2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government 3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE. 2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government 3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
Of course they’re bonkers. Most are the anti-Semite relics of the Corbyn era.
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
It certainly tickles all the Telegraph's erogenous spots.
It all translates into a 7.5% fall in public sector productivity that is ruining the country and will make any future Labour Government's chances of making any headway on anything as slim as those of the current Government.
James Cleverly getting a lovely round of applause for saying he will never brief against or criticise the department publicly is fine, but he's on another planet if he thinks that they will treat him the same way.
Since it's been a while since yours truly last attended a performance of "Oklahoma!" can some kind soul with a theatrical bent (in literal sense) please tell me, what precisely is the "profane and sexual content" of this allegedly proto-Woke musical?"
Non-monogamy The participants often flirt with two or more people, thus:
Laurey with Curly and Jud
Annie with Will and Ali
Curly with Gertie and Laurey
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Violence and threat
Curly fight with Jud
Jud threatens Laurey
Curly kills Jud in self-defense.
Drugs
Laurey uses a bottle of smelling salts to force a dream state
Sexual violence and advances without consent
Jud threatens Laurey
Jud tries to kiss Laurey
Jud sneers that Laurey will never be rid of him
Breach of promise
Curly dishonestly offers Laurey a surrey (a coach) with a fringe on top, despite not having funds for neither the surrey nor the fringe.
Other
People try to buy favours by buying hampers etc
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Summary
In short. Jud is rapey, Gertie is slutty, nobody is faithful to anybody, Curly is a vigilante murder, guns are frequently handled in breach of NRA guidelines resulting in unwarranted discharge, drugs are used, there is lies and deceit. The only thing wholesome about the whole affair is that it is in fact a beautiful morning.
And Curly gets off the manslaughter charge after a very dubious trial process.
Incidentally also Curly tries to convince Judd to hang himself at an earlier stage.
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE. 2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government 3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
While this topic obviously stirs deep passions, it is nonetheless remarkable that we could be looking at multiple front bench resignations over what form of words a party not in government uses about a conflict not involving Britain, in a statement which will be ignored by all engaged in the conflict.
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE. 2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government 3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
While this topic obviously stirs deep passions, it is nonetheless remarkable that we could be looking at multiple front bench resignations over what form of words a party not in government uses about a conflict not involving Britain, in a statement which will be ignored by all engaged in the conflict.
"A man convicted of killing six children in a deliberate fire can be released from prison following a parole hearing. Paul Mosley was jailed along with Mick and Mairead Philpott for the manslaughter of six children in a house fire in Derby in 2012. He was released in May 2021 after serving half of his sentence, but was returned to prison in 2022 after breaching the terms of his parole. The Parole Board confirmed the decision on Wednesday."
Why couldn't it have just been a reverse auction in the first place?
Aside from the rising cost and the shorter than expected lifespan, the thing that worries me about offshore wind is what happens if the Russians decide to start playing silly buggers with it. To be fair, the same problem for gas pipelines, etc.
Weather-or-Not-You-Want-It Report - Fall in the Cascade Mountains of the Pacific Northwest
Seattle Times ($) - Chinook, Cayuse passes close for winter; North Cascades Highway reopens
Chinook and Cayuse passes have closed for the season after heavy snow and a forecast of more to come, according to the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Chinook Pass closed Tuesday on Highway 410 between Crystal Mountain Boulevard, about 12 miles west of the summit, and Morse Creek, five miles east of the summit, according to WSDOT.
Northbound traffic on Cayuse Pass closed Tuesday at milepost 2.5, north of the Highway 12 junction. Eastbound traffic is closed at Crystal Mountain Boulevard on Highway 410, eight miles before the summit.
The passes typically close in mid-November due to avalanche risk, limited snow storage and lack of emergency services in those areas.
Depending on snow melt and road conditions, Chinook and Cayuse passes typically reopen in late May.
A portion of Washington’s North Cascades Highway that had closed over the weekend due to heavy snow reopened Tuesday.
SSI - Typical for this time of year (more or less) in WA State section of Cascades.
> note that none of the above-mentioned passes & highways are major transportation arteries, so no little disruption (yet) to I-90 and other major routes connection eastern & western Washington.
> snow is good news for skiiers (note Crystal Mtn is big-time ski resort VERY popular in Seattle & burbs), snowboarders, snowmobilers, etc. and thus for owners, workers, businesses and communities dependent on this very seasonal industry.
> even better news for them AND the rest of us who depend upon Cascade snowpack for our drinking water; and to farmers, consumers and related businesses of high-value crops grown, harvested, packed and processed in (mostly) eastern WA that depend upon the snowpack for irrigation.
> btw (also fyi) one of the most important crops grown in eastern WA is . . . wait for it . . . HOPS; in fact upwards of 75% of US hops production coming from Yakima County.
Apparently the new policy would see those who fail in their asylum claims returned to the UK and genuine asylum seekers forced to stay in Rwanda . This is insane .
I look forward to the woked up version of Julius Caesar, in which senators diligently discuss planning matters for three hours.
You did ask.
"...Friends, colleagues, surveyors, lend me your ears; I come to audit Caesar, not to praise him. The buildings that men do live after them; The defects are oft interred with their homes; So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was commodious: If it were so, it was a geological fault, And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it. For Brutus is an honourable man; He hath brought many planning applications home to Stevenage Whose fees did the county council fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the underhomed have cried, Caesar hath wept: Three-storey in the local vernacular should be made of plainer stuff: Yet Brutus says he was ostentatious; And Brutus is an honourable man. You all did see that on the Grand Designs I thrice presented him a Poundbury pen. With a nib. Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And, sure, he is an honourable man. I speak not to lime what Brutus brick'd, But here I am to path what I do know. You all did scan him once, not without planning permission: What clause withholds you then, to mourn for him? O judgment! thou art fled to brutish Middlesbrough, And men have lost their reason. Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin dam there with Caesar, And I must pause till it come back to me... ...Return of post, plus VAT"
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
Absolutely they do.
How did we get in this state? That tweet should be investigated including:
1) which senior staff are holding the events he mentions in second paragraph? Name them and demote them. 2) Ditto the HR managers - what is this culture they are fostering and how are they getting away with it? Institutionally racist? Where is their pride in their country and devotion to duty - if they lack it get out of the civil service. 3) Most in office just one day a week. WTF. Needs examining - if this is a post-Covid thing than that is appalling. If it is pre-Covid re-evaluate this.
Why couldn't it have just been a reverse auction in the first place?
Presumably this is a guaranteed minimum price paid and investors can still take the upside when the market price is higher. Hard to see what benefit there is for consumers in this structure as Gas will always set the marginal price. So when gas prices are high the developers take the benefit rather than helping to lower bills, and if gas prices fall bill payers will then subsidise offshore wind.
🚨 NEW: First YouGov snap poll on the Rwanda judgement.
What should govt do now? - Scrap the policy: 39% - Similar agreement, new country: 29%
What should Britain do on ECHR? - Remain member: 51% - Withdraw: 28%
A simplistic question given that the UK would have to withdraw from all conventions related to refugees and do the public realize that it would be the Tories re-writing our human rights .
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE. 2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government 3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
While this topic obviously stirs deep passions, it is nonetheless remarkable that we could be looking at multiple front bench resignations over what form of words a party not in government uses about a conflict not involving Britain, in a statement which will be ignored by all engaged in the conflict.
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
Absolutely they do.
How did we get in this state? That tweet should be investigated including:
1) which senior staff are holding the events he mentions in second paragraph? Name them and demote them. 2) Ditto the HR managers - what is this culture they are fostering and how are they getting away with it? Institutionally racist? Where is their pride in their country and devotion to duty - if they lack it get out of the civil service. 3) Most in office just one day a week. WTF. Needs examining - if this is a post-Covid thing than that is appalling. If it is pre-Covid re-evaluate this.
Boils my piss.
What's needed in the first instance is a Civil Service bill, giving Ministers back: -Control and greater flexibility to hire, fire, promote and demote civil servants -More public reporting and accountability of civil servants and quangocrats -Control over civil service honours and gongs -Sign off on all civil service training programmes and budgets Because at the moment, elected Governments don't even have the power to implement their programmes - Government carries on largely untroubled by the annoying people occupying Parliament and No. 10.
🚨 NEW: First YouGov snap poll on the Rwanda judgement.
What should govt do now? - Scrap the policy: 39% - Similar agreement, new country: 29%
What should Britain do on ECHR? - Remain member: 51% - Withdraw: 28%
A simplistic question given that the UK would have to withdraw from all conventions related to refugees and do the public realize that it would be the Tories re-writing our human rights .
Our rights derive from domestic laws, not international treaties.
Why couldn't it have just been a reverse auction in the first place?
Presumably this is a guaranteed minimum price paid and investors can still take the upside when the market price is higher. Hard to see what benefit there is for consumers in this structure as Gas will always set the marginal price. So when gas prices are high the developers take the benefit rather than helping to lower bills, and if gas prices fall bill payers will then subsidise offshore wind.
Wonderful.
Utterly horrendous.
Must be Rishi's new 'sensible' approach to Net Zero.
Every time Andy JS or Anabobazina talk about cash I shall do a thread on Scottish independence or AV.
I love AV threads!
I don’t like AV threads, but I’d rank them more highly than Indie threads.
Sorry…..
Something more controversial maybe? How about: Votes in Parliament should be by secret ballot. Always a conversation stopper that one.
Does anyone actually think that?
I’m not sure whether I actually think it would be a good thing on net, but there are definitely arguments in favour. The people get to vote in a secret ballot for reasons that are held to be valid & good. Don’t those justifications hold for MPs too? I suspect they do.
NYT (via Seattle Times) - In Texas, a fight over gender and school theater takes an unexpected turn
SHERMAN, Texas — A school district in the conservative town of Sherman, Texas, made national headlines last week when it put a stop to a high school production of the musical “Oklahoma!” after a transgender student was cast in a lead role.
The district’s administrators decided, and communicated to parents, that the school would cast only students “born as females in female roles and students born as males in male roles.” Not only did several transgender and nonbinary students lose their parts, but so too did girls cast in male roles. Publicly, the district said the problem was the profane and sexual content of the 1943 musical.
At one point, the theater teacher, who objected to the decision, was escorted out of the school by the principal. The set, a sturdy mock-up of a settler’s house that took students two months to build, was demolished.
But then something even more unusual happened in Sherman, a rural college town that has been rapidly drawn into the expanding orbit of Dallas to its south. The school district reversed course. In a late-night vote Monday, the school board voted unanimously to restore the original casting. The decision rebuked efforts to bring the fight over transgender participation in student activities into the world of theater, which has long provided a haven for gay, lesbian and transgender students, and it reflected just how deeply the controversy had unsettled the town.
The district’s restriction had been exceptional. Fights have erupted over the kinds of plays students can present, but few if any school districts appear to have attempted to restrict gender roles in theater. And while legislatures across the country, including in Texas, have adopted laws restricting transgender students’ participation in sports, no such legislation has been introduced to restrict theater roles, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The board’s vote came after students and outraged parents began organizing. In recent days, the district’s administrators, seeking a compromise, offered to recast the students in a version of the musical meant for middle schoolers or younger that omitted solos and included roles as cattle and birds. Students balked.
After the vote, the school board announced a special meeting for Friday to open an investigation and to consider taking action against the district superintendent, Tyson Bennett, who oversaw the district’s handling of “Oklahoma!,” including “possible administrative leave.”
Suddenly, improbably, the students had won. . . .
SSI - To millions of Americans, for whom student productions of "Oklahoma" have been a staple of high school theater for over a half-century, banning this much-beloved musical truly exposes the wackiness of the ideologically-inspired, politically-motivated War on Woke.
Ironic that it was the anti-trans brigade's efforts that led students to "lose their parts".
🚨 NEW: First YouGov snap poll on the Rwanda judgement.
What should govt do now? - Scrap the policy: 39% - Similar agreement, new country: 29%
What should Britain do on ECHR? - Remain member: 51% - Withdraw: 28%
A simplistic question given that the UK would have to withdraw from all conventions related to refugees and do the public realize that it would be the Tories re-writing our human rights .
Our rights derive from domestic laws, not international treaties.
Interesting, and quite revealing, that you conceive of human rights as being something bestowed on individuals by the state rather than being inherent to all human beings - codified (and indeed quite often restricted in various ways) but not given by law.
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE. 2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government 3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
While this topic obviously stirs deep passions, it is nonetheless remarkable that we could be looking at multiple front bench resignations over what form of words a party not in government uses about a conflict not involving Britain, in a statement which will be ignored by all engaged in the conflict.
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
He may be angling for a show-down with the Lords (which now has a veto this side of the election).
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE. 2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government 3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
While this topic obviously stirs deep passions, it is nonetheless remarkable that we could be looking at multiple front bench resignations over what form of words a party not in government uses about a conflict not involving Britain, in a statement which will be ignored by all engaged in the conflict.
Well that's the Labour Party for you. Why pitch for government when perpetual opposition is the alternative?
Mind you it's a shame the likes of Rosena are for the chop.
Brilliant stunt by the SNP though!
In part it's about the constituencies the rebels represent, I think?
Yes but is that good do you think? Shouldn't MPs be guided by their own principles and ideology regardless of make-up of their particular constituency? I realise that is a naive remark.
🚨 NEW: First YouGov snap poll on the Rwanda judgement.
What should govt do now? - Scrap the policy: 39% - Similar agreement, new country: 29%
What should Britain do on ECHR? - Remain member: 51% - Withdraw: 28%
A simplistic question given that the UK would have to withdraw from all conventions related to refugees and do the public realize that it would be the Tories re-writing our human rights .
Our rights derive from domestic laws, not international treaties.
Interesting, and quite revealing, that you conceive of human rights as being something bestowed on individuals by the state rather than being inherent to all human beings - codified (and indeed quite often restricted in various ways) but not given by law.
Indeed. The point is not the rights out governments give us, but the rights we give the government. They run the country for us and their authority delegates from us (well, more technically God and the Crown, but run with me). The King reigns, but he does not rule and the Government can only rule what is legal, and Parliament decides that, and we decide the Parliament.
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
He may be angling for a show-down with the Lords (which now has a veto this side of the election).
Are there enough one nation Con rebels within the HoC to scupper any ECHR withdrawal?
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
He may be angling for a show-down with the Lords (which now has a veto this side of the election).
Are there enough one nation Con rebels within the HoC to scupper any ECHR withdrawal?
ECHR withdrawal means breaching the GFA. So possibly.
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE. 2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government 3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
While this topic obviously stirs deep passions, it is nonetheless remarkable that we could be looking at multiple front bench resignations over what form of words a party not in government uses about a conflict not involving Britain, in a statement which will be ignored by all engaged in the conflict.
Well that's the Labour Party for you. Why pitch for government when perpetual opposition is the alternative?
Mind you it's a shame the likes of Rosena are for the chop.
Brilliant stunt by the SNP though!
In part it's about the constituencies the rebels represent, I think?
Yes but is that good do you think? Shouldn't MPs be guided by their own principles and ideology regardless of make-up of their particular constituency? I realise that is a naive remark.
How do the constituents judge their MP, if not by their voting record?
We are in the Theresa May, constant speeches hither and thither trying to relaunch her premiership/Brexit deal phase of Sunak's premiership. It's not like the end of Truss, that was fast, ugly, and had constant anti-Truss briefings as background music. This is slower and less chaotic. But it is very like the end of May.
We are in the Theresa May, constant speeches hither and thither trying to relaunch her premiership/Brexit deal phase of Sunak's premiership. It's not like the end of Truss, that was fast, ugly, and had constant anti-Truss briefings as background music. This is slower and less chaotic. But it is very like the end of May.
Yep - big and strong right up until he's asked to promise a single plane will leave before the election.
Comments
What's puzzling you? Why not talk to a friend privately and get them to explain it to you?
But it does get tedious.
And don't even think about attending most of the Christmas Fair season events in village halls and churches without actual hard cash and treasury notes in hand.
@StevenEdginton
💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
https://twitter.com/StevenEdginton/status/1724762963213480011
See also single sex schools the world over.
Honestly, in theatre, this isn’t a “trans issue” it’s just business as usual. But then the folk who made an issue of it presumably don’t see much theatre.
KC advice always, always says “on the one had X, on the other hand Y, it’s all very complicated here’s my bill”.
An awful lot of inflation drops out of the calc from Feb to May next year and there's no sign in the input pipeline of it getting replaced.
"Sam Webb, an architect who had given evidence to the Griffiths inquiry, predicted that after approximately 15 years, Ronan Point would develop structural problems and collapse.[10] Webb's concerns eventually led the council to evacuate the building, and then to demolish it in 1986 in a piecemeal manner (rather than, for example, using explosives). When this was done, the extent of the defects found shocked even some of the activists, including Webb himself. On the lower floors, cracks were found in the concrete where it had been point-loaded, and it was alleged that the extra pressure on those points during a high wind (such as during the Great Storm of 1987, barely a year after the demolition) would soon have led to building collapse.[9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point
When the dust settles, Jimmy Cleverly will quietly dispose of the Rwanda fiasco. Or at least if he has any sense he will.
..Hodge survived, having been blown across the room and clear of the collapsing walls by the explosion – as did her gas stove, which she took to her new address...
2% CPI next year would be good but let's see 👍
It is the prohibition placed upon entry that creates the demands for the boats.
Stop the boats != stop immigration.
Clever Jimminy
as his PB official moniker.
Another example - the Swedes went to COP20 and declared that sadly the global situation would mean their emissions would probably have to rise 10% (afaicr). It is impossible to imagine the posturing ninnies in our Government having the balls or the brains to make an honest and adult admission of that sort.
Other Governments work within the framework of international organisations and movements, but with the basic premise that they're in the game to look after the interests of their own citizens.
Sorry…..
Considering you started out saying countries could do what they liked regardless of international law, and now you are asking me to explain how countries can do what they like regardless of international law.
Perhaps you are indulging in rhetoric?
Look at today's SC judgement, the last of three in the matter; distinguished judges have come to different conclusions on the same law and evidence in the course of the proceedings.
How else are impoverished silks to afford the monstrous price of chocolate money to place in the toe of their children's Christmas stockings?
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
The participants often flirt with two or more people, thus:
- Laurey with Curly and Jud
- Annie with Will and Ali
- Curly with Gertie and Laurey
- Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Violence and threat- Curly fight with Jud
- Jud threatens Laurey
- Curly kills Jud in self-defense.
Drugs- Laurey uses a bottle of smelling salts to force a dream state
Sexual violence and advances without consent- Jud threatens Laurey
- Jud tries to kiss Laurey
- Jud sneers that Laurey will never be rid of him
Breach of promise- Curly dishonestly offers Laurey a surrey (a coach) with a fringe on top, despite not having funds for neither the surrey nor the fringe.
Other- People try to buy favours by buying hampers etc
- Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
SummaryAccording to him this was said by another senior civil servant. I see absolutely no evidence that there has been any improvement in the last 12 years, if anything the reverse.
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE.
2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government
3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
James Cleverly getting a lovely round of applause for saying he will never brief against or criticise the department publicly is fine, but he's on another planet if he thinks that they will treat him the same way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67430888
Why couldn't it have just been a reverse auction in the first place?
Incidentally also Curly tries to convince Judd to hang himself at an earlier stage.
https://x.com/robfordmancs/status/1724822230431928663?s=20
The narcissism of small differences.....
Mind you it's a shame the likes of Rosena are for the chop.
Brilliant stunt by the SNP though!
"A man convicted of killing six children in a deliberate fire can be released from prison following a parole hearing. Paul Mosley was jailed along with Mick and Mairead Philpott for the manslaughter of six children in a house fire in Derby in 2012. He was released in May 2021 after serving half of his sentence, but was returned to prison in 2022 after breaching the terms of his parole. The Parole Board confirmed the decision on Wednesday."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-67427340
https://x.com/leekern13/status/1724779089817444505?s=20
🚨 NEW: First YouGov snap poll on the Rwanda judgement.
What should govt do now?
- Scrap the policy: 39%
- Similar agreement, new country: 29%
What should Britain do on ECHR?
- Remain member: 51%
- Withdraw: 28%
Seattle Times ($) - Chinook, Cayuse passes close for winter; North Cascades Highway reopens
Chinook and Cayuse passes have closed for the season after heavy snow and a forecast of more to come, according to the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Chinook Pass closed Tuesday on Highway 410 between Crystal Mountain Boulevard, about 12 miles west of the summit, and Morse Creek, five miles east of the summit, according to WSDOT.
Northbound traffic on Cayuse Pass closed Tuesday at milepost 2.5, north of the Highway 12 junction. Eastbound traffic is closed at Crystal Mountain Boulevard on Highway 410, eight miles before the summit.
The passes typically close in mid-November due to avalanche risk, limited snow storage and lack of emergency services in those areas.
Depending on snow melt and road conditions, Chinook and Cayuse passes typically reopen in late May.
A portion of Washington’s North Cascades Highway that had closed over the weekend due to heavy snow reopened Tuesday.
SSI - Typical for this time of year (more or less) in WA State section of Cascades.
> note that none of the above-mentioned passes & highways are major transportation arteries, so no little disruption (yet) to I-90 and other major routes connection eastern & western Washington.
> snow is good news for skiiers (note Crystal Mtn is big-time ski resort VERY popular in Seattle & burbs), snowboarders, snowmobilers, etc. and thus for owners, workers, businesses and communities dependent on this very seasonal industry.
> even better news for them AND the rest of us who depend upon Cascade snowpack for our drinking water; and to farmers, consumers and related businesses of high-value crops grown, harvested, packed and processed in (mostly) eastern WA that depend upon the snowpack for irrigation.
> btw (also fyi) one of the most important crops grown in eastern WA is . . . wait for it . . . HOPS; in fact upwards of 75% of US hops production coming from Yakima County.
"...Friends, colleagues, surveyors, lend me your ears;
I come to audit Caesar, not to praise him.
The buildings that men do live after them;
The defects are oft interred with their homes;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was commodious:
If it were so, it was a geological fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
For Brutus is an honourable man;
He hath brought many planning applications home to Stevenage
Whose fees did the county council fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the underhomed have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Three-storey in the local vernacular should be made of plainer stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ostentatious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Grand Designs
I thrice presented him a Poundbury pen. With a nib.
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to lime what Brutus brick'd,
But here I am to path what I do know.
You all did scan him once, not without planning permission:
What clause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish Middlesbrough,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin dam there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me...
...Return of post, plus VAT"
Stitch that, Olivier...
How did we get in this state? That tweet should be investigated including:
1) which senior staff are holding the events he mentions in second paragraph? Name them and demote them.
2) Ditto the HR managers - what is this culture they are fostering and how are they getting away with it? Institutionally racist? Where is their pride in their country and devotion to duty - if they lack it get out of the civil service.
3) Most in office just one day a week. WTF. Needs examining - if this is a post-Covid thing than that is appalling. If it is pre-Covid re-evaluate this.
Boils my piss.
Wonderful.
-Control and greater flexibility to hire, fire, promote and demote civil servants
-More public reporting and accountability of civil servants and quangocrats
-Control over civil service honours and gongs
-Sign off on all civil service training programmes and budgets
Because at the moment, elected Governments don't even have the power to implement their programmes - Government carries on largely untroubled by the annoying people occupying Parliament and No. 10.
Must be Rishi's new 'sensible' approach to Net Zero.
What a nob!
If Truss had never happened he might get away with it. I do think he might manage to minimise his real backbench haters.
But it'd never get through the Lords.