So the OBR, who got their forecast of this year’s growth wrong by a mere 50%, and are almost certainly still on the optimistic side, are forecasting a sudden and unexplained boost in growth next year and the following years and ON THAT BASIS, is predicting that Reeves will meet her extremely modest targets in 4 years time by £10bn ( about 0.1% of output over that period).
If you put this forward as a potential sitcom it would be instantly rejected as completely implausible.
Conspiracy theory – Labour had planned to ditch the OBR which was only ever an Osborne-devised trap for the party. Then Liz Truss came along and showed how chaos can follow sidelining the forecasters.
Yep that sounds credible. There are at least two problems with this. Firstly, the OBR’s record is poor to awful and seems prone to being bullied by the government of the day, of whatever stripe. Secondly, and more importantly, we are focusing on absurd minutiae rather than the fundamental problems the economy is facing.
I am not putting in an entry, but in parallel with the 'Peak Boris' moment - which I think PB believes with justification was Hartlepool, is it worth listening and watching to see if there is a 'Peak Trump' moment - after which all gets a lttle tougher for the gangster oligarchy?
If he genuinely guts Social Security, it could get very ugly very fast
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
Here's the last bit of the Guido article that our pro journalist omitted from his quote when he truncated it halfway though a sentence:
Details of the case were published on Monday after the Home Office appealed the decision, arguing Judge Turner made mistakes by assuming he would drink and would be imprisoned in Pakistan. At the Upper Tribunal, Judge Soraya Reeds said:
“Given that there are likely to be Muslims in Pakistan who drink and possess alcohol, the assertion that all will be arrested, prosecuted and indeed receive imprisonment is not evidenced.”
The case is back with the First-tier Tribunal, where a new hearing will decide at a later date if he’ll finally be deported. The Judiciarchy strikes again…
So what has happened is that the Upper Tribunal has ruled that the First Tier Tribunal Judge made an error in law, and has told them to think again.
As the court report linked says, omitting the first 8500 or so words:
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law; the decision is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the FtT for a hearing.
It's remitted because the First Tier Tribunal did not consider other points of law, since they had made their decision on the basis of the point laid aside.
The claims are accurate in that a (looks to me) questionable decision was made, but the process is considering it - so the outrage about a "lefty Judge" is rather confected. Not that will stop either GBN or Guido - though Guido is usually somewhat reliable on bare facts where it is a factual matter; his habit is to leave some out or add some selective interpretation.
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
We are inevitably going to leave the ECHR, it will either happen slowly with Labour reluctantly loosening the court's grip on our laws, or it will happen with a bang under the next government, and it will be total
Every one of these insane judgements adds major fuel to an underground fire, ready to break out
The ECHR can be reformed and there’s many countries that would support that .
I genuinely wish that was the case, but I don't believe it is. It's a lumbering bureaucratic blob that is unreformable, the only option is to excise it from our constitution entirely. And sack about 500 judges
I don’t know if the failing lies with the ECHR or with those who interpret it in perverse ways.
The real problem is the way that rights get decoupled from responsibilities. So, the tribunals uphold a right to remain in this country, but impose no responsibility on the person claiming that right, to obey our criminal laws.
I think the fault lies with the ECHR as is, AND with Woke British judges determined to interpret it in the most ridiculous manner
How about the human rights of British people who will be attacked by this alcoholic Pakistani pedophile? Because he will obviously do it again, look at his record. Why do HIS human rights override British rights to be safe on the street?
Fact is, when a foreigner with a violent criminal history gets convicted for sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl, he shoud be on a plane home the very next day. That's it. No question, no delay. He can "appeal" from Lahore on his own shilling, if he insists
First of all, the government appealed, and won the appeal, which Guido and GBNews seem to have overlooked. The case will be reheard in the fullness of time.
Second, this is another cue for the Man for All Seasons Sir Thomas More speech we discussed the other day.
Third, cases like this create absurd perverse incentives against seeking treatment for whichever condition is preventing deportation.
Fourth, there might be a case for the alternative to deportation being custody here rather than freedom.
So the OBR, who got their forecast of this year’s growth wrong by a mere 50%, and are almost certainly still on the optimistic side, are forecasting a sudden and unexplained boost in growth next year and the following years and ON THAT BASIS, is predicting that Reeves will meet her extremely modest targets in 4 years time by £10bn ( about 0.1% of output over that period).
If you put this forward as a potential sitcom it would be instantly rejected as completely implausible.
If you read their exec summary, it's pretty clear they have no idea what's going to happen and have reverted to their medium-term assumption for 2026 onwards. I don't think it's implausible, and they do have to pick a number. The OECD is also relatively positive about the UK, for whatever reason.
I think "persistent high wage growth" is the most interesting thing in their forecast, politically. It also assumes productivity growth, which isn't completely mad if you consider that immigration will fall and the cost of employing people has gone up.
But the killer is tariffs. Any room is wiped out if the trade war escalates.
I do not see significant changes in productivity unless the stuff @Leon is not allowed to talk about comes online much faster than we expect. And if it does assuming that is consistent with a rapid growth in real wages is well beyond optimistic.
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
Here's the last bit of the Guido article that our pro journalist omitted from his quote when he truncated it halfway though a sentence:
Details of the case were published on Monday after the Home Office appealed the decision, arguing Judge Turner made mistakes by assuming he would drink and would be imprisoned in Pakistan. At the Upper Tribunal, Judge Soraya Reeds said:
“Given that there are likely to be Muslims in Pakistan who drink and possess alcohol, the assertion that all will be arrested, prosecuted and indeed receive imprisonment is not evidenced.”
The case is back with the First-tier Tribunal, where a new hearing will decide at a later date if he’ll finally be deported. The Judiciarchy strikes again…
So what has happened is that the Upper Tribunal has ruled that the First Tier Tribunal Judge made an error in law, and has told them to think again.
As the court report linked says, omitting the first 8500 or so words:
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law; the decision is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the FtT for a hearing.
It's remitted because the First Tier Tribunal did not consider other points of law, since they had made their decision on the basis of the point laid aside.
The claims are accurate in that a (looks to me) questionable decision was made, but the process is considering it - so the outrage about a "lefty Judge" is rather confected. Not that will stop either GBN or Guido - though Guido is usually somewhat reliable on bare facts where it is a factual matter; his habit is to leave some out or add some selective interpretation.
The point is this case is going round and round the houses - at vast expense to us - because different judges are taking different positions, in the light of the ECHR, as to whether AN ALCOHOLIC VIOLENT FOREIGN PEDOPHILE SEX OFFENDER - guilty of assaulting a 13 year old girl, and with several other serious convictions - should be spared deportation to his home country, because his alcoholism might not be humanely treated in his home country of Pakistan, and the ECHR doesn't approve of that
The insanity is in the round, it's the whole damn thing. This crap should't even be up for discussion. This known foreign criminal should have been deported the day after his conviction for pedophile assault, and we need to withdraw from the ECHR to make that kind of thing do-able
Looks like Hegseth is digging in. Still says not classified war plans on the chat.
The plans may be unclassified.
He clearly needs to be certified.
How can these plans be unclassified? It is target and time information in real time. I think Hegseth is working on the premise that people can’t read.
Well, we know because Aileen Cannon has said and SCOTUS have agreed, that the President can unclassify anything just by deciding he has in what passes for his mind.
And Aileen Cannon is a judge of remarkable probity and ability, and we know how the Supreme Court cherishes the law and due process, so there's no chance they may have been lying.
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
We are inevitably going to leave the ECHR, it will either happen slowly with Labour reluctantly loosening the court's grip on our laws, or it will happen with a bang under the next government, and it will be total
Every one of these insane judgements adds major fuel to an underground fire, ready to break out
The ECHR can be reformed and there’s many countries that would support that .
I genuinely wish that was the case, but I don't believe it is. It's a lumbering bureaucratic blob that is unreformable, the only option is to excise it from our constitution entirely. And sack about 500 judges
I don’t know if the failing lies with the ECHR or with those who interpret it in perverse ways.
The real problem is the way that rights get decoupled from responsibilities. So, the tribunals uphold a right to remain in this country, but impose no responsibility on the person claiming that right, to obey our criminal laws.
I think the fault lies with the ECHR as is, AND with Woke British judges determined to interpret it in the most ridiculous manner
How about the human rights of British people who will be attacked by this alcoholic Pakistani pedophile? Because he will obviously do it again, look at his record. Why do HIS human rights override British rights to be safe on the street?
Fact is, when a foreigner with a violent criminal history gets convicted for sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl, he shoud be on a plane home the very next day. That's it. No question, no delay. He can "appeal" from Lahore on his own shilling, if he insists
The fundamental problem with ECHR rights is that they are focused on the individual and there is no balancing consideration of the risks to the rest of us, specifically in this case the next 13 year old child that crosses this man’s path.
Ultimately, this is unsustainable. He should be gone already. He has abused our hospitality outrageously and we owe him nothing.
Quite so. 99% of Britain agrees with you. It's just this freaky 1% of weirdos in the government and judiciary who are determined to enrage the rest of us with their perverse, self-harming nonsense
They are just stoking the fire, which could eventually burn us all
OK I'm going to Sainsburys before I lose my rag. Fancy a chicken laksa
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
We are inevitably going to leave the ECHR, it will either happen slowly with Labour reluctantly loosening the court's grip on our laws, or it will happen with a bang under the next government, and it will be total
Every one of these insane judgements adds major fuel to an underground fire, ready to break out
The ECHR can be reformed and there’s many countries that would support that .
I genuinely wish that was the case, but I don't believe it is. It's a lumbering bureaucratic blob that is unreformable, the only option is to excise it from our constitution entirely. And sack about 500 judges
I don’t know if the failing lies with the ECHR or with those who interpret it in perverse ways.
The real problem is the way that rights get decoupled from responsibilities. So, the tribunals uphold a right to remain in this country, but impose no responsibility on the person claiming that right, to obey our criminal laws.
Right, but that's why the rights are "fundamental", isn't it, rather than contingent.
I do wonder if the 20th century version of rights will endure.
This goes all the way back to the case of Cap’n Hookhand
The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can’t send people where they might suffer mistreatment.
No way round that, for the government, that I have heard of.
Looks like Hegseth is digging in. Still says not classified war plans on the chat.
The plans may be unclassified.
He clearly needs to be certified.
How can these plans be unclassified? It is target and time information in real time. I think Hegseth is working on the premise that people can’t read.
Well, we know because Aileen Cannon has said and SCOTUS have agreed, that the President can unclassify anything just by deciding he has in what passes for his mind.
And Aileen Cannon is a judge of remarkable probity and ability, and we know how the Supreme Court cherishes the law and due process, so there's no chance they may have been lying.
Personally I found her reasoning a bit loose.
I often wondered what wad had been applied to that particular Cannon.
I am not putting in an entry, but in parallel with the 'Peak Boris' moment - which I think PB believes with justification was Hartlepool, is it worth listening and watching to see if there is a 'Peak Trump' moment - after which all gets a lttle tougher for the gangster oligarchy?
I'm predicting a serious of Peak Trump moments, as each of his core support groups are impacted.
This phone call vulnerable to espionage has seriously shaken his support amongst Reagan-style Republicans especially military who have principles (whether or not we agree with them), and know that these can kill people. It's the same basis as our entire Bletchley Park operation in WW2; we spent huge effort to avoid the Germans know they were entirely hacked.
Was it this morning or yesterday that I was arguing that Vance dumping on the worth allies who went to Afghanistan or Iraq to work alongside US forces or answer their NATO Article 5 has similarly seriously impacted attitudes amongst the non-USA military or veteran groups?
The question as I see it is whether enough voters are pissed vs Trump manipulating or abolishing the vote, and which comes first.
Looks like Hegseth is digging in. Still says not classified war plans on the chat.
The plans may be unclassified.
He clearly needs to be certified.
How can these plans be unclassified? It is target and time information in real time. I think Hegseth is working on the premise that people can’t read.
Well, we know because Aileen Cannon has said and SCOTUS have agreed, that the President can unclassify anything just by deciding he has in what passes for his mind.
And Aileen Cannon is a judge of remarkable probity and ability, and we know how the Supreme Court cherishes the law and due process, so there's no chance they may have been lying.
He can't go backwards in time though. And is on record as saying he knew nothing about it.
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
We are inevitably going to leave the ECHR, it will either happen slowly with Labour reluctantly loosening the court's grip on our laws, or it will happen with a bang under the next government, and it will be total
Every one of these insane judgements adds major fuel to an underground fire, ready to break out
The ECHR can be reformed and there’s many countries that would support that .
I genuinely wish that was the case, but I don't believe it is. It's a lumbering bureaucratic blob that is unreformable, the only option is to excise it from our constitution entirely. And sack about 500 judges
I don’t know if the failing lies with the ECHR or with those who interpret it in perverse ways.
The real problem is the way that rights get decoupled from responsibilities. So, the tribunals uphold a right to remain in this country, but impose no responsibility on the person claiming that right, to obey our criminal laws.
Right, but that's why the rights are "fundamental", isn't it, rather than contingent.
I do wonder if the 20th century version of rights will endure.
This goes all the way back to the case of Cap’n Hookhand
The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can’t send people where they might suffer mistreatment.
No way round that, for the government, that I have heard of.
No, there isn't
Hence we must withdraw from the ECHR and all other transnational courts, agreements and tribunals which prevent sane justice in the UK
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
We are inevitably going to leave the ECHR, it will either happen slowly with Labour reluctantly loosening the court's grip on our laws, or it will happen with a bang under the next government, and it will be total
Every one of these insane judgements adds major fuel to an underground fire, ready to break out
The ECHR can be reformed and there’s many countries that would support that .
I genuinely wish that was the case, but I don't believe it is. It's a lumbering bureaucratic blob that is unreformable, the only option is to excise it from our constitution entirely. And sack about 500 judges
I don’t know if the failing lies with the ECHR or with those who interpret it in perverse ways.
The real problem is the way that rights get decoupled from responsibilities. So, the tribunals uphold a right to remain in this country, but impose no responsibility on the person claiming that right, to obey our criminal laws.
I think the fault lies with the ECHR as is, AND with Woke British judges determined to interpret it in the most ridiculous manner
How about the human rights of British people who will be attacked by this alcoholic Pakistani pedophile? Because he will obviously do it again, look at his record. Why do HIS human rights override British rights to be safe on the street?
Fact is, when a foreigner with a violent criminal history gets convicted for sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl, he shoud be on a plane home the very next day. That's it. No question, no delay. He can "appeal" from Lahore on his own shilling, if he insists
First of all, the government appealed, and won the appeal, which Guido and GBNews seem to have overlooked. The case will be reheard in the fullness of time.
Second, this is another cue for the Man for All Seasons Sir Thomas More speech we discussed the other day.
Third, cases like this create absurd perverse incentives against seeking treatment for whichever condition is preventing deportation.
Fourth, there might be a case for the alternative to deportation being custody here rather than freedom.
Custody here on what grounds? He’s done the time for the offended he’s been convicted of.
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
Here's the last bit of the Guido article that our pro journalist omitted from his quote when he truncated it halfway though a sentence:
Details of the case were published on Monday after the Home Office appealed the decision, arguing Judge Turner made mistakes by assuming he would drink and would be imprisoned in Pakistan. At the Upper Tribunal, Judge Soraya Reeds said:
“Given that there are likely to be Muslims in Pakistan who drink and possess alcohol, the assertion that all will be arrested, prosecuted and indeed receive imprisonment is not evidenced.”
The case is back with the First-tier Tribunal, where a new hearing will decide at a later date if he’ll finally be deported. The Judiciarchy strikes again…
So what has happened is that the Upper Tribunal has ruled that the First Tier Tribunal Judge made an error in law, and has told them to think again.
As the court report linked says, omitting the first 8500 or so words:
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law; the decision is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the FtT for a hearing.
It's remitted because the First Tier Tribunal did not consider other points of law, since they had made their decision on the basis of the point laid aside.
The claims are accurate in that a (looks to me) questionable decision was made, but the process is considering it - so the outrage about a "lefty Judge" is rather confected. Not that will stop either GBN or Guido - though Guido is usually somewhat reliable on bare facts where it is a factual matter; his habit is to leave some out or add some selective interpretation.
The point is this case is going round and round the houses - at vast expense to us - because different judges are taking different positions, in the light of the ECHR, as to whether AN ALCOHOLIC VIOLENT FOREIGN PEDOPHILE SEX OFFENDER - guilty of assaulting a 13 year old girl, and with several other serious convictions - should be spared deportation to his home country, because his alcoholism might not be humanely treated in his home country of Pakistan, and the ECHR doesn't approve of that
The insanity is in the round, it's the whole damn thing. This crap should't even be up for discussion. This known foreign criminal should have been deported the day after his conviction for pedophile assault, and we need to withdraw from the ECHR to make that kind of thing do-able
Endex
Yes - I agree that the process is overextended. I think you may mean deported the day after his release.
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
We are inevitably going to leave the ECHR, it will either happen slowly with Labour reluctantly loosening the court's grip on our laws, or it will happen with a bang under the next government, and it will be total
Every one of these insane judgements adds major fuel to an underground fire, ready to break out
The ECHR can be reformed and there’s many countries that would support that .
I genuinely wish that was the case, but I don't believe it is. It's a lumbering bureaucratic blob that is unreformable, the only option is to excise it from our constitution entirely. And sack about 500 judges
I don’t know if the failing lies with the ECHR or with those who interpret it in perverse ways.
The real problem is the way that rights get decoupled from responsibilities. So, the tribunals uphold a right to remain in this country, but impose no responsibility on the person claiming that right, to obey our criminal laws.
I think the fault lies with the ECHR as is, AND with Woke British judges determined to interpret it in the most ridiculous manner
How about the human rights of British people who will be attacked by this alcoholic Pakistani pedophile? Because he will obviously do it again, look at his record. Why do HIS human rights override British rights to be safe on the street?
Fact is, when a foreigner with a violent criminal history gets convicted for sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl, he shoud be on a plane home the very next day. That's it. No question, no delay. He can "appeal" from Lahore on his own shilling, if he insists
First of all, the government appealed, and won the appeal, which Guido and GBNews seem to have overlooked. The case will be reheard in the fullness of time.
Second, this is another cue for the Man for All Seasons Sir Thomas More speech we discussed the other day.
Third, cases like this create absurd perverse incentives against seeking treatment for whichever condition is preventing deportation.
Fourth, there might be a case for the alternative to deportation being custody here rather than freedom.
So, we have to pay £50k a year for him to go to jail, and get humane treatment for his alcoholism, instead of just sending him home, where he can't attack British thirteen year olds
You people are insane. You are ushering in a hard right government
I am not putting in an entry, but in parallel with the 'Peak Boris' moment - which I think PB believes with justification was Hartlepool, is it worth listening and watching to see if there is a 'Peak Trump' moment - after which all gets a lttle tougher for the gangster oligarchy?
Sadly I don't think they've hit it yet. Things will get worse (for others) before/if they get better.
Brussels has rejected Russia’s demand to lift EU restrictions on a key agro bank as part of a partial ceasefire deal, saying its sanctions regime will stay in place until “unconditional withdrawal” of Moscow’s troops from Ukraine. https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1904884790202872051
So the OBR, who got their forecast of this year’s growth wrong by a mere 50%, and are almost certainly still on the optimistic side, are forecasting a sudden and unexplained boost in growth next year and the following years and ON THAT BASIS, is predicting that Reeves will meet her extremely modest targets in 4 years time by £10bn ( about 0.1% of output over that period).
If you put this forward as a potential sitcom it would be instantly rejected as completely implausible.
If you read their exec summary, it's pretty clear they have no idea what's going to happen and have reverted to their medium-term assumption for 2026 onwards. I don't think it's implausible, and they do have to pick a number. The OECD is also relatively positive about the UK, for whatever reason.
I think "persistent high wage growth" is the most interesting thing in their forecast, politically. It also assumes productivity growth, which isn't completely mad if you consider that immigration will fall and the cost of employing people has gone up.
But the killer is tariffs. Any room is wiped out if the trade war escalates.
I do not see significant changes in productivity unless the stuff @Leon is not allowed to talk about comes online much faster than we expect. And if it does assuming that is consistent with a rapid growth in real wages is well beyond optimistic.
I’m sticking with implausible.
Increases in productivity mainly come from a) economies of scale and b) from automation.
It is relatively easy to improve productivity by scaling up on information services (finance, advertising, media, software, pharmaceutical discovery etc) I suspect that the US has higher productivity because it has larger scale. We need to rapidly expand our export of information services. The barrier is probably not technical but international marketing and sales skills.
It is difficult to improve productivity in servicing humans (hair dressing, care homes, hookers, GPs). Automation with AI and robotics no doubt will slowly play a part. But there are no export opportunities without automation.
Reeves spending cuts may be necessary post lockdown. However while her defence spending rise is welcome her cuts to benefits, overseas aid and the civil service risk sending some more Labour voters to the LDs or Greens given polls show more Labour voters want higher taxes such as a wealth tax rather than cuts.
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
We are inevitably going to leave the ECHR, it will either happen slowly with Labour reluctantly loosening the court's grip on our laws, or it will happen with a bang under the next government, and it will be total
Every one of these insane judgements adds major fuel to an underground fire, ready to break out
The ECHR can be reformed and there’s many countries that would support that .
I genuinely wish that was the case, but I don't believe it is. It's a lumbering bureaucratic blob that is unreformable, the only option is to excise it from our constitution entirely. And sack about 500 judges
I don’t know if the failing lies with the ECHR or with those who interpret it in perverse ways.
The real problem is the way that rights get decoupled from responsibilities. So, the tribunals uphold a right to remain in this country, but impose no responsibility on the person claiming that right, to obey our criminal laws.
I think the fault lies with the ECHR as is, AND with Woke British judges determined to interpret it in the most ridiculous manner
How about the human rights of British people who will be attacked by this alcoholic Pakistani pedophile? Because he will obviously do it again, look at his record. Why do HIS human rights override British rights to be safe on the street?
Fact is, when a foreigner with a violent criminal history gets convicted for sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl, he shoud be on a plane home the very next day. That's it. No question, no delay. He can "appeal" from Lahore on his own shilling, if he insists
First of all, the government appealed, and won the appeal, which Guido and GBNews seem to have overlooked. The case will be reheard in the fullness of time.
Second, this is another cue for the Man for All Seasons Sir Thomas More speech we discussed the other day.
Third, cases like this create absurd perverse incentives against seeking treatment for whichever condition is preventing deportation.
Fourth, there might be a case for the alternative to deportation being custody here rather than freedom.
On point 1, winning the appeal is obviously significant, but many could still argue the general approach to be problematic as many cases will not be appealed, and if this was was the sort of thing which initially was felt to be reasonable what else would be.
On point 2, obviously we need laws even to defend bad people (many important rights emerge in such scenarios) and overexcited people would propose
On point 3, any system set up could be abused. Would someone not playing ball in such a manner be as big an issue as people perceive now though?
On point 4, this is true, although that doesn't really address people with the general principle foreign lawbreakers should be deported, which at a basic level is probably shared by a majority of people. It's not merely punishment people are seeking, of which deportation is a part, but specific punishment. Share that view or not, keeping them in prison here would not mollify those who do hold it. Plus you go against point 2 if we no longer have the right to keep someone detained for their crime, we cannot hold someone indefinitely.
I'm by nature not easily inflamed, and without question stories get exaggerated, or disproportionate responses proposed, I'm always way of an overreaction to things. But as I'm also fond of saying there are also risks that in seeking to avoid overreacting we fail to react appropriately. Is this such an area? Opinion does seem to be moving that way.
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
We are inevitably going to leave the ECHR, it will either happen slowly with Labour reluctantly loosening the court's grip on our laws, or it will happen with a bang under the next government, and it will be total
Every one of these insane judgements adds major fuel to an underground fire, ready to break out
The ECHR can be reformed and there’s many countries that would support that .
I genuinely wish that was the case, but I don't believe it is. It's a lumbering bureaucratic blob that is unreformable, the only option is to excise it from our constitution entirely. And sack about 500 judges
I don’t know if the failing lies with the ECHR or with those who interpret it in perverse ways.
The real problem is the way that rights get decoupled from responsibilities. So, the tribunals uphold a right to remain in this country, but impose no responsibility on the person claiming that right, to obey our criminal laws.
I think the fault lies with the ECHR as is, AND with Woke British judges determined to interpret it in the most ridiculous manner
How about the human rights of British people who will be attacked by this alcoholic Pakistani pedophile? Because he will obviously do it again, look at his record. Why do HIS human rights override British rights to be safe on the street?
Fact is, when a foreigner with a violent criminal history gets convicted for sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl, he shoud be on a plane home the very next day. That's it. No question, no delay. He can "appeal" from Lahore on his own shilling, if he insists
First of all, the government appealed, and won the appeal, which Guido and GBNews seem to have overlooked. The case will be reheard in the fullness of time.
Second, this is another cue for the Man for All Seasons Sir Thomas More speech we discussed the other day.
Third, cases like this create absurd perverse incentives against seeking treatment for whichever condition is preventing deportation.
Fourth, there might be a case for the alternative to deportation being custody here rather than freedom.
On point 1, winning the appeal is obviously significant, but many could still argue the general approach to be problematic as many cases will not be appealed, and if this was was the sort of thing which initially was felt to be reasonable what else would be.
On point 2, obviously we need laws even to defend bad people (many important rights emerge in such scenarios) and overexcited people would propose
On point 3, any system set up could be abused. Would someone not playing ball in such a manner be as big an issue as people perceive now though?
On point 4, this is true, although that doesn't really address people with the general principle foreign lawbreakers should be deported, which at a basic level is probably shared by a majority of people. It's not merely punishment people are seeking, of which deportation is a part, but specific punishment. Share that view or not, keeping them in prison here would not mollify those who do hold it. Plus you go against point 2 if we no longer have the right to keep someone detained for their crime, we cannot hold someone indefinitely.
I'm by nature not easily inflamed, and without question stories get exaggerated, or disproportionate responses proposed, I'm always way of an overreaction to things. But as I'm also fond of saying there are also risks that in seeking to avoid overreacting we fail to react appropriately. Is this such an area? Opinion does seem to be moving that way.
Point 2 seems to have gone walkabout. It was basically saying overexcited people will things that don't make sense or are unreasonable, but that doesn't always mean the thing that provoked their response does not need addressing.
Nothing confidential or sensitive apparently, so should be no big deal.
Sounds like part of their defence will be the one Trump used for holding onto documents, which is that he declassifies things with his mind (even though that doesn't mean everything can be put on personal stuff anyway), so nothing could be confidential?
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
Disapply the ECHR to convicted foreign criminals. We gain nothing from their presence in the country.
Nothing confidential or sensitive apparently, so should be no big deal.
Sounds like part of their defence will be the one Trump used for holding onto documents, which is that he declassifies things with his mind (even though that doesn't mean everything can be put on personal stuff anyway), so nothing could be confidential?
Which was when you think about it, a ludicrous defence.
On topic. In some situations you can see governments deliberately tight on a fiscally mean plan early on in term in power, to time loosening and good news and better figures for later, nearer election time. Perhaps like Labour is right now, fiscally tight this end, working on growth - which often comes with inflationary pressures - later in the parliament.
But with 2.0 Trumpenomics, unless they change course quickly now, all economic history, theory and reality tells us it’s going to get even worse by crucial election time in less than 2 years. Commerce and markets like stability. Long term planning needs assurance not guesswork, for investment to happen. Trump was still saying yesterday, Tarrifs will make American rich, and is going to bring manufacturing back.
Tarrifs don’t punch your opponents in the stomach as much as they punch your own economy and businesses in the stomach. Foreign manufacturers seek other buyers, it’s your own commerce who has to pay the tarrifs costs, or go without the product. And will over time lose contracts and supplier arrangements.
Donald Trump - you cannot reverse Globalisation and bring manufacture back to America with tariffs, when wages for the same product elsewhere in the world are up to 10 times lower, this is what created rust belt America in the first place. This is the reality and real kicker, not only is much US economy currently unable to go without the product, your own people must pay these tariffs now you are setting, but they will never ever be able to get the product from the USA either when labour costs are up to 10 times cheaper elsewhere, it makes the business unviable.
You need to transform America in the opposite direction than where you are taking it. You are sailing your ship in completely the wrong direction.
If I can see this, is Trump really that dumb? Or up to something? Is Trump and his crew really going to Vampire Squid Rip Off his own country, all the American people? 🥺
I am not putting in an entry, but in parallel with the 'Peak Boris' moment - which I think PB believes with justification was Hartlepool, is it worth listening and watching to see if there is a 'Peak Trump' moment - after which all gets a lttle tougher for the gangster oligarchy?
If he genuinely guts Social Security, it could get very ugly very fast
Yes messing with Social Security payments would be like touching a live rail. Only a total moron would do something like that.
"Lithuanian Armed Forces have refuted the Swamp claim and are stating search operations are still ongoing for the 4 American soldiers lost in exercises on the Belarusian border."
Not a million miles away in a sense. If it weren’t for us they’d all be speaking Eye-tie (though actually quite a few of them do)!
Malta?
Bingo! Quite a modest museum (St Elmo) for such a massive setting, but good. Quite a nice animation of the Operation Pedestal convoy which if it isn’t already should be defined as a major naval engagement of WWII.
I am not putting in an entry, but in parallel with the 'Peak Boris' moment - which I think PB believes with justification was Hartlepool, is it worth listening and watching to see if there is a 'Peak Trump' moment - after which all gets a lttle tougher for the gangster oligarchy?
If he genuinely guts Social Security, it could get very ugly very fast
Yes messing with Social Security payments would be like touching a live rail. Only a total moron would do something like that.
Chancellor confirms the health element of universal credit will be cut for new claimants by 50% and then frozen. This will be painful for disabled people
I am not putting in an entry, but in parallel with the 'Peak Boris' moment - which I think PB believes with justification was Hartlepool, is it worth listening and watching to see if there is a 'Peak Trump' moment - after which all gets a lttle tougher for the gangster oligarchy?
If he genuinely guts Social Security, it could get very ugly very fast
Yes messing with Social Security payments would be like touching a live rail. Only a total moron would do something like that.
Chancellor confirms the health element of universal credit will be cut for new claimants by 50% and then frozen. This will be painful for disabled people
Even Reeves in a crisis would be unlikely to suggest simply stopping paying benefits for a while, which is what some looney MAGA types are apparently proposing.
Not a million miles away in a sense. If it weren’t for us they’d all be speaking Eye-tie (though actually quite a few of them do)!
Malta?
Bingo! Quite a modest museum for such a massive setting, but good. Quite a nice animation of the Operation Pedestal convoy which if it isn’t already should be defined as a major naval engagement of WWII.
"There, a great welcome awaited them. On the ramparts above the wreck-strewn harbour, on the Barracca, Fort Saint Angelo and Senglea, great crowds of Maltese men and women waved and cheered and a brass band on the end of the mole was giving a spirited rendition of Rule Britannia. Captain Mason, however, standing at the salute on the battered bridge of Ohio, could spare not a moment's thought for the pride of bringing the ship to harbour, since the creaking plates showed that Ohio might still go to the bottom of the Grand Harbour."
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
We are inevitably going to leave the ECHR, it will either happen slowly with Labour reluctantly loosening the court's grip on our laws, or it will happen with a bang under the next government, and it will be total
Every one of these insane judgements adds major fuel to an underground fire, ready to break out
The ECHR can be reformed and there’s many countries that would support that .
I genuinely wish that was the case, but I don't believe it is. It's a lumbering bureaucratic blob that is unreformable, the only option is to excise it from our constitution entirely. And sack about 500 judges
I don’t know if the failing lies with the ECHR or with those who interpret it in perverse ways.
The real problem is the way that rights get decoupled from responsibilities. So, the tribunals uphold a right to remain in this country, but impose no responsibility on the person claiming that right, to obey our criminal laws.
Right, but that's why the rights are "fundamental", isn't it, rather than contingent.
I do wonder if the 20th century version of rights will endure.
This goes all the way back to the case of Cap’n Hookhand
The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can’t send people where they might suffer mistreatment.
No way round that, for the government, that I have heard of.
No, there isn't
Hence we must withdraw from the ECHR and all other transnational courts, agreements and tribunals which prevent sane justice in the UK
No we mustn´t. Now go and have a lie down. Countdown will be on in a minute.
Not a million miles away in a sense. If it weren’t for us they’d all be speaking Eye-tie (though actually quite a few of them do)!
Malta?
Bingo! Quite a modest museum (St Elmo) for such a massive setting, but good. Quite a nice animation of the Operation Pedestal convoy which if it isn’t already should be defined as a major naval engagement of WWII.
We had our honeymoon there. Lived on French toast because we had no money. Nearly 40 years ago now but remember it fondly.
A friend of mine, female, blonde and blue-eyed, went to Malta on a scuba-diving trip. Whilst there, she got into difficulties and required a helicopter rescue. After she was winched up (*), a crewmember asked her: "Are you German?"
"No," she replied in a broad Brummie accent. "Why?"
"You are English?" the crewmember asked.
"Yes."
"Ah good. We rescue you for free. We charge the Germans."
She's always wondered if they'd have chucked her back into the water if she'd been German...
(*) Sans buddy, who managed to make it to a breakwater. And failed to call for help for her...
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
It's true
Guido:
"In yet another ludicrous display of a left-wing judge thwarting the deportation of foreign criminals under the ECHR, a Pakistani paedophile, deemed a “danger to the community,” was allowed to stay in the UK last year…because he’s an alcoholic.
The criminal, who’s been granted anonymity, came to the UK in 2010, was jailed in June 2020 for assaulting emergency workers while “heavily intoxicated,” and was jailed again in December 2022 for sexually abusing a girl under 13. At a June 2024 First-tier Tribunal, Judge Leanne Turner ruled that deporting him would breach European human rights law. Her reasoning? He could be persecuted in Pakistan as an alcoholic because alcohol is illegal over there. The judge ruled:
“Sufficient evidence to show the lower standard, that the appellant would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption. As such, returning to Pakistan would breach the U.K.’s obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.”
The government could act to issue more guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR by judges which seems to be more the issue . And equally and might be unpalatable to some is that rights sometimes help those who we think don’t deserve that protection . At the same time they do protect those we think do deserve that. The right wing argument is to effectively flush away rights for everyone .
Disapply the ECHR to convicted foreign criminals. We gain nothing from their presence in the country.
It would be really interesting to know if other countries, signatory to the ECHR, throw up such outrageous judgments as this. My guess is not, maybe Ireland perhaps, or a couple of Nordics. Germany at a pinch?
But my hunch - and I could be wrong (it's happened before, in 2013 over vote reform) - is that this is a peculiarly British phenomenon and problem. Only in Britain do we have this elite class of lawyers and judges who seem to actively despise Britain and Britons, and preference the rights of anyone foreign - even violent sex criminals - over the rights of the British
Cf Monsieur Philippe Sands, or the Attorney General, et al
They’ve asked Musk to investigate how Goldberg got added to the chat . I expect he’ll blame him and say he hacked into it and the moronic Maga cult will believe it .
Reeves was again good today, and Stride again completely painful.
Badenoch badly needs a GE just to clear out the poor selection of MPs that she has. However she doesn't have anything like the control of the party needed to make it work.
The Tories are looking into the abyss that Corbyn ran Labour round the edge of.
On topic, I'd offer the broader thought all incumbent Governments remain, as they have for several years, vulnerable to the perceived lack of economic well being among their electorates.
The changes in Governments from 2022 to now have largely been because of perceived or actual economic failings rather than a perception (or truth) they were exchanging an inferior product for a superior one. Indeed, trying to undo or mitigate the failings of previous Governments has left new Governments in an equal state of confusion and failure.
Whether the response is austerity or its opposite (more spending driven by higher taxes), until and unless there are clear signs of economic growth and optimism, the political challenge will remain.
To be fair, even where growth has been better, incumbent Governments face problems - in Spain (GDP growth 3.2% in 2024), the PSOE minority Govenrment led by Sanchex continues to trail the PP with VOX third. In Greece (GDP growth 2.3% in 2024), the NDP has fallen back from 40% at the last election to the mid to upper 20s and the main winners are the nationalist parties Greek Solution and Course of Freedom - one arguably on the "right" and the other on the "left" (such terms being almost meaningless these days).
Not a million miles away in a sense. If it weren’t for us they’d all be speaking Eye-tie (though actually quite a few of them do)!
Malta?
Bingo! Quite a modest museum (St Elmo) for such a massive setting, but good. Quite a nice animation of the Operation Pedestal convoy which if it isn’t already should be defined as a major naval engagement of WWII.
There is also an absolutely magnificent Caravaggio in the cathedral at Valletta. I saw it when I was staying in Gozo, in my early 20s, falling in love with a beautiful 17 year old Jewish girl
Caravaggio painted this masterpiece IN Malta, where he was on the run from a murder rap. Sex and violence, sex and violence...
Maybe they all know that DOGE is about to close down these secure comms facilities as its a waste of federal money protecting classified information? So better get use to using Signal and WhatsApp.
John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton · 6h It's inconceivable that the White House would not use the classified channels that we have spent so much time and effort and money over decades trying to make us as secure as possible. This carelessness puts American service members at risk.
Reeves was again good today, and Stride again completely painful.
Badenoch badly needs a GE just to clear out the poor selection of MPs that she has. However she doesn't have anything like the control of the party needed to make it work.
The Tories are looking into the abyss that Corbyn ran Labour round the edge of.
I agree that Stride was poor and said as much when it was on but Reeves good ! Nah. She was pedestrian as usual.
Reeves was again good today, and Stride again completely painful.
Badenoch badly needs a GE just to clear out the poor selection of MPs that she has. However she doesn't have anything like the control of the party needed to make it work.
The Tories are looking into the abyss that Corbyn ran Labour round the edge of.
I agree that Stride was poor and said as much when it was on but Reeves good ! Nah. She was pedestrian as usual.
You've swayed me with your adjective. Still she's doing quite well.
The fact that 'Rachel from accounts' can tip up and manage matters better than most of her predecessors is a bit alarming of course.
All the way back to Brown, and especially Brown, Chancellors have generally been total dimwits. It surprises me a little that Hunt didn't do better.
In a particularly striking passage, Parnes and Allen describe a donors’ reception hosted by Phil Murphy, then governor of New Jersey, on 29 June 2024, two days after the debate disaster. Biden reportedly needed to have florescent tape fixed to the carpet, “colorful bread crumbs [that] showed the leader of the free world where to walk”.
“He knows to look for that,” one aide explained.
At the same event, Biden reportedly needed an autocue for “unscripted” remarks and then spoke haltingly in a Q&A with Murphy.
Reeves was again good today, and Stride again completely painful.
Badenoch badly needs a GE just to clear out the poor selection of MPs that she has. However she doesn't have anything like the control of the party needed to make it work.
The Tories are looking into the abyss that Corbyn ran Labour round the edge of.
I agree that Stride was poor and said as much when it was on but Reeves good ! Nah. She was pedestrian as usual.
You've swayed me with your adjective. Still she's doing quite well.
The fact that 'Rachel from accounts' can tip up and manage matters better than most of her predecessors is a bit alarming of course.
All the way back to Brown, and especially Brown, Chancellors have generally been total dimwits. It surprises me a little that Hunt didn't do better.
Hegseth won't go, he is too totemic to MAGA. Waltz, maybe
Especially since Waltz was the one who invited the journalist into the group.
Has anyone any good guess as to who he actually meant to invite?
Accidentally added Goldberg I think, probably his favourite journalist to leak like a sieve to when he fancies it. I do not think he's long for this world (Politically speaking)
Reeves was again good today, and Stride again completely painful.
Badenoch badly needs a GE just to clear out the poor selection of MPs that she has. However she doesn't have anything like the control of the party needed to make it work.
The Tories are looking into the abyss that Corbyn ran Labour round the edge of.
I agree that Stride was poor and said as much when it was on but Reeves good ! Nah. She was pedestrian as usual.
You've swayed me with your adjective. Still she's doing quite well.
The fact that 'Rachel from accounts' can tip up and manage matters better than most of her predecessors is a bit alarming of course.
All the way back to Brown, and especially Brown, Chancellors have generally been total dimwits. It surprises me a little that Hunt didn't do better.
If we'd sustained growth levels seen under Gordon Brown as Chancellor, then we'd all be about £10,000 a year better off. Liz Truss had a point.
In a particularly striking passage, Parnes and Allen describe a donors’ reception hosted by Phil Murphy, then governor of New Jersey, on 29 June 2024, two days after the debate disaster. Biden reportedly needed to have florescent tape fixed to the carpet, “colorful bread crumbs [that] showed the leader of the free world where to walk”.
“He knows to look for that,” one aide explained.
At the same event, Biden reportedly needed an autocue for “unscripted” remarks and then spoke haltingly in a Q&A with Murphy.
Not a million miles away in a sense. If it weren’t for us they’d all be speaking Eye-tie (though actually quite a few of them do)!
Malta?
Bingo! Quite a modest museum (St Elmo) for such a massive setting, but good. Quite a nice animation of the Operation Pedestal convoy which if it isn’t already should be defined as a major naval engagement of WWII.
There is also an absolutely magnificent Caravaggio in the cathedral at Valletta. I saw it when I was staying in Gozo, in my early 20s, falling in love with a beautiful 17 year old Jewish girl
Caravaggio painted this masterpiece IN Malta, where he was on the run from a murder rap. Sex and violence, sex and violence...
Yep, hoping to see it tomorrow, massive queues today though 🙁 Currently at that other great cultural spot, the pub (called The Pub) in which Ollie Reed drank his last.
Hegseth won't go, he is too totemic to MAGA. Waltz, maybe
Especially since Waltz was the one who invited the journalist into the group.
Has anyone any good guess as to who he actually meant to invite?
Accidentally added Goldberg I think, probably his favourite journalist to leak like a sieve to when he fancies it. I do not think he's long for this world (Politically speaking)
Short interview with Goldberg, including the circs:
Talking of house building my wife and I went on one of our rather eccentric away day train trips yesterday to Birmingham International for lunch and back in the early evening
We were both surprised at the amount of house building under construction much of which was started before Labour came into office and we saw our first home with integrated solar roof panels which is an excellent innovation
We also passed the HS2 terminal construction site and the raised track and it is utterly vast as a project and it appears it will not be open for upto another 10 years
We are utterly useless at completing infrastructure quickly and In budget
Even in these bizarre times I don’t see how you can prosecute Goldberg when those involved have said the info wasn’t classified.
Are they going to argue it was classified now !
The process is also the punishment.
If Trump's DoJ take him through cases that require $500k in legal fees, then it will deter the others.
That's the playbook with sanctuary cities, for example, and withdrawing research gtrants from Universities to make them comply with destroying equality / diversity, and with law firms Trump does not like. Enough collateral damage is as good as a win.
In a particularly striking passage, Parnes and Allen describe a donors’ reception hosted by Phil Murphy, then governor of New Jersey, on 29 June 2024, two days after the debate disaster. Biden reportedly needed to have florescent tape fixed to the carpet, “colorful bread crumbs [that] showed the leader of the free world where to walk”.
“He knows to look for that,” one aide explained.
At the same event, Biden reportedly needed an autocue for “unscripted” remarks and then spoke haltingly in a Q&A with Murphy.
Brussels has rejected Russia’s demand to lift EU restrictions on a key agro bank as part of a partial ceasefire deal, saying its sanctions regime will stay in place until “unconditional withdrawal” of Moscow’s troops from Ukraine. https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1904884790202872051
How long before Trump gets bored of Ukraine and puts peace efforts on the backburner?
I don't think there are any possible peace terms that are acceptable to Putin that are within Trump's power to offer.
Brussels has rejected Russia’s demand to lift EU restrictions on a key agro bank as part of a partial ceasefire deal, saying its sanctions regime will stay in place until “unconditional withdrawal” of Moscow’s troops from Ukraine. https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1904884790202872051
How long before Trump gets bored of Ukraine and puts peace efforts on the backburner?
I don't think there are any possible peace terms that are acceptable to Putin that are within Trump's power to offer.
Incidentally, today is the 25th anniversary of Putin first being elected president.
In a particularly striking passage, Parnes and Allen describe a donors’ reception hosted by Phil Murphy, then governor of New Jersey, on 29 June 2024, two days after the debate disaster. Biden reportedly needed to have florescent tape fixed to the carpet, “colorful bread crumbs [that] showed the leader of the free world where to walk”.
“He knows to look for that,” one aide explained.
At the same event, Biden reportedly needed an autocue for “unscripted” remarks and then spoke haltingly in a Q&A with Murphy.
Brussels has rejected Russia’s demand to lift EU restrictions on a key agro bank as part of a partial ceasefire deal, saying its sanctions regime will stay in place until “unconditional withdrawal” of Moscow’s troops from Ukraine. https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1904884790202872051
How long before Trump gets bored of Ukraine and puts peace efforts on the backburner?
I don't think there are any possible peace terms that are acceptable to Putin that are within Trump's power to offer.
Incidentally, today is the 25th anniversary of Putin first being elected president.
Not a million miles away in a sense. If it weren’t for us they’d all be speaking Eye-tie (though actually quite a few of them do)!
Malta?
Bingo! Quite a modest museum (St Elmo) for such a massive setting, but good. Quite a nice animation of the Operation Pedestal convoy which if it isn’t already should be defined as a major naval engagement of WWII.
There is also an absolutely magnificent Caravaggio in the cathedral at Valletta. I saw it when I was staying in Gozo, in my early 20s, falling in love with a beautiful 17 year old Jewish girl
Caravaggio painted this masterpiece IN Malta, where he was on the run from a murder rap. Sex and violence, sex and violence...
Yep, hoping to see it tomorrow, massive queues today though 🙁 Currently at that other great cultural spot, the pub (called The Pub) in which Ollie Reed drank his last.
Ah, you're there! Sweet
Very interesting place, Malta. Not the most beautiful Med island, but so much history...
Have you been or are you going to Gozo? Much quieter. Amazing prehistoric sites
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
In a particularly striking passage, Parnes and Allen describe a donors’ reception hosted by Phil Murphy, then governor of New Jersey, on 29 June 2024, two days after the debate disaster. Biden reportedly needed to have florescent tape fixed to the carpet, “colorful bread crumbs [that] showed the leader of the free world where to walk”.
“He knows to look for that,” one aide explained.
At the same event, Biden reportedly needed an autocue for “unscripted” remarks and then spoke haltingly in a Q&A with Murphy.
How did the entire Dem party willingly go along with the lie and cover up of Biden's fitness to be in office ?
Who the fuck cares? Even in that alleged state, he's still ten times better than the shits who took over from him and his team.
The point is, doofus, if the inner Democratic party and Biden Crime Family hadn't lied about Biden's mental health for two years then they would've had time to find a better candidate, who should have beaten Trump
So Biden's dementia, and the lies and fraud surrounding it, teally does matter
Basically the courts are saying that it's better that this rapist alcoholic Pakistani assaults British girls, rather than Pakistani girls back home, because..... what? Can someone tell me?
GB News is saying that. There's a good chance that they're 'misinterpreting' what the court actually said.
Brussels has rejected Russia’s demand to lift EU restrictions on a key agro bank as part of a partial ceasefire deal, saying its sanctions regime will stay in place until “unconditional withdrawal” of Moscow’s troops from Ukraine. https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1904884790202872051
How long before Trump gets bored of Ukraine and puts peace efforts on the backburner?
I don't think there are any possible peace terms that are acceptable to Putin that are within Trump's power to offer.
Incidentally, today is the 25th anniversary of Putin first being elected president.
In a particularly striking passage, Parnes and Allen describe a donors’ reception hosted by Phil Murphy, then governor of New Jersey, on 29 June 2024, two days after the debate disaster. Biden reportedly needed to have florescent tape fixed to the carpet, “colorful bread crumbs [that] showed the leader of the free world where to walk”.
“He knows to look for that,” one aide explained.
At the same event, Biden reportedly needed an autocue for “unscripted” remarks and then spoke haltingly in a Q&A with Murphy.
How did the entire Dem party willingly go along with the lie and cover up of Biden's fitness to be in office ?
Who the fuck cares? Even in that alleged state, he's still ten times better than the shits who took over from him and his team.
Well if they'd accepted reality and had a proper primary then we likely wouldn't have the current shits.
Most sitting Presidents don't have to go through a primary challenge - George HW Bush was unopposed in 1992, George W Bush likewise in 2004 and Obama in 2012 also had no significant opponent. and neither did Trump in 2020.
The notion of a party seriously challenging its own elected President, once that President has opted to run again, is unrealistic.
The better question is asking why Biden chose or was advised to run again - perhaps the view was he was the only one who could beat Trump having done so in 2020. LBJ stood down in 1968, the Democrats had a primary and still lost handily to Nixon.
Had Biden said in March 2024 he wasn't going to run, the Democrats would have had a primary which Harris might well have won anyway but still lost out to Trump. In truth, this was going to be a very hard election for any Democrat presidential candidate.
I'd also conjecture had Trump won in 2020, the Democrats would have won in 2024.
Not a million miles away in a sense. If it weren’t for us they’d all be speaking Eye-tie (though actually quite a few of them do)!
Malta?
Bingo! Quite a modest museum (St Elmo) for such a massive setting, but good. Quite a nice animation of the Operation Pedestal convoy which if it isn’t already should be defined as a major naval engagement of WWII.
There is also an absolutely magnificent Caravaggio in the cathedral at Valletta. I saw it when I was staying in Gozo, in my early 20s, falling in love with a beautiful 17 year old Jewish girl
Caravaggio painted this masterpiece IN Malta, where he was on the run from a murder rap. Sex and violence, sex and violence...
Yep, hoping to see it tomorrow, massive queues today though 🙁 Currently at that other great cultural spot, the pub (called The Pub) in which Ollie Reed drank his last.
Ah, you're there! Sweet
Very interesting place, Malta. Not the most beautiful Med island, but so much history...
Have you been or are you going to Gozo? Much quieter. Amazing prehistoric sites
Thought about it but we’re only here 4 nights, and my partner’s not that keen on boat trips. Will have to make do with some 4000 year old sling stones in the St Elmo museum.
Like the ramshackle air of Valetta, and the pale sandstone looks lovely in the setting sun.
Comments
Second, this is another cue for the Man for All Seasons Sir Thomas More speech we discussed the other day.
Third, cases like this create absurd perverse incentives against seeking treatment for whichever condition is preventing deportation.
Fourth, there might be a case for the alternative to deportation being custody here rather than freedom.
I’m sticking with implausible.
The insanity is in the round, it's the whole damn thing. This crap should't even be up for discussion. This known foreign criminal should have been deported the day after his conviction for pedophile assault, and we need to withdraw from the ECHR to make that kind of thing do-able
Endex
What is this?
Where am I taking a short break?
The first is a clue to the second obviously.
They are just stoking the fire, which could eventually burn us all
OK I'm going to Sainsburys before I lose my rag. Fancy a chicken laksa
The courts have repeatedly ruled that you can’t send people where they might suffer mistreatment.
No way round that, for the government, that I have heard of.
This phone call vulnerable to espionage has seriously shaken his support amongst Reagan-style Republicans especially military who have principles (whether or not we agree with them), and know that these can kill people. It's the same basis as our entire Bletchley Park operation in WW2; we spent huge effort to avoid the Germans know they were entirely hacked.
Was it this morning or yesterday that I was arguing that Vance dumping on the worth allies who went to Afghanistan or Iraq to work alongside US forces or answer their NATO Article 5 has similarly seriously impacted attitudes amongst the non-USA military or veteran groups?
The question as I see it is whether enough voters are pissed vs Trump manipulating or abolishing the vote, and which comes first.
And is on record as saying he knew nothing about it.
Hence we must withdraw from the ECHR and all other transnational courts, agreements and tribunals which prevent sane justice in the UK
You people are insane. You are ushering in a hard right government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPck9TgFiOA
(Laters - I have a bush to trim.)
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5215202-democrat-hegseth-drinking-ratcliffe/
LOL
Brussels has rejected Russia’s demand to lift EU restrictions on a key agro bank as part of a partial ceasefire deal, saying its sanctions regime will stay in place until “unconditional withdrawal” of Moscow’s troops from Ukraine.
https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1904884790202872051
It is relatively easy to improve productivity by scaling up on information services (finance, advertising, media, software, pharmaceutical discovery etc) I suspect that the US has higher productivity because it has larger scale. We need to rapidly expand our export of information services. The barrier is probably not technical but international marketing and sales skills.
It is difficult to improve productivity in servicing humans (hair dressing, care homes, hookers, GPs). Automation with AI and robotics no doubt will slowly play a part. But there are no export opportunities without automation.
If it weren’t for us they’d all be speaking Eye-tie (though actually quite a few of them do)!
On point 2, obviously we need laws even to defend bad people (many important rights emerge in such scenarios) and overexcited people would propose
On point 3, any system set up could be abused. Would someone not playing ball in such a manner be as big an issue as people perceive now though?
On point 4, this is true, although that doesn't really address people with the general principle foreign lawbreakers should be deported, which at a basic level is probably shared by a majority of people. It's not merely punishment people are seeking, of which deportation is a part, but specific punishment. Share that view or not, keeping them in prison here would not mollify those who do hold it. Plus you go against point 2 if we no longer have the right to keep someone detained for their crime, we cannot hold someone indefinitely.
I'm by nature not easily inflamed, and without question stories get exaggerated, or disproportionate responses proposed, I'm always way of an overreaction to things. But as I'm also fond of saying there are also risks that in seeking to avoid overreacting we fail to react appropriately. Is this such an area? Opinion does seem to be moving that way.
https://archive.is/20250326161536/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/
Sounds like part of their defence will be the one Trump used for holding onto documents, which is that he declassifies things with his mind (even though that doesn't mean everything can be put on personal stuff anyway), so nothing could be confidential?
How could anyone seriously believe he has a mind?
In some situations you can see governments deliberately tight on a fiscally mean plan early on in term in power, to time loosening and good news and better figures for later, nearer election time. Perhaps like Labour is right now, fiscally tight this end, working on growth - which often comes with inflationary pressures - later in the parliament.
But with 2.0 Trumpenomics, unless they change course quickly now, all economic history, theory and reality tells us it’s going to get even worse by crucial election time in less than 2 years. Commerce and markets like stability. Long term planning needs assurance not guesswork, for investment to happen. Trump was still saying yesterday, Tarrifs will make American rich, and is going to bring manufacturing back.
Tarrifs don’t punch your opponents in the stomach as much as they punch your own economy and businesses in the stomach. Foreign manufacturers seek other buyers, it’s your own commerce who has to pay the tarrifs costs, or go without the product. And will over time lose contracts and supplier arrangements.
Donald Trump - you cannot reverse Globalisation and bring manufacture back to America with tariffs, when wages for the same product elsewhere in the world are up to 10 times lower, this is what created rust belt America in the first place. This is the reality and real kicker, not only is much US economy currently unable to go without the product, your own people must pay these tariffs now you are setting, but they will never ever be able to get the product from the USA either when labour costs are up to 10 times cheaper elsewhere, it makes the business unviable.
You need to transform America in the opposite direction than where you are taking it. You are sailing your ship in completely the wrong direction.
If I can see this, is Trump really that dumb? Or up to something? Is Trump and his crew really going to Vampire Squid Rip Off his own country, all the American people? 🥺
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yLzfNTrULg
It ain't easy, and it ain't cheap.
https://x.com/WarMonitor3/status/1904957360772112441
Quite a modest museum (St Elmo) for such a massive setting, but good. Quite a nice animation of the Operation Pedestal convoy which if it isn’t already should be defined as a major naval engagement of WWII.
Chancellor confirms the health element of universal credit will be cut for new claimants by 50% and then frozen. This will be painful for disabled people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Ohio_(1940)
"There, a great welcome awaited them. On the ramparts above the wreck-strewn harbour, on the Barracca, Fort Saint Angelo and Senglea, great crowds of Maltese men and women waved and cheered and a brass band on the end of the mole was giving a spirited rendition of Rule Britannia. Captain Mason, however, standing at the salute on the battered bridge of Ohio, could spare not a moment's thought for the pride of bringing the ship to harbour, since the creaking plates showed that Ohio might still go to the bottom of the Grand Harbour."
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
17m
Prediction: Hegseth gone by Friday.
Dunno re replacement. Cotton?
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/1904957922943119778
A friend of mine, female, blonde and blue-eyed, went to Malta on a scuba-diving trip. Whilst there, she got into difficulties and required a helicopter rescue. After she was winched up (*), a crewmember asked her: "Are you German?"
"No," she replied in a broad Brummie accent. "Why?"
"You are English?" the crewmember asked.
"Yes."
"Ah good. We rescue you for free. We charge the Germans."
She's always wondered if they'd have chucked her back into the water if she'd been German...
(*) Sans buddy, who managed to make it to a breakwater. And failed to call for help for her...
But my hunch - and I could be wrong (it's happened before, in 2013 over vote reform) - is that this is a peculiarly British phenomenon and problem. Only in Britain do we have this elite class of lawyers and judges who seem to actively despise Britain and Britons, and preference the rights of anyone foreign - even violent sex criminals - over the rights of the British
Cf Monsieur Philippe Sands, or the Attorney General, et al
Badenoch badly needs a GE just to clear out the poor selection of MPs that she has. However she doesn't have anything like the control of the party needed to make it work.
The Tories are looking into the abyss that Corbyn ran Labour round the edge of.
On topic, I'd offer the broader thought all incumbent Governments remain, as they have for several years, vulnerable to the perceived lack of economic well being among their electorates.
The changes in Governments from 2022 to now have largely been because of perceived or actual economic failings rather than a perception (or truth) they were exchanging an inferior product for a superior one. Indeed, trying to undo or mitigate the failings of previous Governments has left new Governments in an equal state of confusion and failure.
Whether the response is austerity or its opposite (more spending driven by higher taxes), until and unless there are clear signs of economic growth and optimism, the political challenge will remain.
To be fair, even where growth has been better, incumbent Governments face problems - in Spain (GDP growth 3.2% in 2024), the PSOE minority Govenrment led by Sanchex continues to trail the PP with VOX third. In Greece (GDP growth 2.3% in 2024), the NDP has fallen back from 40% at the last election to the mid to upper 20s and the main winners are the nationalist parties Greek Solution and Course of Freedom - one arguably on the "right" and the other on the "left" (such terms being almost meaningless these days).
Caravaggio painted this masterpiece IN Malta, where he was on the run from a murder rap. Sex and violence, sex and violence...
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/apr/06/caravaggio-in-malta
John Bolton
@AmbJohnBolton
·
6h
It's inconceivable that the White House would not use the classified channels that we have spent so much time and effort and money over decades trying to make us as secure as possible. This carelessness puts American service members at risk.
The fact that 'Rachel from accounts' can tip up and manage matters better than most of her predecessors is a bit alarming of course.
All the way back to Brown, and especially Brown, Chancellors have generally been total dimwits. It surprises me a little that Hunt didn't do better.
In a particularly striking passage, Parnes and Allen describe a donors’ reception hosted by Phil Murphy, then governor of New Jersey, on 29 June 2024, two days after the debate disaster. Biden reportedly needed to have florescent tape fixed to the carpet, “colorful bread crumbs [that] showed the leader of the free world where to walk”.
“He knows to look for that,” one aide explained.
At the same event, Biden reportedly needed an autocue for “unscripted” remarks and then spoke haltingly in a Q&A with Murphy.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/mar/26/democrats-biden-withdraw
How did the entire Dem party willingly go along with the lie and cover up of Biden's fitness to be in office ?
So I wouldn’t be holding out much hope that the moron masquerading as defence secretary will be gone anytime soon .
Currently at that other great cultural spot, the pub (called The Pub) in which Ollie Reed drank his last.
Are they going to argue it was classified now !
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/jeffrey-goldberg-and-peter-wehner
We were both surprised at the amount of house building under construction much of which was started before Labour came into office and we saw our first home with integrated solar roof panels which is an excellent innovation
We also passed the HS2 terminal construction site and the raised track and it is utterly vast as a project and it appears it will not be open for upto another 10 years
We are utterly useless at completing infrastructure quickly and In budget
It genuinely feels like a TV show with daily things happening and never a dull day
If Trump's DoJ take him through cases that require $500k in legal fees, then it will deter the others.
That's the playbook with sanctuary cities, for example, and withdrawing research gtrants from Universities to make them comply with destroying equality / diversity, and with law firms Trump does not like. Enough collateral damage is as good as a win.
I don't think there are any possible peace terms that are acceptable to Putin that are within Trump's power to offer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Russian_presidential_election
But keep on trying to divert blame from the really bad people in this story: Trump and his team.
Very interesting place, Malta. Not the most beautiful Med island, but so much history...
Have you been or are you going to Gozo? Much quieter. Amazing prehistoric sites
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14536929/Paedophile-migrant-attacked-teenage-girl-allowed-stay-UK.html
So Biden's dementia, and the lies and fraud surrounding it, teally does matter
https://x.com/bpolitics/status/1904975765596180696
The notion of a party seriously challenging its own elected President, once that President has opted to run again, is unrealistic.
The better question is asking why Biden chose or was advised to run again - perhaps the view was he was the only one who could beat Trump having done so in 2020. LBJ stood down in 1968, the Democrats had a primary and still lost handily to Nixon.
Had Biden said in March 2024 he wasn't going to run, the Democrats would have had a primary which Harris might well have won anyway but still lost out to Trump. In truth, this was going to be a very hard election for any Democrat presidential candidate.
I'd also conjecture had Trump won in 2020, the Democrats would have won in 2024.
Like the ramshackle air of Valetta, and the pale sandstone looks lovely in the setting sun.