The latest season of Clarkson's Farm shows him trying to buy a pub. He found a perfect one and was refused permission for his plans because the local planning committee 'thought it might increase the number of visitors'
FFS
1) Its West Oxfordshire Council who he has had massive runs in with repeatedly. And been caught bending the runs e.g. I want planning permission for a lambing shed, ok, less than 12 months later, erhh not doing lambing, I am having a cafe in it because planning regs now let me change the usage.
2) Jezza has been found in the past not being 100% truthful about the council decisions for comedic effect.
That all been said, the council still seem like absolute twats. Tall poppy syndrome, how dare anybody actually make things work because they are very good at PR and marketing.
Problem with that is that the pub has been allowed an absolutely massive tent to cope with demand - and the planning applications for the pub seem to be being processed quickly with a lot of free will from the council.
Different pub. He couldn't get the one he wanted so he ended up somewhere else
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
The cab rank rule is in reality there to protect lawyers from ludicrous and sinister attacks from dangerous little Trumpians like Jenrick.
For any successful barrister (solicitor rules are different) they have to pick and choose as you can only be in one place at a time. They can refuse cases because the fee is not right, because they are otherwise engaged or it isn't in their fields of competence. Quite often the reason is that they have already been retained by the other side, especially in ultra obscure fields.
It would help if there are examples of Hermer being on the other side. Would be unfortunate if in cases which he is an expert on, he always ends up on one side.
As to the facts I have no idea. What you can't do is tout for trade. You can only represent where you are asked.
In another field, crime, there are substantial number of barristers who almost always prosecute, and ditto lots almost always defend. That can just be the way careers develop.
It is possible, again I don't know, that many of the cases Hermer is being attacked about were cases against the government of the day. Government legal services pick and choose who they use just like evryone else.
Not to forget that Starmer has frequently used his case history to campaign on. "I've prosecuted terrorists".
Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If he's happy to campaign on his case history, its equally legitimate to campaign against someone's history too.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
You need to tell that to Jenrick. He's the one trying to disqualify appointments made by our democratically elected PM.
How is he trying to disqualify him?
He's holding him to account and criticising him, that's the opposition's prerogative.
Unless I'm misconstruing, Jenrick's suggestion is that Sir Keir - unbelievably - has appointed an enemy of the nation to a powerful job and it was a decision that was completely, utterly and incontrovertibly without justification. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. But let's not get bogged down with that. What I want to know is how do we improve the process to ensure such a blunder never occurs again?
You don't.
You have a political debate and if Starmer wants to defend his actions, he can do. If he wants to ignore it, he can do.
If the public agree with Jenrick and decide to turf out Starmer at the next election, they can do.
Democracy beats process.
The idea anyone should be above scrutiny is utterly absurd and goes against a free, democratic society with free speech.
If Jolyon Maugham went into politics should his rather interesting case history be verboten from being scrutinised?
I think we would all be too busy laughing at how he never wins....
He likes the Cab Rank rule. Except when he doesn't:
The Scotland sub-sample in the poll is back to the usual pattern of SNP being way ahead (at 38%) of all other parties, but Reform is still in a strong second place (at 26%).
One oddity in the sub-sample is that a couple of the centre-left parties have an unusually low vote share. Lib Dems are at 7%, compared to their usual 10% to 13%. Greens are at 3%, compared to their usual 6% to 8%.
It's possible that this week's sample was unusually good for the SNP & unusually bad for the Lib Dems & Greens & the actual number is something like 30% or 31% for the SNP.
The latest season of Clarkson's Farm shows him trying to buy a pub. He found a perfect one and was refused permission for his plans because the local planning committee 'thought it might increase the number of visitors'
FFS
Yes but Clarkson is a special case. Knowing what he has done to the village in which he lives and farms, they foresaw an influx of people well in excess of what would normally be expected from a successful pub.
The one he wanted was a 400 year old coaching inn. It's possible that the village exists in that location in part as a result of having a successful inn there. Several attempts have been made to keep it open over the years and all have failed because not enough people used it. A plan that would have guaranteed enough trade to keep it open was declined in case it caused enough trade for it to work...
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Sleazy, broken Reform, Tories and Greens on the slide!
Hmm. Too early to claim peak Reform yet, but I do wonder if Nigel's lurch to the left was a risk too far. We might soon be getting into the territory of 'Why bother with Reform when we can vote Labour and get the real thing'.
Reform took about 3 points off the Tories and LDs a couple off Labour after the locals and everything since then has been bouncing around that reality. Once you see polls altering that - consistent LD ahead of Con, Con recovery into the 20s, Reform pushing to mid 30s, Labour above mid 20s or leading then things may have moved again. This YG poll is last week's YG poll with a bit of noise which was the preceeding weeks one which was etc etc
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
It shows that, like Trump, Jenrick has become a very dangerous man with dangerous ambitions. Attacking lawyers for the cases they take is exactly what the corrupt gangster oligarchy is doing in the USA before our eyes right now.
So its not OK to criticise Rudy Guiliani?
Nobody is above criticism, certainly not lawyers.
Agreed, of course. Lawyers should be criticised for corruption, incompetence and dishonesty.
All I am saying is that lawyers as a profession take on cases of all sorts; and of course they specialise, and of course they go where the cases are and the money is. The merits of cases is decided by judges and juries, the law the lawyers seek to use is created by parliament and case law. No lawyer should be criticised simply for taking on particular cases.
It is a Trumpian tactic, currently being used in USA to promote a fearful and authoritarian state.
It's not remotely Trumpian to criticise people for their choices. It's happened since time immemorial.
Cab rank is one thing, and it would be disingenuous to criticise that. But what people go out of their way to choose, especially if its systematically biased and pro bono ... that's fair game for critique if the individual then chooses to go into politics.
It's absolutely fair to attack him for his politics - whatever they are, I have no idea - but not for taking cases in any particular legal field. As to pro bono - again I don't know the facts, but pro bono work happens in this world; some lawyers can afford to, some lawyers will do it to help establish a reputation, some will do it out of pure altruism.
If you choose to take cases with a political slant then that's absolutely fair game to criticise in politics.
If you don't want to face scrutiny, don't go into politics.
All this defending of Human Rights lawyers as though they are altruistic do gooders grates horribly. They are paid megabucks and their specialist subject appears to stop politicians from doing what the majority of the country wants, using some absurd technicality or other.
At the same time for most thoughtful people in the UK, human rights lawyers in the USA (to say nothing of Russia) are flavour of the month. And quite rightly.
The lawyers who clearly and firmly stand up for governments having to obey their own laws are on the whole a very good thing. Some are altruistic, some not. I'm sure they scrape by.
At the moment it is worth having a listen to remarkable lawyers Marc Elias and Glenn Kirschner who already have a mega Jenrick in charge of their country, it's all on YouTube.
The Scotland sub-sample in the poll is back to the usual pattern of SNP being way ahead (at 38%) of all other parties, but Reform is still in a strong second place (at 26%).
One oddity in the sub-sample is that a couple of the centre-left parties have an unusually low vote share. Lib Dems are at 7%, compared to their usual 10% to 13%. Greens are at 3%, compared to their usual 6% to 8%.
It's possible that this week's sample was unusually good for the SNP & unusually bad for the Lib Dems & Greens & the actual number is something like 30% or 31% for the SNP.
Interesting analysis. I'd probably expect RefUK to be more unpopular with middle-class Scottish voters in places like Edinburgh than they are in similar places in England and Wales, which means they must be doing quite well with working-class Scottish voters given the overall 26% (which may not be accurate of course since it's a sub-sample), so perhaps they have a serious chance of winning the Hamilton by-election on Thursday if the split between the other parties is optimal for the party.
The Scotland sub-sample in the poll is back to the usual pattern of SNP being way ahead (at 38%) of all other parties, but Reform is still in a strong second place (at 26%).
One oddity in the sub-sample is that a couple of the centre-left parties have an unusually low vote share. Lib Dems are at 7%, compared to their usual 10% to 13%. Greens are at 3%, compared to their usual 6% to 8%.
It's possible that this week's sample was unusually good for the SNP & unusually bad for the Lib Dems & Greens & the actual number is something like 30% or 31% for the SNP.
The weighted subsamples in YG at best give a flavour of the overall shape in the region. The specific figures are completely worthless.
Attacks on lawyers for previous clients have never really worked. It was tried with Khan and Starmer and didn't work.
I think a better attack is they are bloody lawyers...nobody likes bloody lawyers....but Jenrick can't do that because he is another bloody lawyer.
It didn't work on Starmer as he had arguments he could use to turn his history into a strength, prosecuting terrorists etc. He's used his history many, many times in his speeches as a reason to support him ... so criticism is absolutely fair game.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Criticising lawyers for the cases they take on is one of the first steps towards authoritarianism. See Trumpism passim.
If Jenrick - who knows all this perfectly well - is starting down this track then he is a very dangerous man.
And all this at the same time as Farage and Reform are joining the welfare state social democrats.
If, say, Michael Mansfield or Jolyon Maugham, were appointed AG, I think it would be entirely reasonable to criticise that choice, on the basis of the cases either one has taken on.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
The cab rank rule is in reality there to protect lawyers from ludicrous and sinister attacks from dangerous little Trumpians like Jenrick.
For any successful barrister (solicitor rules are different) they have to pick and choose as you can only be in one place at a time. They can refuse cases because the fee is not right, because they are otherwise engaged or it isn't in their fields of competence. Quite often the reason is that they have already been retained by the other side, especially in ultra obscure fields.
It would help if there are examples of Hermer being on the other side. Would be unfortunate if in cases which he is an expert on, he always ends up on one side.
As to the facts I have no idea. What you can't do is tout for trade. You can only represent where you are asked.
In another field, crime, there are substantial number of barristers who almost always prosecute, and ditto lots almost always defend. That can just be the way careers develop.
It is possible, again I don't know, that many of the cases Hermer is being attacked about were cases against the government of the day. Government legal services pick and choose who they use just like evryone else.
Not to forget that Starmer has frequently used his case history to campaign on. "I've prosecuted terrorists".
Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If he's happy to campaign on his case history, its equally legitimate to campaign against someone's history too.
Your argument is lacking in all merit.
You are right about Starmer, who never says 'And my colleagues at the bar defended alleged terrorists and that doesn't mean they hate their country'. Perhaps he should start, now that people are starting down the track of that species of implication.
The latest season of Clarkson's Farm shows him trying to buy a pub. He found a perfect one and was refused permission for his plans because the local planning committee 'thought it might increase the number of visitors'
FFS
Yes but Clarkson is a special case. Knowing what he has done to the village in which he lives and farms, they foresaw an influx of people well in excess of what would normally be expected from a successful pub.
The one he wanted was a 400 year old coaching inn. It's possible that the village exists in that location in part as a result of having a successful inn there. Several attempts have been made to keep it open over the years and all have failed because not enough people used it. A plan that would have guaranteed enough trade to keep it open was declined in case it caused enough trade for it to work...
Insane
I think you are believing the version as Clarkson presented it in his show. If this was the reason they would indeed be insane and would have had no grounds in planning law. Preceding scenes in the show, and in previous seasons, you can see the road gridlock and parking chaos cause by Clarkson's notoriety and fanbase - not the normal trade ensuring the successful operation of a pub.
The latest season of Clarkson's Farm shows him trying to buy a pub. He found a perfect one and was refused permission for his plans because the local planning committee 'thought it might increase the number of visitors'
FFS
1) Its West Oxfordshire Council who he has had massive runs in with repeatedly. And been caught bending the runs e.g. I want planning permission for a lambing shed, ok, less than 12 months later, erhh not doing lambing, I am having a cafe in it because planning regs now let me change the usage.
2) Jezza has been found in the past not being 100% truthful about the council decisions for comedic effect.
That all been said, the council still seem like absolute twats. Tall poppy syndrome, how dare anybody actually make things work because they are very good at PR and marketing.
Problem with that is that the pub has been allowed an absolutely massive tent to cope with demand - and the planning applications for the pub seem to be being processed quickly with a lot of free will from the council.
Different pub. He couldn't get the one he wanted so he ended up somewhere else
I’m talking about the pub that he bought in this season and where episode 4 is about the refurbishment
Attacks on lawyers for previous clients have never really worked. It was tried with Khan and Starmer and didn't work.
I think a better attack is they are bloody lawyers...nobody likes bloody lawyers....but Jenrick can't do that because he is another bloody lawyer.
It didn't work on Starmer as he had arguments he could use to turn his history into a strength, prosecuting terrorists etc. He's used his history many, many times in his speeches as a reason to support him ... so criticism is absolutely fair game.
I always thought his opponents were very poor on this. He loves to talk about when I ran the CPS again and again and again, and the attack is always single cases of why didn't you prosecute this individual and he can say that wasn't my job / wasn't a case I saw. What I think they always missed is, the CPS was f##king dysfunctional and never learned lessons, now that is the bosses fault. One f##k up, isn't the bosses fault, continual f##k ups, well then you question who is running the show.
I haven't been following it, what's going on here?
Narrow (just over 1%) victory for the far right (same as previous, or Orban-alike) candidate. The Polish President aiui has delaying or vetoing, rather than executive, powers.
Tusk is wanting his Government reffirmed to shore up his authority, not having seen a President elected who is aligned with him.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Criticising lawyers for the cases they take on is one of the first steps towards authoritarianism. See Trumpism passim.
If Jenrick - who knows all this perfectly well - is starting down this track then he is a very dangerous man.
And all this at the same time as Farage and Reform are joining the welfare state social democrats.
If, say, Michael Mansfield or Jolyon Maugham, were appointed AG, I think it would be entirely reasonable to criticise that choice, on the basis of the cases either one has taken on.
I would be delighted if Michael Mansfield were AG, though sadly age is against him. If it's a matter of competence, diligence and love of justice he is right at the top. I have no evidence about your other candidate as to whether he would be any good, but I would start with some doubts. These would not be about what cases he conducts as a barrister, but about his judgment in public life.
Proud to wear the badge of never having been to a 'Spoons.
As a non-drinker, food is the reason I go to pubs. Winner of the overall Pub of the Year is one of our locals, the Cott Inn at Dartington. Been going since 1320...
Ah, the grand, fascinating and ultimately pointless debate over the age of pubs, and the 'oldest' pub...
Don't think there's any point in debating that when the Trip to Jerusalem is in the room!
I found the Trip to be a real disappointment. This was back in the eighties and I was staying in a student house in Basford so my expectations were not high.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
Jenrick has really captured the zeitgeist.
However unless he can depose or dispose of enough Labour MPs swiftly he has a long time to wait to become RefCon PM and appoint his friends.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
Jenrick has really captured the zeitgeist.
However unless he can depose or dispose of enough Labour MPs swiftly he has a long time to wait to become RefCon PM and appoint his friends.
He's not seeking to depose or dispose of Labour MPs.
Attacks on lawyers for previous clients have never really worked. It was tried with Khan and Starmer and didn't work.
I think a better attack is they are bloody lawyers...nobody likes bloody lawyers....but Jenrick can't do that because he is another bloody lawyer.
"I don't believe it! I don't believe it! You're meant to come down here and defend me against these characters, and the only one I've got on my side is the blood-sucking lawyer!"
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
I haven't been following it, what's going on here?
The right-wing candidate won the Polish presidential election by 51% to 49% and he can veto anything the parliament and prime minister puts forward.
A bit like the other Donald, then.
Trump's party also controls Congress, at least until the midterms, unlike the new Polish President as Tusk's party controls the Polish parliament hence the VONC
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
Jenrick has really captured the zeitgeist.
However unless he can depose or dispose of enough Labour MPs swiftly he has a long time to wait to become RefCon PM and appoint his friends.
He's not seeking to depose or dispose of Labour MPs.
He's presumably seeking to depose one Tory MP.
Exactly.
Jenrick is seeking to depose James Cleverly as nominee for Mayor of London. The Boris route to Downing Street via City Hall.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
Jenrick has really captured the zeitgeist.
However unless he can depose or dispose of enough Labour MPs swiftly he has a long time to wait to become RefCon PM and appoint his friends.
He's not seeking to depose or dispose of Labour MPs.
He's presumably seeking to depose one Tory MP.
Exactly.
Jenrick is seeking to depose James Cleverly as nominee for Mayor of London. The Boris route to Downing Street via City Hall.
Boris only became Tory leader 11 years after he was elected Mayor of London so I doubt it.
There may even be a new Tory leader next autumn if Kemi loses a VONC on the same timeframe IDS did into his leadership and she has not got the Tories at least consistently back over 20% and if her policy review has made little impact.
I agree though Jenrick or Cleverly would likely replace her, assuming Boris was not back as an MP by then
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
You've just sold Farage to me.
Or is it simply the notion that a stopped clock is correct twice a day?
It is also likely or at least possible that, coming from (Jewish) immigrant stock, he wants to illustrate and test to destruction the legal establishment and laws of the state (ie the UK) because he values those laws and the legal establishment so highly.
That is to say, being a literal advocate for people who wish the UK harm will ensure that the UK doesn't stray from sound and legitimate legal principles.
I mean you only have to listen to stories coming out of Hereford to see why the British state is not inviolate in that department.
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
Luckily, he already knows the landscape:
"In written submissions in the Court of Appeal case, Hermer said that Begum was "no longer entitled to be protected by the state" which he said risked Begum to "exposure to irregular treatment" such as "rendition and targeted drone strikes"; going on to say that the consequences could be "fatal". Hermer told the court that there had been a "significant increase in the use of draconian powers" in recent years, and also said that there was a "further complexity" when the SIAC was required to "determine deprivation appeals involving individuals who were groomed whilst in the UK and recruited to join ISIS" which Hermer said included "young women, some of whom were groomed as children, who travelled to Syria to marry men who were aligned with ISIS." He also submitted that "once in ISIS territory, girls and women faced coercive and exploitative conditions" which Hermer described as a "complex issue" which he said could not be "effectively explored" unless the "potential victim" was "able to meaningfully participate by providing evidence in her appeal.""
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
You've just sold Farage to me.
Or is it simply the notion that a stopped clock is correct twice a day?
We’re on the same side as Jacob Rees-Mogg too.
That said we’re basing on it’s incredibly dangerous to make people stateless on a whim.
Farage is doing it because Trump told him to do it so Farage reverse ferreted.
Without comment on its (lack of or otherwise) efficacy, it seems to me the Tories in general (typified by RoboJenners) are increasing their intervention and presence. I wonder if they've concluded a year of licking their wounds is enough.
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
You've just sold Farage to me.
Or is it simply the notion that a stopped clock is correct twice a day?
Farage’s viewpoint that Shamima Begum is so problem we created and have to deal with is about the only thing I agree with Farage about.
But it’s an important point - we should own and take responsibility for our problems
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
He ought to do a shoplifting video next.
Channel. That's were the action is. If he had the knackers for it, which I sincerely doubt, he should go to France and pay to have himself trafficked across to the UK. That would either be coruscating social media content or he'd drown. Win-win.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Are you thinking of cases like Lucy Connelly's right to liberty being taken away?
As a lawyer & a friend of Rich Hermer I find this unpleasant. But before the usual suspects erupt, it's also entirely fair political comment. RH was an open activist throughout his career, & Starmer knew this when he chose to knife his shadow AG to appoint RH instead.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Are you thinking of cases like Lucy Connelly's right to liberty being taken away?
Don't be silly. Free speech and incitement are different concepts.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
My instinctive reaction is "rights for X mean obligations for Y" and I am on my guard.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Are you thinking of cases like Lucy Connelly's right to liberty being taken away?
She pleaded guilty to a crime where the aggravating circumstances meant it carried a 4.5 year jail term before reductions for pleading guilty
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Are you thinking of cases like Lucy Connelly's right to liberty being taken away?
That one was not at the forefront of my mind as I was typing, I must confess.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
This explains why they should care, and does it very well.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Are you thinking of cases like Lucy Connelly's right to liberty being taken away?
She pleaded guilty to a crime where the aggravating circumstances meant it carried a 4.5 year jail term before reductions for pleading guilty
If she had had access to representation of the calibre of Lord Hermer, she probably wouldn’t have done that.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
He ought to do a shoplifting video next.
Channel. That's were the action is. If he had the knackers for it, which I sincerely doubt, he should go to France and pay to have himself trafficked across to the UK. That would either be coruscating social media content or he'd drown. Win-win.
GBeebies' Patrick Christys kind of did it half-way, he actually visited a migrant camp near Calais and talked to some of the "asylum seekers" therein.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
He ought to do a shoplifting video next.
Channel. That's were the action is. If he had the knackers for it, which I sincerely doubt, he should go to France and pay to have himself trafficked across to the UK. That would either be coruscating social media content or he'd drown. Win-win.
Adam Holloway of course did something similar in what was a hugely important and effective film in which he made himself "homeless" and described the challenges in just fulfilling the state's requirements for eg registering, signing on, attending unemployment interviews, etc if you are actually homeless.
For all his bonkersness and well-discussed Hereford career this was a very important work and shone a light on how we handle true cases of need.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Has he reached peak Jenrick yet?
I suspect he has a great many more stunts to film before he's done
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
This explains why they should care, and does it very well.
Hermer is teetering with all sorts in the media about him and what he's done. He's ripe for sacrifice in the next great Starmer reset (3 a week now isn't it?). Jenrick is going for the 'win' by featuring him just before he's possibly axed. Politically savvy. And he's Shadow justice of course
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Are you thinking of cases like Lucy Connelly's right to liberty being taken away?
Don't be silly. Free speech and incitement are different concepts.
Yes. People have freedom to believe in the rightness of setting fire to other people's homes with people in them, but, unless they are literally insane, in which case they need to be held in secure psychiatric accommodation, will be aware that the way this lawful belief is expressed need to be done with very great care because the belief itself has an incendiary aspect.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
This explains why they should care, and does it very well.
Hermer is teetering with all sorts in the media about him and what he's done. He's ripe for sacrifice in the next great Starmer reset (3 a week now isn't it?). Jenrick is going for the 'win' by featuring him just before he's possibly axed. Politically savvy. And he's Shadow justice of course
But this may save him by forcing Starmer to back him. Which would be bad for the country, but great for opposition parties.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
He ought to do a shoplifting video next.
Channel. That's were the action is. If he had the knackers for it, which I sincerely doubt, he should go to France and pay to have himself trafficked across to the UK. That would either be coruscating social media content or he'd drown. Win-win.
GBeebies' Patrick Christys kind of did it half-way, he actually visited a migrant camp near Calais and talked to some of the "asylum seekers" therein.
What did he learn from it? That they are actually human beings?
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
He ought to do a shoplifting video next.
Channel. That's were the action is. If he had the knackers for it, which I sincerely doubt, he should go to France and pay to have himself trafficked across to the UK. That would either be coruscating social media content or he'd drown. Win-win.
GBeebies' Patrick Christys kind of did it half-way, he actually visited a migrant camp near Calais and talked to some of the "asylum seekers" therein.
What did he learn from it? That they are actually human beings?
Well, that they are chancers looking to sneak into the UK for free bed and board.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
This explains why they should care, and does it very well.
Hermer is teetering with all sorts in the media about him and what he's done. He's ripe for sacrifice in the next great Starmer reset (3 a week now isn't it?). Jenrick is going for the 'win' by featuring him just before he's possibly axed. Politically savvy. And he's Shadow justice of course
But this may save him by forcing Starmer to back him. Which would be bad for the country, but great for opposition parties.
Starmers backing is worth, what, 48 hours these days?
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
Jenrick has really captured the zeitgeist.
However unless he can depose or dispose of enough Labour MPs swiftly he has a long time to wait to become RefCon PM and appoint his friends.
He's not seeking to depose or dispose of Labour MPs.
He's presumably seeking to depose one Tory MP.
Exactly.
Jenrick is seeking to depose James Cleverly as nominee for Mayor of London. The Boris route to Downing Street via City Hall.
Boris only became Tory leader 11 years after he was elected Mayor of London so I doubt it.
There may even be a new Tory leader next autumn if Kemi loses a VONC on the same timeframe IDS did into his leadership and she has not got the Tories at least consistently back over 20% and if her policy review has made little impact.
I agree though Jenrick or Cleverly would likely replace her, assuming Boris was not back as an MP by then
Four years to the next general election. Who was the last Conservative leader to last that long? Theresa May, 3 years. Boris, 3 years. Liz Truss, two monarchs. Rishi, 18 months.
Anyone replacing Kemi now would be lucky to make it to the election. They'd be turfed out themselves before then.
Even waiting to replace Kemi is risky. Sure you can be LotO for a bit but unless polling improves, you will lose badly in 2029 and be out years before the next winnable election.
And that's why I think Jenrick covets the Mayor's job. Well, that and his attacks on Sadiq Khan.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
He ought to do a shoplifting video next.
Channel. That's were the action is. If he had the knackers for it, which I sincerely doubt, he should go to France and pay to have himself trafficked across to the UK. That would either be coruscating social media content or he'd drown. Win-win.
Doubt we'll see anything as Tom Cruise as that. More likely is an undercover op to a refugee hotel where he'll expose how the sheets are clean and they're getting a sausage bap every morning. WITH KETCHUP.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Are you thinking of cases like Lucy Connelly's right to liberty being taken away?
Don't be silly. Free speech and incitement are different concepts.
Yes. People have freedom to believe in the rightness of setting fire to other people's homes with people in them, but, unless they are literally insane, in which case they need to be held in secure psychiatric accommodation, will be aware that the way this lawful belief is expressed need to be done with very great care because the belief itself has an incendiary aspect.
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
Oh s***. I agree with Farage, Mogg and almost Leon. Call the thought police.
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
She needs to be tried for her crimes - preferably in a British court. In not there, The Hague. If not there, where she committed them.
And for those who say that “evidence is a problem”, there are social media posts from the time she was cheerfully helping commit war crimes, discussing what she was doing.
If a single tweet is good for a multi year sentence for incitement, a single tweet/Farcebook post should be good for war crimes?
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
JRM has been consistent.
Farage changed his mind when Trump told him to do so.
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
JRM has been consistent.
Farage changed his mind when Trump told him to do so.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Sending them back here is more likely and might have political repercussions. If British drug smugglers can be repatriated, why can't Britain deport foreign convicts?
Once again, this time Germany, a court has overturned an attempt by a democratically elected government to reject asylum-seekers. An activist judiciary is now consistently blocking the right of nations to control their own borders and respond to the legitimate concerns of voters 11:24 AM · Jun 3, 2025"
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
I thought you were Team Shamima on the grounds of her being "hot".
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
He ought to do a shoplifting video next.
Channel. That's were the action is. If he had the knackers for it, which I sincerely doubt, he should go to France and pay to have himself trafficked across to the UK. That would either be coruscating social media content or he'd drown. Win-win.
GBeebies' Patrick Christys kind of did it half-way, he actually visited a migrant camp near Calais and talked to some of the "asylum seekers" therein.
A great opportunity to make a wider issue all about himself, followed up with numerous opportunities for his missus to big up how well he did.
If distilled insincerity were a thing, it would look like Patrick Christys.
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
She needs to be tried for her crimes - preferably in a British court. In not there, The Hague. If not there, where she committed them.
And for those who say that “evidence is a problem”, there are social media posts from the time she was cheerfully helping commit war crimes, discussing what she was doing.
If a single tweet is good for a multi year sentence for incitement, a single tweet/Farcebook post should be good for war crimes?
Good question but do not overlook the matter of grooming. If Begum is accountable despite having been groomed, where does that leave the sex grooming cases?
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
JRM has been consistent.
Farage changed his mind when Trump told him to do so.
Is that good or bad? For either.
Acting like Trump’s political catamite is a bad thing, just ask Pierre Poilievre, who I tipped to lose his seat at 14/1 because of that.
Also, why are these doughnuts trying to import drugs like this? Like the footballer the other week bringing in suitcases of cannabis. The Albanians along with the North Africans have insane amounts of coke flowing through the Dutch ports and cannabis they just grow it hear now using bonded labour.
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
JRM has been consistent.
Farage changed his mind when Trump told him to do so.
Is that good or bad? For either.
Acting like Trump’s political catamite is a bad thing, just ask Pierre Poilievre, who I tipped to lose his seat at 14/1 because of that.
Also, why are these doughnuts trying to import drugs like this? Like the footballer the other week bringing in suitcases of cannabis. The Albanians along with the North Africans have insane amounts of coke flowing through the Dutch ports and cannabis they just grow it hear now using bonded labour.
Maybe that's where they went wrong. Who consumes Angel Delight in 2025?
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
JRM has been consistent.
Farage changed his mind when Trump told him to do so.
Is that good or bad? For either.
Acting like Trump’s political catamite is a bad thing, just ask Pierre Poilievre, who I tipped to lose his seat at 14/1 because of that.
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
JRM has been consistent.
Farage changed his mind when Trump told him to do so.
Is that good or bad? For either.
Acting like Trump’s political catamite is a bad thing, just ask Pierre Poilievre, who I tipped to lose his seat at 14/1 because of that.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Also, why are these doughnuts trying to import drugs like this? Like the footballer the other week bringing in suitcases of cannabis. The Albanians along with the North Africans have insane amounts of coke flowing through the Dutch ports and cannabis they just grow it hear now using bonded labour.
Maybe that's where they went wrong. Who consumes Angel Delight in 2025?
I didn't know it was even for sale, but apparently it is available in the supermarkets. I certainly haven't seen any of my friends with kids trying to serve it to them in the way as kids all me and mates got it for pudding most nights.
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
JRM has been consistent.
Farage changed his mind when Trump told him to do so.
Is that good or bad? For either.
Acting like Trump’s political catamite is a bad thing, just ask Pierre Poilievre, who I tipped to lose his seat at 14/1 because of that.
Trump's man in Poland just won.
It’s different in the Anglosphere.
Reform creamed the other parties in the Locals last month.
Angel Delight is another remnant of 70s execrabilia which should not have outlasted the decade. I'm not surprised the Indonesian authorities were suspicious.
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
JRM has been consistent.
Farage changed his mind when Trump told him to do so.
Is that good or bad? For either.
Acting like Trump’s political catamite is a bad thing, just ask Pierre Poilievre, who I tipped to lose his seat at 14/1 because of that.
How was your 20/1 tip at Eurovision?
#JustSayin'
I still made a profit from my other tips, laying Israel and Le Royaume-Uni.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
Comments
Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If he's happy to campaign on his case history, its equally legitimate to campaign against someone's history too.
Your argument is lacking in all merit.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/24/100-lawyers-prosecute-climate-protesters-laws-planet-criminalise
One oddity in the sub-sample is that a couple of the centre-left parties have an unusually low vote share. Lib Dems are at 7%, compared to their usual 10% to 13%. Greens are at 3%, compared to their usual 6% to 8%.
It's possible that this week's sample was unusually good for the SNP & unusually bad for the Lib Dems & Greens & the actual number is something like 30% or 31% for the SNP.
Insane
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
This YG poll is last week's YG poll with a bit of noise which was the preceeding weeks one which was etc etc
The lawyers who clearly and firmly stand up for governments having to obey their own laws are on the whole a very good thing. Some are altruistic, some not. I'm sure they scrape by.
At the moment it is worth having a listen to remarkable lawyers Marc Elias and Glenn Kirschner who already have a mega Jenrick in charge of their country, it's all on YouTube.
I think a better attack is they are bloody lawyers...nobody likes bloody lawyers....but Jenrick can't do that because he is another bloody lawyer.
BREAKING: BREAKING: Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk has called a vote of confidence in his government on the 11th June.
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1929845890203754781
I've forgotten what it means
Apart from that I think your case is sub-optimal.
The outgoing President has been vetoing his bills and the new one likely will too.
Tusk is wanting his Government reffirmed to shore up his authority, not having seen a President elected who is aligned with him.
Brace yourselves for more Quran-burning trials in Britain
3 June 2025, 10:21am"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/brace-yourselves-for-more-quran-burning-trials-in-britain/
However unless he can depose or dispose of enough Labour MPs swiftly he has a long time to wait to become RefCon PM and appoint his friends.
So the RLLs have 51%, and the RRLs have 46%.
He's presumably seeking to depose one Tory MP.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/02/free-speech-must-not-be-sacrificed-at-the-altar-of-islam/
Jenrick is seeking to depose James Cleverly as nominee for Mayor of London. The Boris route to Downing Street via City Hall.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/03/robert-jenrick-has-been-on-a-bizarre-political-journey-its-made-him-incredibly-dangerous
Owen Jones opines on Rob J.
There may even be a new Tory leader next autumn if Kemi loses a VONC on the same timeframe IDS did into his leadership and she has not got the Tories at least consistently back over 20% and if her policy review has made little impact.
I agree though Jenrick or Cleverly would likely replace her, assuming Boris was not back as an MP by then
Or is it simply the notion that a stopped clock is correct twice a day?
It is also likely or at least possible that, coming from (Jewish) immigrant stock, he wants to illustrate and test to destruction the legal establishment and laws of the state (ie the UK) because he values those laws and the legal establishment so highly.
That is to say, being a literal advocate for people who wish the UK harm will ensure that the UK doesn't stray from sound and legitimate legal principles.
I mean you only have to listen to stories coming out of Hereford to see why the British state is not inviolate in that department.
"In written submissions in the Court of Appeal case, Hermer said that Begum was "no longer entitled to be protected by the state" which he said risked Begum to "exposure to irregular treatment" such as "rendition and targeted drone strikes"; going on to say that the consequences could be "fatal". Hermer told the court that there had been a "significant increase in the use of draconian powers" in recent years, and also said that there was a "further complexity" when the SIAC was required to "determine deprivation appeals involving individuals who were groomed whilst in the UK and recruited to join ISIS" which Hermer said included "young women, some of whom were groomed as children, who travelled to Syria to marry men who were aligned with ISIS." He also submitted that "once in ISIS territory, girls and women faced coercive and exploitative conditions" which Hermer described as a "complex issue" which he said could not be "effectively explored" unless the "potential victim" was "able to meaningfully participate by providing evidence in her appeal.""
That said we’re basing on it’s incredibly dangerous to make people stateless on a whim.
Farage is doing it because Trump told him to do it so Farage reverse ferreted.
https://x.com/allierenison/status/1877810168164921659?s=46
But it’s an important point - we should own and take responsibility for our problems
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
https://x.com/faringforwards/status/1929823891712589845?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
For all his bonkersness and well-discussed Hereford career this was a very important work and shone a light on how we handle true cases of need.
And he's Shadow justice of course
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
psychiatric accommodation, will be aware that the way this lawful belief is expressed need to be done with very great care because the belief itself has an incendiary aspect.
Anyone replacing Kemi now would be lucky to make it to the election. They'd be turfed out themselves before then.
Even waiting to replace Kemi is risky. Sure you can be LotO for a bit but unless polling improves, you will lose badly in 2029 and be out years before the next winnable election.
And that's why I think Jenrick covets the Mayor's job. Well, that and his attacks on Sadiq Khan.
https://news.sky.com/story/three-britons-could-face-death-penalty-in-bali-over-charges-of-smuggling-cocaine-in-angel-delight-sachets-13378572
And for those who say that “evidence is a problem”, there are social media posts from the time she was cheerfully helping commit war crimes, discussing what she was doing.
If a single tweet is good for a multi year sentence for incitement, a single tweet/Farcebook post should be good for war crimes?
Farage changed his mind when Trump told him to do so.
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto's administration has moved in recent months to repatriate several high-profile inmates, all sentenced for drug offences, back to their home countries.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14775179/Brits-death-penalty-Bali-court-accused-smuggling-cocaine.html
Sending them back here is more likely and might have political repercussions. If British drug smugglers can be repatriated, why can't Britain deport foreign convicts?
@GoodwinMJ
Once again, this time Germany, a court has overturned an attempt by a democratically elected government to reject asylum-seekers. An activist judiciary is now consistently blocking the right of nations to control their own borders and respond to the legitimate concerns of voters
11:24 AM · Jun 3, 2025"
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1929846526500552888
If distilled insincerity were a thing, it would look like Patrick Christys.
Also, why are these doughnuts trying to import drugs like this? Like the footballer the other week bringing in suitcases of cannabis. The Albanians along with the North Africans have insane amounts of coke flowing through the Dutch ports and cannabis they just grow it hear now using bonded labour.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-will-be-forced-to-increase-defence-spending-to-3-5-to-keep-us-on-side-sky-news-understands-13378521
#JustSayin'
Peers who ‘make great sacrifices’ hike their own overnight allowance by a fifth
Members of the unelected chamber wave through the increase without a vote.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/greater-london-house-of-lords-parliament-government-westminster-b1230889.html