Would it be rational to regard Joanna Lumley’s children as Indian because she was born there?
That would depend on Indian citizenship laws. I understand from what Sunil has said on the topic that they don't allow dual citizenship, so "probably not" is the most likely answer to that specific scenario.
Britain decided in the 1980s to do away with birth-right citizenship, presumably because there was concern over people taking holidays to Britain to give birth here and gain British citizenship for their children.
If you don't have citizenship by birth within the country then you pretty much have to grant citizenship by descent. I don't know how you would do it if you decided that neither was the basis for citizenship. How would that work?
Would it be rational to regard Joanna Lumley’s children as Indian because she was born there?
Depends what the laws of India are. Citizenship laws are not always very rational - Australia had a whole crisis where politicians had to resign for dual citizenship, where a number of them had not even realised they had dual citizenship.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
Utter nonsense. Having lived in the Middle East and North Africa for several years, he's regarded by MENA as a liberal, not an extremist. The Arab world does not view the world through the eyes of Western society. Being anti-Semitic, pro-democracy and LGBTQ-friendly is overly-liberal to many.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
Utter nonsense. Having lived in the Middle East and North Africa for several years, he's regarded by MENA as a liberal, not an extremist. The Arab world does not view the world through the eyes of Western society. Being anti-Semitic, pro-democracy and LGBTQ-friendly is overly-liberal to many.
Arab opinion should have no bearing on who is granted citizenship and whether they are “Fit and Proper”.
Quite a few Jewish people I know were really concerned about the Shamima Begum ruling given how many of them are dual nationals.
As somebody said the language of self deportation and their ain't no black in the Union Jack is the language of the National Front.
I suspect the powers to remove citizenship will not be pulled back, as a case where even those politicians who criticised its use at the time will be pressured to accept it as a useful tool to hold against extreme future need, under their benevolent discretion.
I found part of the problem in the media reporting on the finale of the Begum case was an understandable reliance on moral arguments rather than what the legal ruling was, and whilst moral arguments are very useful things, they can sometimes be a distraction from them getting the right people (eg MPs) to then focus on what legally needs to change to make a system better.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
The problem with deporting people because we think they're shitty is that history has shown ...
... that we then won't be able to beat their descendants in Cricket.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
“A shitty person” is someone who throws their crisp packet on the floor. Or who plays music from their phone on the bus. Someone who repeatedly calls for the racially inspired murder of civilians, including children, is something else quite beyond “a shitty person”. Of course this person needs to be booted out.
I bet the Tories are about to remember the cab rank rule, which is something they forget about Sir Keir.
The Tories’ Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, is representing Roman Abramovich in a legal case that is delaying the transfer of £2.5bn of assets to benefit the people of Ukraine.
I’ve written to @KemiBadenoch about the conflicts of interest this raises.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
I don’t believe in stripping citizenship from someone once granted, it’s authoritarian. The ability for the British government to do so came about in 1981 and is a stain on Thatcher’s record.
However. The man should never have been given British citizenship in the first place, and second had no automatic right to consular services, and third the government were absolute retards to tweet ecstatically about it on Boxing Day.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
“A shitty person” is someone who throws their crisp packet on the floor. Or who plays music from their phone on the bus. Someone who repeatedly calls for the racially inspired murder of civilians, including children, is something else quite beyond “a shitty person”. Of course this person needs to be booted out.
But he's a citizen. We can not like that, we can say he shouldn't have been able to become a citizen, but I just cannot see that it is ok to deport citizens for horrible things they've said. Citizenship shouldn't be casually given out, and people may argue it was done too casually here, but you really really shouldn't casually remove it either.
Sometimes a mistake cannot be simply cancelled out, without creating a bigger mess.
I bet the Tories are about to remember the cab rank rule, which is something they forget about Sir Keir.
The Tories’ Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, is representing Roman Abramovich in a legal case that is delaying the transfer of £2.5bn of assets to benefit the people of Ukraine.
I’ve written to @KemiBadenoch about the conflicts of interest this raises.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
I don’t believe in stripping citizenship from someone once granted, it’s authoritarian. The ability for the British government to do so came about in 1981 and is a stain on Thatcher’s record.
However. The man should never have been given British citizenship in the first place, and second had no automatic right to consular services, and third the government were absolute retards to tweet ecstatically about it on Boxing Day.
And I think that is a far more sensible position, whether one agrees with it or not.
The calls for stripping feel like a 'something must be done' logic overriding any other considerations.
I bet the Tories are about to remember the cab rank rule, which is something they forget about Sir Keir.
The Tories’ Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, is representing Roman Abramovich in a legal case that is delaying the transfer of £2.5bn of assets to benefit the people of Ukraine.
I’ve written to @KemiBadenoch about the conflicts of interest this raises.
Blimey, PB Contrarians must trawl the internet to find the one article that disputes commonly accepted narratives.
Unlike barristers, one lives to serve. Here's the full letter to the Guardian (noted right wing rag):
"You suggest that barristers refusing to prosecute climate protesters may be in breach of the “cab rank” rule (Top lawyers defy bar to declare they will not prosecute peaceful climate protesters, 24 March). Observance of this rule has always been optional. All a barrister need say to evade it is that they are too busy. In fact, it is a myth peddled by the bar to suggest that they have higher standards than solicitors and to frustrate reforms that might benefit solicitors.
When I was in private practice, one of my partners explained how the rule works: if a barrister does not want to do a case they will not do it, but if you pay them enough they will want to do it.
Alasdair Darroch Retired circuit judge and former solicitor advocate"
I’m making myself the Ottolenghi lemon, anchovy, sardine and herb pasta I’ve described here before
When buying the lemons I noticed the Waitrose No1 unwaxed Sorrento lemons and couldn’t resist. They’re at least four inches long and two and a half wide. And they come with leaves
I can’t wait to taste them
We had roast lamb tonight, with roast (purple) potatoes, (yellow) carrots, beetroot and parsley root. (The beetroot and parsley root were their regular colours.)
I had chips with the relatives, and now we're watching the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures on BBC Four. We are so posh.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
“A shitty person” is someone who throws their crisp packet on the floor. Or who plays music from their phone on the bus. Someone who repeatedly calls for the racially inspired murder of civilians, including children, is something else quite beyond “a shitty person”. Of course this person needs to be booted out.
Called for in the past, and has disavowed those views. FWIW.
We've been through this repeatedly. There are numerous similarly shitty people who go well beyond you rhetorical crip packet invention.
Revocation of citizenship isn't something anyone has proposed (and nor should it be) for a Tommy Robinson, or a George Galloway, or even a Farage or a Jenrick.
"Of course this person needs to be booted out" Really ? Do you even realise what you are calling for ?
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
“A shitty person” is someone who throws their crisp packet on the floor. Or who plays music from their phone on the bus. Someone who repeatedly calls for the racially inspired murder of civilians, including children, is something else quite beyond “a shitty person”. Of course this person needs to be booted out.
But he's a citizen. We can not like that, we can say he shouldn't have been able to become a citizen, but I just cannot see that it is ok to deport citizens for horrible things they've said. Citizenship shouldn't be casually given out, and people may argue it was done too casually here, but you really really shouldn't casually remove it either.
Sometimes a mistake cannot be simply cancelled out, without creating a bigger mess.
No point arguing about it, i profoundly disagree. Dual nationals that became naturalised British citizens should for sure be booted out if the crime is severe enough. Some of what he’s said would be borderline treasonous if he’d been British when he said it.
Personally I think the Begum case is wholly different and a stain on our reputation - she is the product of our society and we should take responsibility and bang her up for life in our prison system.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
I don’t believe in stripping citizenship from someone once granted, it’s authoritarian. The ability for the British government to do so came about in 1981 and is a stain on Thatcher’s record.
However. The man should never have been given British citizenship in the first place, and second had no automatic right to consular services, and third the government were absolute retards to tweet ecstatically about it on Boxing Day.
A far more justifiable position that that of monstrous moonshine.
I bet the Tories are about to remember the cab rank rule, which is something they forget about Sir Keir.
The Tories’ Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, is representing Roman Abramovich in a legal case that is delaying the transfer of £2.5bn of assets to benefit the people of Ukraine.
I’ve written to @KemiBadenoch about the conflicts of interest this raises.
Blimey, PB Contrarians must trawl the internet to find the one article that disputes commonly accepted narratives.
Unlike barristers, one lives to serve. Here's the full letter to the Guardian (noted right wing rag):
"You suggest that barristers refusing to prosecute climate protesters may be in breach of the “cab rank” rule (Top lawyers defy bar to declare they will not prosecute peaceful climate protesters, 24 March). Observance of this rule has always been optional. All a barrister need say to evade it is that they are too busy. In fact, it is a myth peddled by the bar to suggest that they have higher standards than solicitors and to frustrate reforms that might benefit solicitors.
When I was in private practice, one of my partners explained how the rule works: if a barrister does not want to do a case they will not do it, but if you pay them enough they will want to do it.
Alasdair Darroch Retired circuit judge and former solicitor advocate"
What the cab rank rule really says is that you may not criticise a barrister for taking a particular case.
(OTOH, if they make a careeer out of taking the same such case repeatedly, then it might be fair game to judge them. *Cough* Carter Ruck)
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
I don’t believe in stripping citizenship from someone once granted, it’s authoritarian. The ability for the British government to do so came about in 1981 and is a stain on Thatcher’s record.
However. The man should never have been given British citizenship in the first place, and second had no automatic right to consular services, and third the government were absolute retards to tweet ecstatically about it on Boxing Day.
A far more justifiable position that that of monstrous moonshine.
Monstrous Moonshine! Ooh!!! How flattering, an alliterative nickname! You really have made my day.
As above, strip citizenship from naturalised citizens if the crime is severe enough. Take full responsibility for those that are citizens by birth.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
I don’t believe in stripping citizenship from someone once granted, it’s authoritarian. The ability for the British government to do so came about in 1981 and is a stain on Thatcher’s record.
However. The man should never have been given British citizenship in the first place, and second had no automatic right to consular services, and third the government were absolute retards to tweet ecstatically about it on Boxing Day.
A far more justifiable position that that of monstrous moonshine.
Monstrous Moonshine! Ooh!!! How flattering, an alliterative nickname! You really have made my day.
As above, strip citizenship from naturalised citizens if the crime is severe enough. Take full responsibility for those that are citizens by birth.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
I don’t believe in stripping citizenship from someone once granted, it’s authoritarian. The ability for the British government to do so came about in 1981 and is a stain on Thatcher’s record.
However. The man should never have been given British citizenship in the first place, and second had no automatic right to consular services, and third the government were absolute retards to tweet ecstatically about it on Boxing Day.
A far more justifiable position that that of monstrous moonshine.
Monstrous Moonshine! Ooh!!! How flattering, an alliterative nickname! You really have made my day.
As above, strip citizenship from naturalised citizens if the crime is severe enough. Take full responsibility for those that are citizens by birth.
Would it be rational to regard Joanna Lumley’s children as Indian because she was born there?
That would depend on Indian citizenship laws. I understand from what Sunil has said on the topic that they don't allow dual citizenship, so "probably not" is the most likely answer to that specific scenario.
Britain decided in the 1980s to do away with birth-right citizenship, presumably because there was concern over people taking holidays to Britain to give birth here and gain British citizenship for their children.
If you don't have citizenship by birth within the country then you pretty much have to grant citizenship by descent. I don't know how you would do it if you decided that neither was the basis for citizenship. How would that work?
May I suggest citizenship is granted if and only if you have the approval of a committee comprised of Farage, the Daily Mail and Jenrick?
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
I don’t believe in stripping citizenship from someone once granted, it’s authoritarian. The ability for the British government to do so came about in 1981 and is a stain on Thatcher’s record.
However. The man should never have been given British citizenship in the first place, and second had no automatic right to consular services, and third the government were absolute retards to tweet ecstatically about it on Boxing Day.
A far more justifiable position that that of monstrous moonshine.
Monstrous Moonshine! Ooh!!! How flattering, an alliterative nickname! You really have made my day.
As above, strip citizenship from naturalised citizens if the crime is severe enough. Take full responsibility for those that are citizens by birth.
I bet the Tories are about to remember the cab rank rule, which is something they forget about Sir Keir.
The Tories’ Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, is representing Roman Abramovich in a legal case that is delaying the transfer of £2.5bn of assets to benefit the people of Ukraine.
I’ve written to @KemiBadenoch about the conflicts of interest this raises.
Blimey, PB Contrarians must trawl the internet to find the one article that disputes commonly accepted narratives.
Unlike barristers, one lives to serve. Here's the full letter to the Guardian (noted right wing rag):
"You suggest that barristers refusing to prosecute climate protesters may be in breach of the “cab rank” rule (Top lawyers defy bar to declare they will not prosecute peaceful climate protesters, 24 March). Observance of this rule has always been optional. All a barrister need say to evade it is that they are too busy. In fact, it is a myth peddled by the bar to suggest that they have higher standards than solicitors and to frustrate reforms that might benefit solicitors.
When I was in private practice, one of my partners explained how the rule works: if a barrister does not want to do a case they will not do it, but if you pay them enough they will want to do it.
Alasdair Darroch Retired circuit judge and former solicitor advocate"
What the cab rank rule really says is that you may not criticise a barrister for taking a particular case.
(OTOH, if they make a careeer out of taking the same such case repeatedly, then it might be fair game to judge them. *Cough* Carter Ruck)
Hiring them a very firm way of declaring to the world that you are a piece of crap. Though of course if they do their job well enough, and presumably they do, most of the time that you hired them won't even get out.
I bet the Tories are about to remember the cab rank rule, which is something they forget about Sir Keir.
The Tories’ Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, is representing Roman Abramovich in a legal case that is delaying the transfer of £2.5bn of assets to benefit the people of Ukraine.
I’ve written to @KemiBadenoch about the conflicts of interest this raises.
Blimey, PB Contrarians must trawl the internet to find the one article that disputes commonly accepted narratives.
Unlike barristers, one lives to serve. Here's the full letter to the Guardian (noted right wing rag):
"You suggest that barristers refusing to prosecute climate protesters may be in breach of the “cab rank” rule (Top lawyers defy bar to declare they will not prosecute peaceful climate protesters, 24 March). Observance of this rule has always been optional. All a barrister need say to evade it is that they are too busy. In fact, it is a myth peddled by the bar to suggest that they have higher standards than solicitors and to frustrate reforms that might benefit solicitors.
When I was in private practice, one of my partners explained how the rule works: if a barrister does not want to do a case they will not do it, but if you pay them enough they will want to do it.
Alasdair Darroch Retired circuit judge and former solicitor advocate"
My point stands.
Anyway I thought we could disregard the opinions from lefty lawyers. What does a circuit judge and solicitor advocate know anyway?
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
But where would Jenrick end up? There’s no real place called Hypocrisy where Hypocrites can be citizens.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again). I think we all understand that with Trump any debate/campaign for mitigation is fruitless until we get a sane Thatcher-type figure on the right again.
At some point we are going to need to have a serious conversation about adaptation. That's what so pathetic about those people who suggest we can't stop it happening - fine, so where's the big plan for 3 degrees+?
On the domestic front, we have nobody building any water infrastructure, and a virtual ban on dredging for the last 20-25 years, due to EU habitat legislation, then we blame the resulting summer droughts and winter floods on climate change.
I don't think it is included in the above - one of our basic planning policies since about 2010 has been that surface water runoff from a development should be no more than the pre-existing site - that's where all our balancing ponds come from. The last one of these I did required a preliminary design as part of Outline Permission, required to establish that the site was suitable for development; it was done by Mott McDonald and came to around £250 per potential housing unit just for the preliminary design.
The Thames Tideway Tunnel, which came online last year, was about £5 billion on its own.
That's all water infrastructure, as is investment in sewerage treatment, canal and river maintenance, and the rest.
That is a fair response to a point I made that included hyperbole but was still an important one.
There have been no major reservoirs built for over 30 years - the last one (there are some being built now) was completed in 1992. At the same time, the population has risen by 11 million.
I find that staggering, and it makes me extremely cynical when people panic about our weather conditions.
In general I'd argue that building more reservoirs should be the last resort, as it is a 'tailpipe' solution. Reduction of demand should come first, just as reduction of energy demand should come before building more power stations or windmills or solar farms. So for me that means measures such as leak reduction and 100% water meters, which apply the market mechanism and themselves generate a reduction of 10-12% in water usage, before we spend hundreds of millions on new reservoirs.
I think one of the unforeseen problems of the last budget will be caused by the unbundling of insulation etc programmes from energy bills - it can now be seen and will be far easier to target in political debate. The programme has been very successful for 15 years doing basics such as loft insulation, until the current one is under severe question - when the programme has been doing more complex installations (eg external wall insulation) with inadequate standards / supervision.
I am sure you would argue that - I would argue the opposite. Your argument leads to the British economy where it now is - mine leads to the Chinese economy where it now is. Abundant and cheap energy is a pre-requisite for any prosperous society, and is the lifeblood of human progress.
More specifically, having a deliberate policy of failing to build sufficient reservoirs, and instead blame the public for water shortages - encouraging them to water their gardens less, even to shower less (truly revolting) and take other punitive measures to combat 'water shortages' (when Winter floods will be along soon) is simply gaslighting.
I admit I just don't see that as a viable argument. I think you are assuming a zero-sum game, which is not the case. I don't see how a concept of blame applies.
Achieving the same outcome using fewer resources is a simple increase in efficiency. How is that not a benefit.
Why should we want to use 25% more water (or electricity) than necessary? Would you argue against reduced fuel consumption in a motor vehicle on the same basis?
The point about reservoirs is that if water consumption is reduced, fewer reservoirs is not "insufficient"; it changes the definition of "sufficient" to be a smaller quantity.
To turn the question around, why should we waste scarce resources on building unnecessary reservoirs or power stations?
For a specific example on water, current use in Denmark is around 105l per person per day, compared to 130-140l in England. Denmark does not seem to have an economy on its knees, and is noticeably prosperous.
Because water is not scarce. It is especially unscarce in the UK. It is an abundant resource that is there to be enjoyed and used. The idea of convincing the public that it is running out and that they are showering too long or gardening too much is a despicable perversion of the truth that would mystify and appall our ancestors.
Not true. Shortage of water was a regular concern. Especially as it affected their transport and their food production systems (watermills). temsd
Irrelevant. They built all the water infrastructure that was in their power to build, to ensure the water would be where it was needed. The idea of not doing that on purpose so that people would be scared into using less water would be rightly seen by them as an insane and frankly wicked notion.
Would it be rational to regard Joanna Lumley’s children as Indian because she was born there?
That would depend on Indian citizenship laws. I understand from what Sunil has said on the topic that they don't allow dual citizenship, so "probably not" is the most likely answer to that specific scenario.
Britain decided in the 1980s to do away with birth-right citizenship, presumably because there was concern over people taking holidays to Britain to give birth here and gain British citizenship for their children.
If you don't have citizenship by birth within the country then you pretty much have to grant citizenship by descent. I don't know how you would do it if you decided that neither was the basis for citizenship. How would that work?
May I suggest citizenship is granted if and only if you have the approval of a committee comprised of Farage, the Daily Mail and Jenrick?
The daily mail wont get a say but yes, of course the prime minister and home sec (Jenrick in a coalition?) should have a right of veto on national security or public order grounds. It’s perfect common sense that the ECHR removed only 6 years ago.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again).
Er, sod off, old boy.
I've never said anything but climate change is a real thing on here, and have been remarkably consistent in saying that for decades. I also regularly cite Thatcher as one of the first major political leaders to draw attention to the issue, because she understood the science. And a reason why those on the Right shouldn't view climate change as a secret Lefty plot.
Take that back please.
Nope - you suggested that "Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience" - as if caring about the environment is simply a fad for the left. From my experience, concerns for Gaza and the consequences of climate change are both deeply held - and can be at the same time.
I'm sure your personal concern about climate change is sincere - perhaps consider that is also the case for those you would normally consider your political opposites.
People who desire to embrace clean technologies to transition away from dirty ones care about the environment.
People who desire us not to extract domestic oil and gas but to burn as many imports as desired instead do not.
People who wish to prevent others from having holidays or living their lives do not.
People who wish to use the mantra of the environment to further their own agenda, whether it be smashing capitalism or pushing veganism or any other bullshit do not.
There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment and we should seek to transition to clean technologies to do so, the problem is too many with a hate-filled agenda they try to sneak past others in the name of the environment.
Moving past climate change denial to climatr change bargaining:
"Climate change is happenning but we don't need to take serious action, we can carry on much the same"
Embracing clean technologies is taking serious action, which enables us to carry on much the same, yes.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not taking serious action and won't impact global emissions as the rest of the world isn't stupid enough to do that.
It's the tragedy of the commons: if everyone else has your attitude, the problem never gets fixed. However, fortunately, by and large, that hasn't happened and we have had good international cooperation with countries working together. Our net zero plans have been pretty similar to other countries'. Until Trump came along and blew a whole in the US position, that is.
Wrong, if people have your attitude, the problem never gets fixed.
With my attitude, we embrace clean technologies and fix the problems.
Cutting off our nose and saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat" or any other bullshit does diddly squat to fix the problems.
Embracing clean technologies does. Once the problem is fixed, others can copy our solutions, and we can copy theirs.
Invest in science and technology and research, don't cut consumption.
We may be talking at cross-purposes then -- my apologies. I'm not saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". I am rejecting the idea that we shouldn't do things beause we're a small part of global emissions or because other countries are supposedly not doing the same.
Then we are, because I said we should fix the problems by investing in clean technologies to replace dirty ones, which enables us to carry on as before, but better.
Investing in clean tech has the advantage that once clean tech is developed, others copy it, and we can copy theirs too, so win/win.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face does nothing to fix the actual problems, but is the desired outcome of some people. That things do not go on as before, that we stop consuming, that we stop driving, that we stop travelling. Well that's never happening, what we need is clean travel, clean tech, clean energy, and bountiful amounts of it.
I think you're railing against a straw man there.
Sadly, I'm not. I'm railing against a view repeatedly expressed here, including earlier by Foxy (not for the first time I might add).
There is sadly an attitude amongst some that believing that technology will solve our problems is somehow wishful or magical thinking and that we need to cut things instead.
Well to invoke Arthur C Clarke, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic - and that is precisely what we need to tackle climate change. Invest in clean technologies, don't tell people what they can and can't do.
No-one, apart from you, has said "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". Others have talked about government policies that sometimes restrict what people do in certain ways. You are strawmanning what is being said.
We should definitely invest in clean technologies -- and are -- but governments also often tell people what not to do, e.g. abolishing leaded petrol. This can be a successful way of intervening. Investing in clean technologies alone won't work.
But yes, besides charities, government bodies, the Climate Change Committee, national and devolved governments, councils and universities, besides them, its just me. Only me.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again).
Er, sod off, old boy.
I've never said anything but climate change is a real thing on here, and have been remarkably consistent in saying that for decades. I also regularly cite Thatcher as one of the first major political leaders to draw attention to the issue, because she understood the science. And a reason why those on the Right shouldn't view climate change as a secret Lefty plot.
Take that back please.
Nope - you suggested that "Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience" - as if caring about the environment is simply a fad for the left. From my experience, concerns for Gaza and the consequences of climate change are both deeply held - and can be at the same time.
I'm sure your personal concern about climate change is sincere - perhaps consider that is also the case for those you would normally consider your political opposites.
People who desire to embrace clean technologies to transition away from dirty ones care about the environment.
People who desire us not to extract domestic oil and gas but to burn as many imports as desired instead do not.
People who wish to prevent others from having holidays or living their lives do not.
People who wish to use the mantra of the environment to further their own agenda, whether it be smashing capitalism or pushing veganism or any other bullshit do not.
There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment and we should seek to transition to clean technologies to do so, the problem is too many with a hate-filled agenda they try to sneak past others in the name of the environment.
Moving past climate change denial to climatr change bargaining:
"Climate change is happenning but we don't need to take serious action, we can carry on much the same"
Embracing clean technologies is taking serious action, which enables us to carry on much the same, yes.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not taking serious action and won't impact global emissions as the rest of the world isn't stupid enough to do that.
It's the tragedy of the commons: if everyone else has your attitude, the problem never gets fixed. However, fortunately, by and large, that hasn't happened and we have had good international cooperation with countries working together. Our net zero plans have been pretty similar to other countries'. Until Trump came along and blew a whole in the US position, that is.
Wrong, if people have your attitude, the problem never gets fixed.
With my attitude, we embrace clean technologies and fix the problems.
Cutting off our nose and saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat" or any other bullshit does diddly squat to fix the problems.
Embracing clean technologies does. Once the problem is fixed, others can copy our solutions, and we can copy theirs.
Invest in science and technology and research, don't cut consumption.
We may be talking at cross-purposes then -- my apologies. I'm not saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". I am rejecting the idea that we shouldn't do things beause we're a small part of global emissions or because other countries are supposedly not doing the same.
Then we are, because I said we should fix the problems by investing in clean technologies to replace dirty ones, which enables us to carry on as before, but better.
Investing in clean tech has the advantage that once clean tech is developed, others copy it, and we can copy theirs too, so win/win.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face does nothing to fix the actual problems, but is the desired outcome of some people. That things do not go on as before, that we stop consuming, that we stop driving, that we stop travelling. Well that's never happening, what we need is clean travel, clean tech, clean energy, and bountiful amounts of it.
I think you're railing against a straw man there.
Sadly, I'm not. I'm railing against a view repeatedly expressed here, including earlier by Foxy (not for the first time I might add).
There is sadly an attitude amongst some that believing that technology will solve our problems is somehow wishful or magical thinking and that we need to cut things instead.
Well to invoke Arthur C Clarke, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic - and that is precisely what we need to tackle climate change. Invest in clean technologies, don't tell people what they can and can't do.
No-one, apart from you, has said "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". Others have talked about government policies that sometimes restrict what people do in certain ways. You are strawmanning what is being said.
We should definitely invest in clean technologies -- and are -- but governments also often tell people what not to do, e.g. abolishing leaded petrol. This can be a successful way of intervening. Investing in clean technologies alone won't work.
But yes, besides charities, government bodies, the Climate Change Committee, national and devolved governments, councils and universities, besides them, its just me. Only me.
Should vs shall.
These are evidenced suggestions.
Should can become shall.
Probably won't in those cases, so best to take care not to become paranoid (what was all that palaver a few years back fearmongering about 15 minute cities or whatever?), but bodies can treat suggestions and guidance pretty darn seriously.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again).
Er, sod off, old boy.
I've never said anything but climate change is a real thing on here, and have been remarkably consistent in saying that for decades. I also regularly cite Thatcher as one of the first major political leaders to draw attention to the issue, because she understood the science. And a reason why those on the Right shouldn't view climate change as a secret Lefty plot.
Take that back please.
Nope - you suggested that "Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience" - as if caring about the environment is simply a fad for the left. From my experience, concerns for Gaza and the consequences of climate change are both deeply held - and can be at the same time.
I'm sure your personal concern about climate change is sincere - perhaps consider that is also the case for those you would normally consider your political opposites.
People who desire to embrace clean technologies to transition away from dirty ones care about the environment.
People who desire us not to extract domestic oil and gas but to burn as many imports as desired instead do not.
People who wish to prevent others from having holidays or living their lives do not.
People who wish to use the mantra of the environment to further their own agenda, whether it be smashing capitalism or pushing veganism or any other bullshit do not.
There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment and we should seek to transition to clean technologies to do so, the problem is too many with a hate-filled agenda they try to sneak past others in the name of the environment.
Moving past climate change denial to climatr change bargaining:
"Climate change is happenning but we don't need to take serious action, we can carry on much the same"
Embracing clean technologies is taking serious action, which enables us to carry on much the same, yes.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not taking serious action and won't impact global emissions as the rest of the world isn't stupid enough to do that.
It's the tragedy of the commons: if everyone else has your attitude, the problem never gets fixed. However, fortunately, by and large, that hasn't happened and we have had good international cooperation with countries working together. Our net zero plans have been pretty similar to other countries'. Until Trump came along and blew a whole in the US position, that is.
Wrong, if people have your attitude, the problem never gets fixed.
With my attitude, we embrace clean technologies and fix the problems.
Cutting off our nose and saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat" or any other bullshit does diddly squat to fix the problems.
Embracing clean technologies does. Once the problem is fixed, others can copy our solutions, and we can copy theirs.
Invest in science and technology and research, don't cut consumption.
We may be talking at cross-purposes then -- my apologies. I'm not saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". I am rejecting the idea that we shouldn't do things beause we're a small part of global emissions or because other countries are supposedly not doing the same.
Then we are, because I said we should fix the problems by investing in clean technologies to replace dirty ones, which enables us to carry on as before, but better.
Investing in clean tech has the advantage that once clean tech is developed, others copy it, and we can copy theirs too, so win/win.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face does nothing to fix the actual problems, but is the desired outcome of some people. That things do not go on as before, that we stop consuming, that we stop driving, that we stop travelling. Well that's never happening, what we need is clean travel, clean tech, clean energy, and bountiful amounts of it.
I think you're railing against a straw man there.
Sadly, I'm not. I'm railing against a view repeatedly expressed here, including earlier by Foxy (not for the first time I might add).
There is sadly an attitude amongst some that believing that technology will solve our problems is somehow wishful or magical thinking and that we need to cut things instead.
Well to invoke Arthur C Clarke, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic - and that is precisely what we need to tackle climate change. Invest in clean technologies, don't tell people what they can and can't do.
No-one, apart from you, has said "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". Others have talked about government policies that sometimes restrict what people do in certain ways. You are strawmanning what is being said.
We should definitely invest in clean technologies -- and are -- but governments also often tell people what not to do, e.g. abolishing leaded petrol. This can be a successful way of intervening. Investing in clean technologies alone won't work.
But yes, besides charities, government bodies, the Climate Change Committee, national and devolved governments, councils and universities, besides them, its just me. Only me.
My apologies again. I meant to say no-one in this thread.
So we're not to respond to attitudes regularly seen outside of this thread, by groups such as national and devolved governments, charities, councils, universities etc?
Interesting point of view. Threads would be pretty quiet if we didn't bring in viewpoints from outside of the the thread that are relevant.
Why not just admit you were wrong?
There are, I'm aware, all sorts of views expressed in the world. Some are widespread, some are niche. Some carry the force of law, some are polite suggestions. I remain of the view that you are strawmanning. It might be more interesting if you actually engaged with the example given, abolishing leaded petrol, and explain how your approach would've yielded a better result than government telling people what they can and can't do.
In reality, you accept that there are some situations where government should tell people what they can and can't do. The question is when and what.
Would it be rational to regard Joanna Lumley’s children as Indian because she was born there?
That would depend on Indian citizenship laws. I understand from what Sunil has said on the topic that they don't allow dual citizenship, so "probably not" is the most likely answer to that specific scenario.
Britain decided in the 1980s to do away with birth-right citizenship, presumably because there was concern over people taking holidays to Britain to give birth here and gain British citizenship for their children.
If you don't have citizenship by birth within the country then you pretty much have to grant citizenship by descent. I don't know how you would do it if you decided that neither was the basis for citizenship. How would that work?
May I suggest citizenship is granted if and only if you have the approval of a committee comprised of Farage, the Daily Mail and Jenrick?
The daily mail wont get a say but yes, of course the prime minister and home sec (Jenrick in a coalition?) should have a right of veto on national security or public order grounds. It’s perfect common sense that the ECHR removed only 6 years ago.
I’m making myself the Ottolenghi lemon, anchovy, sardine and herb pasta I’ve described here before
When buying the lemons I noticed the Waitrose No1 unwaxed Sorrento lemons and couldn’t resist. They’re at least four inches long and two and a half wide. And they come with leaves
I can’t wait to taste them
We had roast lamb tonight, with roast (purple) potatoes, (yellow) carrots, beetroot and parsley root. (The beetroot and parsley root were their regular colours.)
I had chips with the relatives, and now we're watching the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures on BBC Four. We are so posh.
Would it be rational to regard Joanna Lumley’s children as Indian because she was born there?
That would depend on Indian citizenship laws. I understand from what Sunil has said on the topic that they don't allow dual citizenship, so "probably not" is the most likely answer to that specific scenario.
Britain decided in the 1980s to do away with birth-right citizenship, presumably because there was concern over people taking holidays to Britain to give birth here and gain British citizenship for their children.
If you don't have citizenship by birth within the country then you pretty much have to grant citizenship by descent. I don't know how you would do it if you decided that neither was the basis for citizenship. How would that work?
May I suggest citizenship is granted if and only if you have the approval of a committee comprised of Farage, the Daily Mail and Jenrick?
The daily mail wont get a say but yes, of course the prime minister and home sec (Jenrick in a coalition?) should have a right of veto on national security or public order grounds. It’s perfect common sense that the ECHR removed only 6 years ago.
I must have missed the GE.
I assumed we were shooting the sh1t on what should follow this current shower. Hard to see the Labour Party delegating its migration policy to jenrick and Farage but fair play if they’re willing to
Trump seemingly still grappling with the fact that Hamas won't disarm and Israel won't withdraw. Two slight hiccups in his previous peace deal which were fucking obvious to anyone who gave it a moment's attention.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
I don’t believe in stripping citizenship from someone once granted, it’s authoritarian. The ability for the British government to do so came about in 1981 and is a stain on Thatcher’s record.
However. The man should never have been given British citizenship in the first place, and second had no automatic right to consular services, and third the government were absolute retards to tweet ecstatically about it on Boxing Day.
They probably considered it a seasonal message of successful goodwill and so on.
But he's now a citizen. Maybe his views will be modified by the efforts of those he has hated so much to get him released and transferred to a better life here. Maybe not, in which case the law should deal with him.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
But where would Jenrick end up? There’s no real place called Hypocrisy where Hypocrites can be citizens.
He knows he is operating within a culture of performative cruelty but the media, like PBers can't get enough of it. The story could have been a two pronged win for Jenrick. A humiliation of his Labour leader enemy and his Tory leadership opponents. Unfortunately for Jenrick the media have just run with the Starmer error.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
This is essentially my position. I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
The performative bit is anyone pushing for deportation of someone who is a citizen because they may be a shitty person. An argument about whether they should have become a citizen in the first place is a separate matter which is far less problematic I think.
“A shitty person” is someone who throws their crisp packet on the floor. Or who plays music from their phone on the bus. Someone who repeatedly calls for the racially inspired murder of civilians, including children, is something else quite beyond “a shitty person”. Of course this person needs to be booted out.
But he's a citizen. We can not like that, we can say he shouldn't have been able to become a citizen, but I just cannot see that it is ok to deport citizens for horrible things they've said. Citizenship shouldn't be casually given out, and people may argue it was done too casually here, but you really really shouldn't casually remove it either.
Sometimes a mistake cannot be simply cancelled out, without creating a bigger mess.
If a government is able to take citizenship away from its people because of saying things they disapprove of then the citizens of that country cannot be at all free.
How does Moscow view Donald Trump at the end of 2025? One Russian paper today: “The US leader’s philosophy is closer to the values of Russia’s president, not the politicians of the Old World…he sees Europe as a liberal stronghold that must be destroyed…” #ReadingRussia
Conclusion from a good thread on the Challenger upgrade
25/25 The British Army’s efforts to introduce the Challenger 3 are hampered by weight issues, turret integration challenges, component omissions, track supply concerns, the makeshift reactivation of stored vehicles, and now a deliberately vague production timeline tied solely to trial outcomes rather than fixed dates. These problems mirror those in the Ajax programme and broader armoured procurement failures, highlighting systemic inefficiencies. Compared to Germany’s expansion of Leopard 2 production and Poland’s massive acquisitions, the UK’s upgrade strategy appears shortsighted, potentially leaving it with an obsolescent force. To rectify this, the MoD should reconsider off-the-shelf procurements, fostering greater interoperability and industrial vitality. Ultimately, in a volatile security landscape, the UK must prioritise bold modernisation to maintain its armoured credibility. Tough and unpopular choices may lie ahead - that’s what leadership is all about https://x.com/MtarfaL/status/2005636292281856023
On top of all these caveats, I'd add that in the context of the massive European tank orders, the UK has no pressing requirement for an MBT upgrade (of already dubious utility) anyway.
We'd be better off spending the money to either help sort out the Ajax debacle, or put towards its replacement.
We might donate more Challenger hulls to Ukraine, but the British army just isn't going to deploy them anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Can I recommend to you all a thoroughly interesting 45 minute conversation between Polanski and James Medway, one of the economists I respect most: https://pca.st/episode/aa464011-8ea3-4f3f-8903-0cef76bf3481. Even if Polanski is not your cup of tea (and he isn't mine economically), Meadway is both very intelligent and an excellent communicator.
Two points, a trigger warning and a question: 1. One of the things I respect most about Meadway is that, almost uniquely amongst left-wing economists, he engages with the reality of the power of the bond markets in the UK, resisting the simplistic 'just borrow more' that Polanski wants to hear. 2. Meadway laces his conversation about economics with an understanding of the current and likely future impacts of climate change. At a time when it feels like everyone has just stopped talking about this, that's really refreshing.
The trigger warning: Meadway was economic adviser to McDonnell when he was Shadow Chancellor. If your thinking goes McDonnell=Corbyn=Antisemitism=Evil, maybe spend your scarce 45 mins elsewhere. But if you're interested in a coherent left-wing critique of our economic system it's worth your time.
The question: particularly for @Luckyguy1983 as I know you have views on this, but also for any right of centre person interested in economics - what do you make of Meadway's arguments (first 10 mins of the podcast) about how the BoE deals with its ownership of government debt?
The fact everyone has stopped talking about it shows just how fickle and faddish most public opinion is.
Trump has blocked it on the Right and the Left has decided that Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience.
I will still talk about climate change, but I have asymptotically approached my personal limit on the number of times I am willing to have the same fruitless "debate" with people who deny the science.
As fruitless internet debates go it has nearly a 15 year head start on Brexit, for example.
I think it's more that the debate is effectively over. Very few people continue to deny it exists, or that humans are responsible for it. You still get people like Casino_Royale who think it's just some culture war game, but the data is becoming metronomic - we're about to declare this year our hottest year on record (again).
Er, sod off, old boy.
I've never said anything but climate change is a real thing on here, and have been remarkably consistent in saying that for decades. I also regularly cite Thatcher as one of the first major political leaders to draw attention to the issue, because she understood the science. And a reason why those on the Right shouldn't view climate change as a secret Lefty plot.
Take that back please.
Nope - you suggested that "Gaza offers a far better social bonding experience" - as if caring about the environment is simply a fad for the left. From my experience, concerns for Gaza and the consequences of climate change are both deeply held - and can be at the same time.
I'm sure your personal concern about climate change is sincere - perhaps consider that is also the case for those you would normally consider your political opposites.
People who desire to embrace clean technologies to transition away from dirty ones care about the environment.
People who desire us not to extract domestic oil and gas but to burn as many imports as desired instead do not.
People who wish to prevent others from having holidays or living their lives do not.
People who wish to use the mantra of the environment to further their own agenda, whether it be smashing capitalism or pushing veganism or any other bullshit do not.
There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment and we should seek to transition to clean technologies to do so, the problem is too many with a hate-filled agenda they try to sneak past others in the name of the environment.
Moving past climate change denial to climatr change bargaining:
"Climate change is happenning but we don't need to take serious action, we can carry on much the same"
Embracing clean technologies is taking serious action, which enables us to carry on much the same, yes.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face is not taking serious action and won't impact global emissions as the rest of the world isn't stupid enough to do that.
It's the tragedy of the commons: if everyone else has your attitude, the problem never gets fixed. However, fortunately, by and large, that hasn't happened and we have had good international cooperation with countries working together. Our net zero plans have been pretty similar to other countries'. Until Trump came along and blew a whole in the US position, that is.
Wrong, if people have your attitude, the problem never gets fixed.
With my attitude, we embrace clean technologies and fix the problems.
Cutting off our nose and saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat" or any other bullshit does diddly squat to fix the problems.
Embracing clean technologies does. Once the problem is fixed, others can copy our solutions, and we can copy theirs.
Invest in science and technology and research, don't cut consumption.
We may be talking at cross-purposes then -- my apologies. I'm not saying "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". I am rejecting the idea that we shouldn't do things beause we're a small part of global emissions or because other countries are supposedly not doing the same.
Then we are, because I said we should fix the problems by investing in clean technologies to replace dirty ones, which enables us to carry on as before, but better.
Investing in clean tech has the advantage that once clean tech is developed, others copy it, and we can copy theirs too, so win/win.
Cutting off our nose to spite our face does nothing to fix the actual problems, but is the desired outcome of some people. That things do not go on as before, that we stop consuming, that we stop driving, that we stop travelling. Well that's never happening, what we need is clean travel, clean tech, clean energy, and bountiful amounts of it.
I think you're railing against a straw man there.
Sadly, I'm not. I'm railing against a view repeatedly expressed here, including earlier by Foxy (not for the first time I might add).
There is sadly an attitude amongst some that believing that technology will solve our problems is somehow wishful or magical thinking and that we need to cut things instead.
Well to invoke Arthur C Clarke, any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic - and that is precisely what we need to tackle climate change. Invest in clean technologies, don't tell people what they can and can't do.
No-one, apart from you, has said "turn down the thermostat", "don't travel", "don't eat meat". Others have talked about government policies that sometimes restrict what people do in certain ways. You are strawmanning what is being said.
We should definitely invest in clean technologies -- and are -- but governments also often tell people what not to do, e.g. abolishing leaded petrol. This can be a successful way of intervening. Investing in clean technologies alone won't work.
But yes, besides charities, government bodies, the Climate Change Committee, national and devolved governments, councils and universities, besides them, its just me. Only me.
My apologies again. I meant to say no-one in this thread.
So we're not to respond to attitudes regularly seen outside of this thread, by groups such as national and devolved governments, charities, councils, universities etc?
Interesting point of view. Threads would be pretty quiet if we didn't bring in viewpoints from outside of the the thread that are relevant.
Why not just admit you were wrong?
There are, I'm aware, all sorts of views expressed in the world. Some are widespread, some are niche. Some carry the force of law, some are polite suggestions. I remain of the view that you are strawmanning. It might be more interesting if you actually engaged with the example given, abolishing leaded petrol, and explain how your approach would've yielded a better result than government telling people what they can and can't do.
In reality, you accept that there are some situations where government should tell people what they can and can't do. The question is when and what.
Leaded petrol? Never seen it mentioned on here before. I’m curious to know the accepted wisdom. -
Do we see a fall in lead pollution in the inner city environment closely proportionate to the fall in crime stats 17 years later?
Would it be rational to regard Joanna Lumley’s children as Indian because she was born there?
That would depend on Indian citizenship laws. I understand from what Sunil has said on the topic that they don't allow dual citizenship, so "probably not" is the most likely answer to that specific scenario.
Britain decided in the 1980s to do away with birth-right citizenship, presumably because there was concern over people taking holidays to Britain to give birth here and gain British citizenship for their children.
If you don't have citizenship by birth within the country then you pretty much have to grant citizenship by descent. I don't know how you would do it if you decided that neither was the basis for citizenship. How would that work?
May I suggest citizenship is granted if and only if you have the approval of a committee comprised of Farage, the Daily Mail and Jenrick?
The daily mail wont get a say but yes, of course the prime minister and home sec (Jenrick in a coalition?) should have a right of veto on national security or public order grounds. It’s perfect common sense that the ECHR removed only 6 years ago.
I must have missed the GE.
I assumed we were shooting the sh1t on what should follow this current shower. Hard to see the Labour Party delegating its migration policy to jenrick and Farage but fair play if they’re willing to
Curious idea. Give the home office to Farage… and we can all watch in startled bemusement.
“Britain finds itself in an utterly unprecedented and deeply humiliating situation, one that has made it a global laughing stock.
Only in Britain could you witness the years-long campaign to pressure a country into releasing an extremist, only for that same nation, its politicians and media, to immediately fixate on sending him back.
This farce unfolds while our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Minister for the Middle East have gone into hiding, having just welcomed this extremist, who has never lived here, "back" to Britain.
The entire episode is so profoundly bizarre and without precedent that I struggle to convey the sheer astonishment with which my contacts across the Arab world are observing it.”
Utter nonsense. Having lived in the Middle East and North Africa for several years, he's regarded by MENA as a liberal, not an extremist. The Arab world does not view the world through the eyes of Western society. Being anti-Semitic, pro-democracy and LGBTQ-friendly is overly-liberal to many.
Arab opinion should have no bearing on who is granted citizenship and whether they are “Fit and Proper”.
Of course. I was responding to "contacts in the Arab world" viewing him as an extremist. Not Western society.
Conclusion from a good thread on the Challenger upgrade
25/25 The British Army’s efforts to introduce the Challenger 3 are hampered by weight issues, turret integration challenges, component omissions, track supply concerns, the makeshift reactivation of stored vehicles, and now a deliberately vague production timeline tied solely to trial outcomes rather than fixed dates. These problems mirror those in the Ajax programme and broader armoured procurement failures, highlighting systemic inefficiencies. Compared to Germany’s expansion of Leopard 2 production and Poland’s massive acquisitions, the UK’s upgrade strategy appears shortsighted, potentially leaving it with an obsolescent force. To rectify this, the MoD should reconsider off-the-shelf procurements, fostering greater interoperability and industrial vitality. Ultimately, in a volatile security landscape, the UK must prioritise bold modernisation to maintain its armoured credibility. Tough and unpopular choices may lie ahead - that’s what leadership is all about https://x.com/MtarfaL/status/2005636292281856023
On top of all these caveats, I'd add that in the context of the massive European tank orders, the UK has no pressing requirement for an MBT upgrade (of already dubious utility) anyway.
We'd be better off spending the money to either help sort out the Ajax debacle, or put towards its replacement.
We might donate more Challenger hulls to Ukraine, but the British army just isn't going to deploy them anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Which is the best performing part of the British armed forces at the moment?
I've heard of problems with the RAF Typhoons. That the Navy has trouble keeping the attack submarines at sea.
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
Still no peerage for me for services to political blogging.
You don't want a peerage. There's at least a presumed expectation to actually show up occasionally to legislate, though the government of the day then yells at you if you do it when they don't like it (and plenty ignore it). An honour opens doors with the right crowd and comes with no expectatiosn at all.
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
Did you hear Emily Thornberry speaking today? She was infuriating as usual.
Still no peerage for me for services to political blogging.
You don't want a peerage. There's at least a presumed expectation to actually show up occasionally to legislate, though the government of the day then yells at you if you do it when they don't like it (and plenty ignore it). An honour opens doors with the right crowd and comes with no expectatiosn at all.
Costs less to procure as well.
I can see the 'fun' when I turn up to vote to remove benefits from the poor whilst wearing a £550 Turnbull & Asser shirt, £6,000 bespoke suit, £1,400 loafers, and a £12,000 watch.
The politics of envy is grim in this country (and that's with me slumming it.)
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
You are proposing policies which have made Trump's US an object of mockery and contempt.
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
You would honestly like to create a precedent that could see you stripped of your citizenship by a minister you had upset due to offensive tweets written more than a decade ago?
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
I really do not see what is 'white liberal suicidal empathy' about the idea of not rescinding citizenship because of horrible words.
It's not empathy for him that I have in the least, it's my rights I'm concerned about. The 'solution' is to tighten the rules for citizenship so the situation would not reoccur.
This 'burn the whole thing down' kind of attitude plays well online, and indeed many people in real life find it attractive too, but it's just bloody juvenille to act like a concern for rules is some kind of suicidal empathy.
If rules are bad then change them for the future, don't whinge how they should be ignored because the bad man is bad anyone not on board with lighting a match has some kind of racial deathwish.
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
You would honestly like to create a precedent that could see you stripped of your citizenship by a minister you had upset due to offensive tweets written more than a decade ago?
Have you completely lost all sense of proportion?
One of the first actions of my UnDictatorship, will the mass revocation of citizenship among the #NU10K.
This will not be based on them meriting it. But more upon the principles of Leto II - make sure they get rid of such arbitrary laws for next few centuries.
Think of it as Tough Love applied to political education.
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
You are proposing policies which have made Trump's US an object of mockery and contempt.
It's fuck all to do with "suicidal empathy".
He lost all sense of proportion during the summer when he was desperate to blame the Minnesota shootings on a Democratic Party shooter because that's what he was told which was an odd theory being promoted by Musk's minions.
Can you imagine the constant calls there will be for stripping citizenship from the likes of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson or all manner of people if such a precedent is established. It will be unrelenting. And it won't stop there.
Still no peerage for me for services to political blogging.
You don't want a peerage. There's at least a presumed expectation to actually show up occasionally to legislate, though the government of the day then yells at you if you do it when they don't like it (and plenty ignore it). An honour opens doors with the right crowd and comes with no expectatiosn at all.
Costs less to procure as well.
I can see the 'fun' when I turn up to vote to remove benefits from the poor whilst wearing a £550 Turnbull & Asser shirt, £6,000 bespoke suit, £1,400 loafers, and a £12,000 watch.
The politics of envy is grim in this country (and that's with me slumming it.)
I hope you have the cost of that suit pinned to the front, as I'm sorry to tell you that people cannot tell the difference between a £2000 suit and a £6000 suit (and if someone says otherwise they are a liar or someone trying to sell a £6000 suit) so the poor might miss the scale of the burn otherwise.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
Jenrick or Fattah ?
In either case, they're pretty nasty individuals, but just no.
If we can't cope with crappy political debates without resorting to ostracism, then we are lost as a well functioning democracy.
I'm not sure ostracism is the right word. El-Fattah is not in any meaningful sense a member of the British political community. He's a foreign activist who happens to have acquired British citizenship based on a technicality.
Are you really a moron? His Mother is English. That makes him English. He has no dual nationality
Wrong on 2 counts, plus it's British/UK not English. Now, about your question...
Still no peerage for me for services to political blogging.
You don't want a peerage. There's at least a presumed expectation to actually show up occasionally to legislate, though the government of the day then yells at you if you do it when they don't like it (and plenty ignore it). An honour opens doors with the right crowd and comes with no expectatiosn at all.
Costs less to procure as well.
I can see the 'fun' when I turn up to vote to remove benefits from the poor whilst wearing a £550 Turnbull & Asser shirt, £6,000 bespoke suit, £1,400 loafers, and a £12,000 watch.
The politics of envy is grim in this country (and that's with me slumming it.)
I hope you have the cost of that suit pinned to the front, as I'm sorry to tell you that people cannot tell the difference between a £2000 suit and a £6000 suit (and if someone says otherwise they are a liar or someone trying to sell a £6000 suit) so the poor might miss the scale of the burn otherwise.
You wouldn't want to pin it to the suit. Imagine the cost of the damage you'd do. I could knit him some fluorescent sweatbands to display the price on.
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
You would honestly like to create a precedent that could see you stripped of your citizenship by a minister you had upset due to offensive tweets written more than a decade ago?
Have you completely lost all sense of proportion?
The emphasis on white makes me think this is a case of the unfortunate 2025 trend of trying to racialise politics more, which appears to be causing some ructions online.
And I've always said it was not racist to want to stop the boats or put in restrictions on immigration (though I'm also not very affected by either issue), so I'm not one of those 'fools'.
Still no peerage for me for services to political blogging.
You don't want a peerage. There's at least a presumed expectation to actually show up occasionally to legislate, though the government of the day then yells at you if you do it when they don't like it (and plenty ignore it). An honour opens doors with the right crowd and comes with no expectatiosn at all.
Costs less to procure as well.
I can see the 'fun' when I turn up to vote to remove benefits from the poor whilst wearing a £550 Turnbull & Asser shirt, £6,000 bespoke suit, £1,400 loafers, and a £12,000 watch.
The politics of envy is grim in this country (and that's with me slumming it.)
I hope you have the cost of that suit pinned to the front, as I'm sorry to tell you that people cannot tell the difference between a £2000 suit and a £6000 suit (and if someone says otherwise they are a liar or someone trying to sell a £6000 suit) so the poor might miss the scale of the burn otherwise.
It’s that old suit faux pas of not removing that small label on the jacket wrist.
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
You would honestly like to create a precedent that could see you stripped of your citizenship by a minister you had upset due to offensive tweets written more than a decade ago?
Have you completely lost all sense of proportion?
One of the first actions of my UnDictatorship, will the mass revocation of citizenship among the #NU10K.
This will not be based on them meriting it. But more upon the principles of Leto II - make sure they get rid of such arbitrary laws for next few centuries.
Think of it as Tough Love applied to political education.
Leto had some advantages when it came to long term policy planning which are hard to replicate.
Can you imagine the constant calls there will be for stripping citizenship from the likes of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson or all manner of people if such a precedent is established. It will be unrelenting. And it won't stop there.
Surely there is a sliding scale when it comes to what is tolerable when calling for citizenship to be stripped? This fellow wasn’t granted citizenship until he was in his 40s, and allegedly hadn’t stepped foot in the UK until Friday
We got him out of prison, now he can say thanks and fuck off
Still no peerage for me for services to political blogging.
You don't want a peerage. There's at least a presumed expectation to actually show up occasionally to legislate, though the government of the day then yells at you if you do it when they don't like it (and plenty ignore it). An honour opens doors with the right crowd and comes with no expectatiosn at all.
Costs less to procure as well.
I can see the 'fun' when I turn up to vote to remove benefits from the poor whilst wearing a £550 Turnbull & Asser shirt, £6,000 bespoke suit, £1,400 loafers, and a £12,000 watch.
The politics of envy is grim in this country (and that's with me slumming it.)
Conclusion from a good thread on the Challenger upgrade
25/25 The British Army’s efforts to introduce the Challenger 3 are hampered by weight issues, turret integration challenges, component omissions, track supply concerns, the makeshift reactivation of stored vehicles, and now a deliberately vague production timeline tied solely to trial outcomes rather than fixed dates. These problems mirror those in the Ajax programme and broader armoured procurement failures, highlighting systemic inefficiencies. Compared to Germany’s expansion of Leopard 2 production and Poland’s massive acquisitions, the UK’s upgrade strategy appears shortsighted, potentially leaving it with an obsolescent force. To rectify this, the MoD should reconsider off-the-shelf procurements, fostering greater interoperability and industrial vitality. Ultimately, in a volatile security landscape, the UK must prioritise bold modernisation to maintain its armoured credibility. Tough and unpopular choices may lie ahead - that’s what leadership is all about https://x.com/MtarfaL/status/2005636292281856023
On top of all these caveats, I'd add that in the context of the massive European tank orders, the UK has no pressing requirement for an MBT upgrade (of already dubious utility) anyway.
We'd be better off spending the money to either help sort out the Ajax debacle, or put towards its replacement.
We might donate more Challenger hulls to Ukraine, but the British army just isn't going to deploy them anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Which is the best performing part of the British armed forces at the moment?
I've heard of problems with the RAF Typhoons. That the Navy has trouble keeping the attack submarines at sea.
Can you imagine the constant calls there will be for stripping citizenship from the likes of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson or all manner of people if such a precedent is established. It will be unrelenting. And it won't stop there.
It’s already here. The egg is hatching.
The government is thinking of banning all “non-approved” VPNs. They are the heirs to Blair - who wanted to lock up, indefinitely, people who were The Wrong Kind Of Muslamic*
They, and their successors, will use it and other arbitrary powers. Because the courts are too slow and give the wrong result.
The power to revoke citizenship, arbitrarily, was always a disgrace. See the usage of it by the Thirty Tyrants in Ancient Athens.
We’ve come a long way from Churchill’s Britain, where German spies were given full jury trials, despite the risk to Ultra. Or Thatcher’s Britain, where the suggestion of removing unemployment benefit from convicted PIRA terrorists was crossed off the list as absurd and immoral.
*as define by “secret intelligence” that couldn’t be shared with anyone, let alone the courts.
Conclusion from a good thread on the Challenger upgrade
25/25 The British Army’s efforts to introduce the Challenger 3 are hampered by weight issues, turret integration challenges, component omissions, track supply concerns, the makeshift reactivation of stored vehicles, and now a deliberately vague production timeline tied solely to trial outcomes rather than fixed dates. These problems mirror those in the Ajax programme and broader armoured procurement failures, highlighting systemic inefficiencies. Compared to Germany’s expansion of Leopard 2 production and Poland’s massive acquisitions, the UK’s upgrade strategy appears shortsighted, potentially leaving it with an obsolescent force. To rectify this, the MoD should reconsider off-the-shelf procurements, fostering greater interoperability and industrial vitality. Ultimately, in a volatile security landscape, the UK must prioritise bold modernisation to maintain its armoured credibility. Tough and unpopular choices may lie ahead - that’s what leadership is all about https://x.com/MtarfaL/status/2005636292281856023
On top of all these caveats, I'd add that in the context of the massive European tank orders, the UK has no pressing requirement for an MBT upgrade (of already dubious utility) anyway.
We'd be better off spending the money to either help sort out the Ajax debacle, or put towards its replacement.
We might donate more Challenger hulls to Ukraine, but the British army just isn't going to deploy them anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Which is the best performing part of the British armed forces at the moment?
I've heard of problems with the RAF Typhoons. That the Navy has trouble keeping the attack submarines at sea.
Is there any part of it that can be relied on?
Probably the Royal Navy. The "D" destroyers are being repaired, the Type 31s are proceeding nicely. But of remaining concern is the carriers: underdefended, not sufficient supply/maintenance vessels to form a carrier group without allies, projects like Ark Royal and Vixen have dribbled into the sand without results. Plus if our next war is the defence of the Baltic States whilst the Americans fuck off, goodness knows what the carriers will do.
The Army's travails are well known. I don't know what the RAF is planning and I don't really care, since I don't know what they can do that will help: provide air cover while we evacuate the Baltic governments probably.
I'm not best pleased about any of this, as you can tell.
Still no peerage for me for services to political blogging.
You don't want a peerage. There's at least a presumed expectation to actually show up occasionally to legislate, though the government of the day then yells at you if you do it when they don't like it (and plenty ignore it). An honour opens doors with the right crowd and comes with no expectatiosn at all.
Costs less to procure as well.
I can see the 'fun' when I turn up to vote to remove benefits from the poor whilst wearing a £550 Turnbull & Asser shirt, £6,000 bespoke suit, £1,400 loafers, and a £12,000 watch.
The politics of envy is grim in this country (and that's with me slumming it.)
Given you are more likely to get a peerage from Davey than Kemi you won't be able to do that anyway
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
You would honestly like to create a precedent that could see you stripped of your citizenship by a minister you had upset due to offensive tweets written more than a decade ago?
Have you completely lost all sense of proportion?
Reversing the decision to award citizenship, not stripping it. The government should never have given him citizenship in the first place and they should still reverse that decision. British citizenship is a privilege for people who aren't born with it and need to be naturalised or apply otherwise. We can and should have refused on multiple occasions and now that a clearly incorrect decision was made it should be reversed and his naturalisation certificate should be burned before delivery.
Quite simply whatever has taken place here is not in the interests of this nation and the millions of law abiding citizens, it should be reversed and the government should apologise to the voters for letting it get this far and Kemi needs to clean house of any Tory MP in the shadow cabinet that enabled it.
This is suicidal empathy. We have given citizenship to someone who hates British people, is an antisemite and supports terrorists. This man brings nothing to the table, in fact he's a severe detractor and fixing a mistake is by far the better course than living with it.
Labour are constantly proving that they aren't on the side of law abiding citizens of this country. Once again they've put themselves on the wrong side of the argument and I can't wait until they get absolutely obliterated at the next election.
Can you imagine the constant calls there will be for stripping citizenship from the likes of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson or all manner of people if such a precedent is established. It will be unrelenting. And it won't stop there.
Surely there is a sliding scale when it comes to what is tolerable when calling for citizenship to be stripped? This fellow wasn’t granted citizenship until he was in his 40s, and allegedly hadn’t stepped foot in the UK until Friday
We got him out of prison, now he can say thanks and fuck off
Citizenship is kind of all or nothing, which is why it should not be granted foolishly, because the state takes on a lot of obligations which it cannot easily resile from without implying tiered citizenship or undermining the meaningfulness of the citizenship for all. The connection in this case seems pretty tenuous.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
He had to apply for it, and there is a Fit and Proper test which is supposed to be assessed.
I am not calling for the revocation of his citizenship, I don’t believe in that (nor for Shamima Begum). But the quid pro quo is that I expect authorities to take reasonable, UK-protecting, precaution when granting nationality, expel ally in what are after all modestly tenuous circumstances.
The man has never been to been the UK, so far as I can tell.
No character test for a s4C application, which this was:
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
But where would Jenrick end up? There’s no real place called Hypocrisy where Hypocrites can be citizens.
The government could set up a Royal commission for the investigation of historical tweets and remove from the country all those whose social media posts could be described as grossly offensive. When the number of deportees reaches the ten million mark which should happen reasonably quickly we can have a rethink.
Still no peerage for me for services to political blogging.
You don't want a peerage. There's at least a presumed expectation to actually show up occasionally to legislate, though the government of the day then yells at you if you do it when they don't like it (and plenty ignore it). An honour opens doors with the right crowd and comes with no expectatiosn at all.
Costs less to procure as well.
I can see the 'fun' when I turn up to vote to remove benefits from the poor whilst wearing a £550 Turnbull & Asser shirt, £6,000 bespoke suit, £1,400 loafers, and a £12,000 watch.
The politics of envy is grim in this country (and that's with me slumming it.)
I hope you have the cost of that suit pinned to the front, as I'm sorry to tell you that people cannot tell the difference between a £2000 suit and a £6000 suit (and if someone says otherwise they are a liar or someone trying to sell a £6000 suit) so the poor might miss the scale of the burn otherwise.
It’s that old suit faux pas of not removing that small label on the jacket wrist.
When I was quite young, I had a Turnbull & Asser suit. A friend, who was on the charity shop diving habit found it for me - £20… purely by accident it fitted me perfectly.
When I wore it to work it was stared at by some of the more senior people. A couple complimented me on it. One asked why I bothered - “since all the youngsters are wearing M&S suits”.
Some people can tell - they were getting the tailor right without seeing a label.
Can you imagine the constant calls there will be for stripping citizenship from the likes of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson or all manner of people if such a precedent is established. It will be unrelenting. And it won't stop there.
Surely there is a sliding scale when it comes to what is tolerable when calling for citizenship to be stripped? This fellow wasn’t granted citizenship until he was in his 40s, and allegedly hadn’t stepped foot in the UK until Friday
We got him out of prison, now he can say thanks and fuck off
Pretty much everything is on a scale - most categorical divisions are (useful) human constructs.
The status quo is that Britain is willing to strip citizenship from someone who travels abroad to join a jihadi group and actively participates in serious acts of violence.
The proposal is to extend that down the scale to include stripping citizenship from people for words they have written on Twitter that advocate for violence.
I don't think it's that much further at all to take that down the scale to strip citizenship from someone like Katie Hopkins for the things she has said in the past on social media.
At the same time as el-Fattah is apologising ‘unequivocally’, over on Arabic Facebook he is liking posts claiming he’s just the victim of a 'Zionist campaign'.
Get this disgusting man out of our country now.
But where would Jenrick end up? There’s no real place called Hypocrisy where Hypocrites can be citizens.
The government could set up a Royal commission for the investigation of historical tweets and remove from the country all those whose social media posts could be described as grossly offensive. When the number of deportees reaches the ten million mark which should happen reasonably quickly we can have a rethink.
Start by exiling all the supporters of Weinstein, Roman Polanski etc to France.
A 101-year-old D-Day veteran awarded a British Empire Medal has said Britain today is "disappointing" and that the country risked repeating mistakes made before World War Two...
He said his efforts to speak about the Holocaust "do not always work", telling of his concerns about rising antisemitism in the UK.
"What's disappointing is the antisemitism that I see everywhere, hear everywhere, or read," he said.
Can you imagine the constant calls there will be for stripping citizenship from the likes of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson or all manner of people if such a precedent is established. It will be unrelenting. And it won't stop there.
It’s already here. The egg is hatching.
The government is thinking of banning all “non-approved” VPNs. They are the heirs to Blair - who wanted to lock up, indefinitely, people who were The Wrong Kind Of Muslamic*
They, and their successors, will use it and other arbitrary powers. Because the courts are too slow and give the wrong result.
The power to revoke citizenship, arbitrarily, was always a disgrace. See the usage of it by the Thirty Tyrants in Ancient Athens.
We’ve come a long way from Churchill’s Britain, where German spies were given full jury trials, despite the risk to Ultra. Or Thatcher’s Britain, where the suggestion of removing unemployment benefit from convicted PIRA terrorists was crossed off the list as absurd and immoral.
*as define by “secret intelligence” that couldn’t be shared with anyone, let alone the courts.
Britain's Parliament used to vote every year to renew exceptional anti-terrorism powers, because there was the declared intent that they should be temporary, and only used as long as necessary.
It's been a long journey and it feels like it is speeding up.
Can you imagine the constant calls there will be for stripping citizenship from the likes of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson or all manner of people if such a precedent is established. It will be unrelenting. And it won't stop there.
Surely there is a sliding scale when it comes to what is tolerable when calling for citizenship to be stripped? This fellow wasn’t granted citizenship until he was in his 40s, and allegedly hadn’t stepped foot in the UK until Friday
We got him out of prison, now he can say thanks and fuck off
Pretty much everything is on a scale - most categorical divisions are (useful) human constructs.
The status quo is that Britain is willing to strip citizenship from someone who travels abroad to join a jihadi group and actively participates in serious acts of violence.
The proposal is to extend that down the scale to include stripping citizenship from people for words they have written on Twitter that advocate for violence.
I don't think it's that much further at all to take that down the scale to strip citizenship from someone like Katie Hopkins for the things she has said in the past on social media.
The man in question wasn’t even a British citizen when he typed the words written on Twitter! It’s completely different from Shamima Begum, who was born and raised here and, despite her treachery, is British. This bloke is about as British as Tony Cascarino is Irish!
Conclusion from a good thread on the Challenger upgrade
25/25 The British Army’s efforts to introduce the Challenger 3 are hampered by weight issues, turret integration challenges, component omissions, track supply concerns, the makeshift reactivation of stored vehicles, and now a deliberately vague production timeline tied solely to trial outcomes rather than fixed dates. These problems mirror those in the Ajax programme and broader armoured procurement failures, highlighting systemic inefficiencies. Compared to Germany’s expansion of Leopard 2 production and Poland’s massive acquisitions, the UK’s upgrade strategy appears shortsighted, potentially leaving it with an obsolescent force. To rectify this, the MoD should reconsider off-the-shelf procurements, fostering greater interoperability and industrial vitality. Ultimately, in a volatile security landscape, the UK must prioritise bold modernisation to maintain its armoured credibility. Tough and unpopular choices may lie ahead - that’s what leadership is all about https://x.com/MtarfaL/status/2005636292281856023
On top of all these caveats, I'd add that in the context of the massive European tank orders, the UK has no pressing requirement for an MBT upgrade (of already dubious utility) anyway.
We'd be better off spending the money to either help sort out the Ajax debacle, or put towards its replacement.
We might donate more Challenger hulls to Ukraine, but the British army just isn't going to deploy them anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Which is the best performing part of the British armed forces at the moment?
I've heard of problems with the RAF Typhoons. That the Navy has trouble keeping the attack submarines at sea.
Is there any part of it that can be relied on?
Probably the Royal Navy. The "D" destroyers are being repaired, the Type 31s are proceeding nicely. But of remaining concern is the carriers: underdefended, not sufficient supply/maintenance vessels to form a carrier group without allies, projects like Ark Royal and Vixen have dribbled into the sand without results. Plus if our next war is the defence of the Baltic States whilst the Americans fuck off, goodness knows what the carriers will do.
The Army's travails are well known. I don't know what the RAF is planning and I don't really care, since I don't know what they can do that will help: provide air cover while we evacuate the Baltic governments probably.
I'm not best pleased about any of this, as you can tell.
The RAF is, as far as I can tell, our best chance of avoiding being dragged into an endless meatgrinder, of it does come to war with Russia. But I fear that we've relied on the Americans to do all the most difficult and important bits (airborne early warning, suppression/destruction of enemy air defence)
Conclusion from a good thread on the Challenger upgrade
25/25 The British Army’s efforts to introduce the Challenger 3 are hampered by weight issues, turret integration challenges, component omissions, track supply concerns, the makeshift reactivation of stored vehicles, and now a deliberately vague production timeline tied solely to trial outcomes rather than fixed dates. These problems mirror those in the Ajax programme and broader armoured procurement failures, highlighting systemic inefficiencies. Compared to Germany’s expansion of Leopard 2 production and Poland’s massive acquisitions, the UK’s upgrade strategy appears shortsighted, potentially leaving it with an obsolescent force. To rectify this, the MoD should reconsider off-the-shelf procurements, fostering greater interoperability and industrial vitality. Ultimately, in a volatile security landscape, the UK must prioritise bold modernisation to maintain its armoured credibility. Tough and unpopular choices may lie ahead - that’s what leadership is all about https://x.com/MtarfaL/status/2005636292281856023
On top of all these caveats, I'd add that in the context of the massive European tank orders, the UK has no pressing requirement for an MBT upgrade (of already dubious utility) anyway.
We'd be better off spending the money to either help sort out the Ajax debacle, or put towards its replacement.
We might donate more Challenger hulls to Ukraine, but the British army just isn't going to deploy them anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Which is the best performing part of the British armed forces at the moment?
I've heard of problems with the RAF Typhoons. That the Navy has trouble keeping the attack submarines at sea.
Is there any part of it that can be relied on?
Probably the Royal Navy. The "D" destroyers are being repaired, the Type 31s are proceeding nicely. But of remaining concern is the carriers: underdefended, not sufficient supply/maintenance vessels to form a carrier group without allies, projects like Ark Royal and Vixen have dribbled into the sand without results. Plus if our next war is the defence of the Baltic States whilst the Americans fuck off, goodness knows what the carriers will do.
The Army's travails are well known. I don't know what the RAF is planning and I don't really care, since I don't know what they can do that will help: provide air cover while we evacuate the Baltic governments probably.
I'm not best pleased about any of this, as you can tell.
What's this mad "Baltic War" you've imagined? Russia currently gains about 400-500km2 / month in the SMO. How fucking long do you think it's going to take them to get to Daugavpils?
Fuck the "principle" the right thing to do by British people is to rescind his citizenship and send him back to Egypt before they can take Egyptian citizenship away.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
You would honestly like to create a precedent that could see you stripped of your citizenship by a minister you had upset due to offensive tweets written more than a decade ago?
Have you completely lost all sense of proportion?
Reversing the decision to award citizenship, not stripping it. The government should never have given him citizenship in the first place and they should still reverse that decision. British citizenship is a privilege for people who aren't born with it and need to be naturalised or apply otherwise. We can and should have refused on multiple occasions and now that a clearly incorrect decision was made it should be reversed and his naturalisation certificate should be burned before delivery.
Is that a real difference, or only a rhetorical one?
Still no peerage for me for services to political blogging.
You don't want a peerage. There's at least a presumed expectation to actually show up occasionally to legislate, though the government of the day then yells at you if you do it when they don't like it (and plenty ignore it). An honour opens doors with the right crowd and comes with no expectatiosn at all.
Costs less to procure as well.
I can see the 'fun' when I turn up to vote to remove benefits from the poor whilst wearing a £550 Turnbull & Asser shirt, £6,000 bespoke suit, £1,400 loafers, and a £12,000 watch.
The politics of envy is grim in this country (and that's with me slumming it.)
I hope you have the cost of that suit pinned to the front, as I'm sorry to tell you that people cannot tell the difference between a £2000 suit and a £6000 suit (and if someone says otherwise they are a liar or someone trying to sell a £6000 suit) so the poor might miss the scale of the burn otherwise.
It’s that old suit faux pas of not removing that small label on the jacket wrist.
When I was quite young, I had a Turnbull & Asser suit. A friend, who was on the charity shop diving habit found it for me - £20… purely by accident it fitted me perfectly.
When I wore it to work it was stared at by some of the more senior people. A couple complimented me on it. One asked why I bothered - “since all the youngsters are wearing M&S suits”.
Some people can tell - they were getting the tailor right without seeing a label.
Wake up, babe. The new Malmesbury anecdote just dropped and it's a banger.
Can you imagine the constant calls there will be for stripping citizenship from the likes of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson or all manner of people if such a precedent is established. It will be unrelenting. And it won't stop there.
Surely there is a sliding scale when it comes to what is tolerable when calling for citizenship to be stripped? This fellow wasn’t granted citizenship until he was in his 40s, and allegedly hadn’t stepped foot in the UK until Friday
We got him out of prison, now he can say thanks and fuck off
Pretty much everything is on a scale - most categorical divisions are (useful) human constructs.
The status quo is that Britain is willing to strip citizenship from someone who travels abroad to join a jihadi group and actively participates in serious acts of violence.
The proposal is to extend that down the scale to include stripping citizenship from people for words they have written on Twitter that advocate for violence.
I don't think it's that much further at all to take that down the scale to strip citizenship from someone like Katie Hopkins for the things she has said in the past on social media.
The man in question wasn’t even a British citizen when he typed the words written on Twitter! It’s completely different from Shamima Begum, who was born and raised here and, despite her treachery, is British. This bloke is about as British as Tony Cascarino is Irish!
So you're proposing to give everyone a percentage British score then? And apply different rules at different thresholds?
One of my grandparents was an Austrian Jew - a refugee no less - so presumably I don't score the full 100%. Do I lose a percentage point every year that I am resident in Ireland? Can I buy percentage points back by making a contribution to HMRC?
"When Mamdani walked into the Oval Office an hour later, Trump remarked, “Wow, you are even better looking in person than you are on TV.” The tone never changed from there, with Trump seeming legitimately impressed by Mamdani"
Still no peerage for me for services to political blogging.
You don't want a peerage. There's at least a presumed expectation to actually show up occasionally to legislate, though the government of the day then yells at you if you do it when they don't like it (and plenty ignore it). An honour opens doors with the right crowd and comes with no expectatiosn at all.
Costs less to procure as well.
I can see the 'fun' when I turn up to vote to remove benefits from the poor whilst wearing a £550 Turnbull & Asser shirt, £6,000 bespoke suit, £1,400 loafers, and a £12,000 watch.
The politics of envy is grim in this country (and that's with me slumming it.)
I hope you have the cost of that suit pinned to the front, as I'm sorry to tell you that people cannot tell the difference between a £2000 suit and a £6000 suit (and if someone says otherwise they are a liar or someone trying to sell a £6000 suit) so the poor might miss the scale of the burn otherwise.
It’s that old suit faux pas of not removing that small label on the jacket wrist.
There was a time in the early 2000s when this was a sort of fashion amongst the young.
Doing up the bottom button is a vastly more common faux pas.
Can you imagine the constant calls there will be for stripping citizenship from the likes of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson or all manner of people if such a precedent is established. It will be unrelenting. And it won't stop there.
It’s already here. The egg is hatching.
The government is thinking of banning all “non-approved” VPNs. They are the heirs to Blair - who wanted to lock up, indefinitely, people who were The Wrong Kind Of Muslamic*
They, and their successors, will use it and other arbitrary powers. Because the courts are too slow and give the wrong result.
The power to revoke citizenship, arbitrarily, was always a disgrace. See the usage of it by the Thirty Tyrants in Ancient Athens.
We’ve come a long way from Churchill’s Britain, where German spies were given full jury trials, despite the risk to Ultra. Or Thatcher’s Britain, where the suggestion of removing unemployment benefit from convicted PIRA terrorists was crossed off the list as absurd and immoral.
*as define by “secret intelligence” that couldn’t be shared with anyone, let alone the courts.
Britain's Parliament used to vote every year to renew exceptional anti-terrorism powers, because there was the declared intent that they should be temporary, and only used as long as necessary.
It's been a long journey and it feels like it is speeding up.
Yes, I think it is.
I think that, whatever comes after the next election, we may well see arbitrary government.
By Commons majority - but striped of all restraint. Primary legislation, procedure removed - all committees with government majorities etc.
Mr Abd El-Fattah is busy deleting his old tweets where he calls for the murder and rape of Jews and white people etc.
If he done that just a week ago, none of this might even have come out.
I do find it the craziest of cases.
Nobody - not MPs, not the Home Office, not the Foreign Office, not the NGOs, not the celebrities - seem to have actually CHECKED whether the guy was a psychotic nutter or not.
Also, someone apparently waived the necessity of his attending a consular centre to provide proof of identity in order to get the citizenship. Currently the evidence points to Priti Patel.
Was he not, under the prevailing law at the time, simply entitled to citizenship as his mother was a citizen ? The guy is at the shitty end of the spectrum, but the bar for revoking citizenship is rightly an extremely high one.
I don't get the debate over this. It seems largely performative.
He had to apply for it, and there is a Fit and Proper test which is supposed to be assessed.
I am not calling for the revocation of his citizenship, I don’t believe in that (nor for Shamima Begum). But the quid pro quo is that I expect authorities to take reasonable, UK-protecting, precaution when granting nationality, expel ally in what are after all modestly tenuous circumstances.
The man has never been to been the UK, so far as I can tell.
No character test for a s4C application, which this was:
Can you imagine the constant calls there will be for stripping citizenship from the likes of Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson or all manner of people if such a precedent is established. It will be unrelenting. And it won't stop there.
It’s already here. The egg is hatching.
The government is thinking of banning all “non-approved” VPNs. They are the heirs to Blair - who wanted to lock up, indefinitely, people who were The Wrong Kind Of Muslamic*
They, and their successors, will use it and other arbitrary powers. Because the courts are too slow and give the wrong result.
The power to revoke citizenship, arbitrarily, was always a disgrace. See the usage of it by the Thirty Tyrants in Ancient Athens.
We’ve come a long way from Churchill’s Britain, where German spies were given full jury trials, despite the risk to Ultra. Or Thatcher’s Britain, where the suggestion of removing unemployment benefit from convicted PIRA terrorists was crossed off the list as absurd and immoral.
*as define by “secret intelligence” that couldn’t be shared with anyone, let alone the courts.
Britain's Parliament used to vote every year to renew exceptional anti-terrorism powers, because there was the declared intent that they should be temporary, and only used as long as necessary.
It's been a long journey and it feels like it is speeding up.
Yes, I think it is.
I think that, whatever comes after the next election, we may well see arbitrary government.
By Commons majority - but striped of all restraint. Primary legislation, procedure removed - all committees with government majorities etc.
It will make the shit show in America look tame.
Yup. That seems credible to me. And on a much smaller share of the vote than Trump received too.
Conclusion from a good thread on the Challenger upgrade
25/25 The British Army’s efforts to introduce the Challenger 3 are hampered by weight issues, turret integration challenges, component omissions, track supply concerns, the makeshift reactivation of stored vehicles, and now a deliberately vague production timeline tied solely to trial outcomes rather than fixed dates. These problems mirror those in the Ajax programme and broader armoured procurement failures, highlighting systemic inefficiencies. Compared to Germany’s expansion of Leopard 2 production and Poland’s massive acquisitions, the UK’s upgrade strategy appears shortsighted, potentially leaving it with an obsolescent force. To rectify this, the MoD should reconsider off-the-shelf procurements, fostering greater interoperability and industrial vitality. Ultimately, in a volatile security landscape, the UK must prioritise bold modernisation to maintain its armoured credibility. Tough and unpopular choices may lie ahead - that’s what leadership is all about https://x.com/MtarfaL/status/2005636292281856023
On top of all these caveats, I'd add that in the context of the massive European tank orders, the UK has no pressing requirement for an MBT upgrade (of already dubious utility) anyway.
We'd be better off spending the money to either help sort out the Ajax debacle, or put towards its replacement.
We might donate more Challenger hulls to Ukraine, but the British army just isn't going to deploy them anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Which is the best performing part of the British armed forces at the moment?
I've heard of problems with the RAF Typhoons. That the Navy has trouble keeping the attack submarines at sea.
Is there any part of it that can be relied on?
Probably the Royal Navy. The "D" destroyers are being repaired, the Type 31s are proceeding nicely. But of remaining concern is the carriers: underdefended, not sufficient supply/maintenance vessels to form a carrier group without allies, projects like Ark Royal and Vixen have dribbled into the sand without results. Plus if our next war is the defence of the Baltic States whilst the Americans fuck off, goodness knows what the carriers will do.
The Army's travails are well known. I don't know what the RAF is planning and I don't really care, since I don't know what they can do that will help: provide air cover while we evacuate the Baltic governments probably.
I'm not best pleased about any of this, as you can tell.
What's this mad "Baltic War" you've imagined? Russia currently gains about 400-500km2 / month in the SMO. How fucking long do you think it's going to take them to get to Daugavpils?
Comments
Britain decided in the 1980s to do away with birth-right citizenship, presumably because there was concern over people taking holidays to Britain to give birth here and gain British citizenship for their children.
If you don't have citizenship by birth within the country then you pretty much have to grant citizenship by descent. I don't know how you would do it if you decided that neither was the basis for citizenship. How would that work?
I’m staggered some are brushing this off as “performative”.
The UK state is a self-harming fraud upon the British people, is what it looks like.
I found part of the problem in the media reporting on the finale of the Begum case was an understandable reliance on moral arguments rather than what the legal ruling was, and whilst moral arguments are very useful things, they can sometimes be a distraction from them getting the right people (eg MPs) to then focus on what legally needs to change to make a system better.
... that we then won't be able to beat their descendants in Cricket.
https://www.legalcheek.com/2023/03/cab-rank-rule-a-myth-peddled-by-the-bar-says-retired-judge/
However. The man should never have been given British citizenship in the first place, and second had no automatic right to consular services, and third the government were absolute retards to tweet ecstatically about it on Boxing Day.
Sometimes a mistake cannot be simply cancelled out, without creating a bigger mess.
The calls for stripping feel like a 'something must be done' logic overriding any other considerations.
"You suggest that barristers refusing to prosecute climate protesters may be in breach of the “cab rank” rule (Top lawyers defy bar to declare they will not prosecute peaceful climate protesters, 24 March). Observance of this rule has always been optional. All a barrister need say to evade it is that they are too busy. In fact, it is a myth peddled by the bar to suggest that they have higher standards than solicitors and to frustrate reforms that might benefit solicitors.
When I was in private practice, one of my partners explained how the rule works: if a barrister does not want to do a case they will not do it, but if you pay them enough they will want to do it.
Alasdair Darroch
Retired circuit judge and former solicitor advocate"
We've been through this repeatedly.
There are numerous similarly shitty people who go well beyond you rhetorical crip packet invention.
Revocation of citizenship isn't something anyone has proposed (and nor should it be) for a Tommy Robinson, or a George Galloway, or even a Farage or a Jenrick.
"Of course this person needs to be booted out"
Really ?
Do you even realise what you are calling for ?
Personally I think the Begum case is wholly different and a stain on our reputation - she is the product of our society and we should take responsibility and bang her up for life in our prison system.
(OTOH, if they make a careeer out of taking the same such case repeatedly, then it might be fair game to judge them.
*Cough* Carter Ruck)
As above, strip citizenship from naturalised citizens if the crime is severe enough. Take full responsibility for those that are citizens by birth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_moonshine
And no, Citizens are citizens.
Anyway I thought we could disregard the opinions from lefty lawyers. What does a circuit judge and solicitor advocate know anyway?
These are evidenced suggestions.
Probably won't in those cases, so best to take care not to become paranoid (what was all that palaver a few years back fearmongering about 15 minute cities or whatever?), but bodies can treat suggestions and guidance pretty darn seriously.
In reality, you accept that there are some situations where government should tell people what they can and can't do. The question is when and what.
Two slight hiccups in his previous peace deal which were fucking obvious to anyone who gave it a moment's attention.
But he's now a citizen. Maybe his views will be modified by the efforts of those he has hated so much to get him released and transferred to a better life here. Maybe not, in which case the law should deal with him.
Ha!
https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/2005542703874863214
25/25 The British Army’s efforts to introduce the Challenger 3 are hampered by weight issues, turret integration challenges, component omissions, track supply concerns, the makeshift reactivation of stored vehicles, and now a deliberately vague production timeline tied solely to trial outcomes rather than fixed dates. These problems mirror those in the Ajax programme and broader armoured procurement failures, highlighting systemic inefficiencies. Compared to Germany’s expansion of Leopard 2 production and Poland’s massive acquisitions, the UK’s upgrade strategy appears shortsighted, potentially leaving it with an obsolescent force. To rectify this, the MoD should reconsider off-the-shelf procurements, fostering greater interoperability and industrial vitality.
Ultimately, in a volatile security landscape, the UK must prioritise bold modernisation to maintain its armoured credibility.
Tough and unpopular choices may lie ahead - that’s what leadership is all about
https://x.com/MtarfaL/status/2005636292281856023
On top of all these caveats, I'd add that in the context of the massive European tank orders, the UK has no pressing requirement for an MBT upgrade (of already dubious utility) anyway.
We'd be better off spending the money to either help sort out the Ajax debacle, or put towards its replacement.
We might donate more Challenger hulls to Ukraine, but the British army just isn't going to deploy them anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Do we see a fall in lead pollution in the inner city environment closely proportionate to the fall in crime stats 17 years later?
I've heard of problems with the RAF Typhoons. That the Navy has trouble keeping the attack submarines at sea.
Is there any part of it that can be relied on?
The reason I nearly joined the Foreign Office after university was for the gongs.
A GCMG, peerage, and the lifetime honorific 'Your Excellency' was what I was after but I realised I could make more money in the private sector.
The country is a laughing stock and this is the kind of white liberal suicidal empathy that is destroying the nation. The same fools who don't want to stop the boats and hold up "refugees" welcome signs have been pushing for this. The useless Tory government too scared of rocking the liberal boat and fighting the woke consensus allowed it to happen and the idiots in Labour completed the fooling endeavour and are now too stupid to undo it by rescinding the decision.
This is the kind of shit that make me want to vote Reform just to burn the whole liberal political consensus down, it clearly doesn't work for law abiding citizens anymore.
I said to Dave people see him as a toff, he should use it to his advantage.
Turn up to the one of the debates in a full morning suit, the rest will look like tramps, nobody will vote for the tramps.
Costs less to procure as well.
The politics of envy is grim in this country (and that's with me slumming it.)
It's fuck all to do with "suicidal empathy".
Have you completely lost all sense of proportion?
It's not empathy for him that I have in the least, it's my rights I'm concerned about. The 'solution' is to tighten the rules for citizenship so the situation would not reoccur.
This 'burn the whole thing down' kind of attitude plays well online, and indeed many people in real life find it attractive too, but it's just bloody juvenille to act like a concern for rules is some kind of suicidal empathy.
If rules are bad then change them for the future, don't whinge how they should be ignored because the bad man is bad anyone not on board with lighting a match has some kind of racial deathwish.
As @YvetteCooperMP sets out in her letter, the historic tweets by Alaa Abd El-Fattah are absolutely abhorrent.
With the rise of antisemitism, and recent horrific attacks, I know this has added to the distress of many in the Jewish community in the UK.
We are taking steps to review the information failures in this case.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2005714639196414123?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
This will not be based on them meriting it. But more upon the principles of Leto II - make sure they get rid of such arbitrary laws for next few centuries.
Think of it as Tough Love applied to political education.
And I've always said it was not racist to want to stop the boats or put in restrictions on immigration (though I'm also not very affected by either issue), so I'm not one of those 'fools'.
We got him out of prison, now he can say thanks and fuck off
The government is thinking of banning all “non-approved” VPNs. They are the heirs to Blair - who wanted to lock up, indefinitely, people who were The Wrong Kind Of Muslamic*
They, and their successors, will use it and other arbitrary powers. Because the courts are too slow and give the wrong result.
The power to revoke citizenship, arbitrarily, was always a disgrace. See the usage of it by the Thirty Tyrants in Ancient Athens.
We’ve come a long way from Churchill’s Britain, where German spies were given full jury trials, despite the risk to Ultra. Or Thatcher’s Britain, where the suggestion of removing unemployment benefit from convicted PIRA terrorists was crossed off the list as absurd and immoral.
*as define by “secret intelligence” that couldn’t be shared with anyone, let alone the courts.
The Army's travails are well known. I don't know what the RAF is planning and I don't really care, since I don't know what they can do that will help: provide air cover while we evacuate the Baltic governments probably.
I'm not best pleased about any of this, as you can tell.
Quite simply whatever has taken place here is not in the interests of this nation and the millions of law abiding citizens, it should be reversed and the government should apologise to the voters for letting it get this far and Kemi needs to clean house of any Tory MP in the shadow cabinet that enabled it.
This is suicidal empathy. We have given citizenship to someone who hates British people, is an antisemite and supports terrorists. This man brings nothing to the table, in fact he's a severe detractor and fixing a mistake is by far the better course than living with it.
Labour are constantly proving that they aren't on the side of law abiding citizens of this country. Once again they've put themselves on the wrong side of the argument and I can't wait until they get absolutely obliterated at the next election.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/41A
When I wore it to work it was stared at by some of the more senior people. A couple complimented me on it. One asked why I bothered - “since all the youngsters are wearing M&S suits”.
Some people can tell - they were getting the tailor right without seeing a label.
The status quo is that Britain is willing to strip citizenship from someone who travels abroad to join a jihadi group and actively participates in serious acts of violence.
The proposal is to extend that down the scale to include stripping citizenship from people for words they have written on Twitter that advocate for violence.
I don't think it's that much further at all to take that down the scale to strip citizenship from someone like Katie Hopkins for the things she has said in the past on social media.
A 101-year-old D-Day veteran awarded a British Empire Medal has said Britain today is "disappointing" and that the country risked repeating mistakes made before World War Two...
He said his efforts to speak about the Holocaust "do not always work", telling of his concerns about rising antisemitism in the UK.
"What's disappointing is the antisemitism that I see everywhere, hear everywhere, or read," he said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cedxd266gwvo
It's been a long journey and it feels like it is speeding up.
One of my grandparents was an Austrian Jew - a refugee no less - so presumably I don't score the full 100%. Do I lose a percentage point every year that I am resident in Ireland? Can I buy percentage points back by making a contribution to HMRC?
"When Mamdani walked into the Oval Office an hour later, Trump remarked, “Wow, you are even better looking in person than you are on TV.” The tone never changed from there, with Trump seeming legitimately impressed by Mamdani"
Doing up the bottom button is a vastly more common faux pas.
I think that, whatever comes after the next election, we may well see arbitrary government.
By Commons majority - but striped of all restraint. Primary legislation, procedure removed - all committees with government majorities etc.
It will make the shit show in America look tame.