The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
The authorities are suspicious of spontaneous gatherings nowa days. Everything has to be organised and paid for.
Unruly mobs of drunks are a great British tradition and a small price to pay for liberty, compared to the Second Ammendment for example.
Kearns is a far left campaigner - indistinguishable from Polanski on policy - and sits at the heart of Kemi Badenoch’s team as Shadow Minister for National Security:
Kemi wants her to be the UK’s Minister for National Security.
Do you?
Alicia Kearns is a One Nation Tory, if Reform are going to call even One Nation Tories 'far left' how do they expect to win centrist swing voters at the next GE?
She’s also excercise extremely poor judgement over this British/Egyptian guy but, unlike most others who did, has come out on the attack over it and I don’t think it’s doing her any favours.
These people are not 'One Nation' Tories. Disraeli would do somersaults in his grave if he knew that a group that believed in handing sovereignty to an organisation of continental bureaucrats, or undermining British industry by piling costs on energy, or importing people who hate Britain, had labelled themselves using his words. Disraeli spoke of 'two nations - the rich and the poor'. There is nothing more regressive and more guaranteed to take money out of poor peoples' pockets and give it to rich people than high energy costs, as we must all use it, and there is no 'cheaper' alternative. They are two nation Conservatives.
On the subject of Disraeli I remember studying that period of political history at school and it was weird how there were two very committed camps - the Disraelites and the Gladstonians. I was a Disraelite personally - might have been influenced by Disraeli’s brothers having been at my school and Gladstone having been educated at the young flash interloper school.
Had we ended up with a Portillo v Brown election in 2005 we could have effectively had a Disraeli v Gladstone rerun
Talking of Mikey P, have we discussed this?
According to documents released by the National Archives, former Treasury Chief Secretary Michael Portillo argued forcefully in 1991 that the project, then known as Crossrail, was a “mistake” that would “never” be built. He warned Prime Minister John Major that the scheme was excessively costly and its benefits wildly overstated, urging its immediate cancellation. This revelation offers a fascinating glimpse into a critical moment of decision-making, pitting short-term fiscal prudence against long-term, nation-building investment.
And his successors live on in the mismanagement of HS2 to avoid spending money on something useful, productive and in this case, outside London.
There's stuff outside London?
I mean, we're all vaguely aware there's some places called Scotland and Wales out there (though Ireland is surely just a cruel rumour), barbarian raiders have to come from somwhere, but I assumed there was some kind of teleportation system in place or something.
Kearns is a far left campaigner - indistinguishable from Polanski on policy - and sits at the heart of Kemi Badenoch’s team as Shadow Minister for National Security:
Kemi wants her to be the UK’s Minister for National Security.
Do you?
Alicia Kearns is a One Nation Tory, if Reform are going to call even One Nation Tories 'far left' how do they expect to win centrist swing voters at the next GE?
She’s also excercise extremely poor judgement over this British/Egyptian guy but, unlike most others who did, has come out on the attack over it and I don’t think it’s doing her any favours.
These people are not 'One Nation' Tories. Disraeli would do somersaults in his grave if he knew that a group that believed in handing sovereignty to an organisation of continental bureaucrats, or undermining British industry by piling costs on energy, or importing people who hate Britain, had labelled themselves using his words. Disraeli spoke of 'two nations - the rich and the poor'. There is nothing more regressive and more guaranteed to take money out of poor peoples' pockets and give it to rich people than high energy costs, as we must all use it, and there is no 'cheaper' alternative. They are two nation Conservatives.
On the subject of Disraeli I remember studying that period of political history at school and it was weird how there were two very committed camps - the Disraelites and the Gladstonians. I was a Disraelite personally - might have been influenced by Disraeli’s brothers having been at my school and Gladstone having been educated at the young flash interloper school.
Had we ended up with a Portillo v Brown election in 2005 we could have effectively had a Disraeli v Gladstone rerun
Not really. Both Gladstone and Disraeli would have been Tories - Brown is way to the left of both of them. Portillo was probably on a journey from being Gladstonian towards a more Disraelian perspective
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Ah yes. Still, the increase in numbers is curious. Looking into this further..
In 2023 only 2 people had their British citizenship removed on the basis that to do so was "conducive to the public good".
The most recent definition of this that I have found thus far is that:
The Government considers that deprivation on ‘conducive grounds’ is an appropriate response to activities such as those involving: • national security, including espionage and acts of terrorism directed at this country or an allied power; • unacceptable behaviour of the kind mentioned in the then Home Secretary’s Statement of 24 August 2005 ‘glorification’ of terrorism etc 14; • war crimes; and • serious and organised crime.
I'm not sure that his tweets meet the standard for glorification of terrorism, though that argument might be more easily made about tweets made by his sister. And I haven't looked at the 2005 statement.
They don't. Max is making a very broad claim for which he presents no evidence or precedent.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dm9944glpo.amp ... Although the home secretary has powers to strip a dual national of their citizenship if it is deemed not to be "conducive to the public good", in practice this has typically been used in cases linked to terrorism or serious organised crime where someone is deemed a national security threat. It is understood that Downing Street believes that this high bar is not met in this case. Any decision to strip someone of their citizenship is also likely to face a potentially lengthy and expensive legal challenge...
Jewish News understands government officials believe that his actions do not meet the legal threshold required for revoking citizenship or initiating deportation proceedings.
Officials within the Government appear to believe there are no grounds for removing Fattah’s citizenship, as case law has established this can only be done in cases of fraud, or against dangerous criminals and terrorists...
No doubt there are politicians who would claim that arbitrary powers to remove citizenship already exist (as Max seems to to believe). But to do so for what are speech offences dating back a decade would represent a very large expansion of arbitrary power.
Modi’s race baiting is thought to have contributed to the deaths of thousands of Muslims in the 2002 Gujarati riots. He was thereby proscribed as a terrorist by the U.K and U.S. governments until his election as PM made that untenable.
Not something you often hear brought up very much anymore.
His Hindutva politics are pretty seedy. It spills over in Leicester on occasions.
His propaganda is pretty pernicious. All the most Islamophopic people I know IRL are Hindu.
You obviously haven’t met many Serbs.
No, I don't think that I have.
Some well travelled Asian friends of mine said it was the most racist place they have ever been, though they were Hindu.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Ah yes. Still, the increase in numbers is curious. Looking into this further..
In 2023 only 2 people had their British citizenship removed on the basis that to do so was "conducive to the public good".
The most recent definition of this that I have found thus far is that:
The Government considers that deprivation on ‘conducive grounds’ is an appropriate response to activities such as those involving: • national security, including espionage and acts of terrorism directed at this country or an allied power; • unacceptable behaviour of the kind mentioned in the then Home Secretary’s Statement of 24 August 2005 ‘glorification’ of terrorism etc 14; • war crimes; and • serious and organised crime.
I'm not sure that his tweets meet the standard for glorification of terrorism, though that argument might be more easily made about tweets made by his sister. And I haven't looked at the 2005 statement.
But to do so for what are speech offences dating back a decade would represent a very large expansion of arbitrary power.
Yes, even assuming it was possible, many things are possible but are not a good idea, indeed we often rely upon people not utilising the full possibilities of their authority, and trouble emerges when unscrupulous people start testing the limits of the spirit of the powers constrained by convention as opposed to vague descriptions of it.
Minnesota has traditionally been the US state with the highest levels of trust between citizens and government due to its mostly (originally) Scandinavian population.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Ah yes. Still, the increase in numbers is curious. Looking into this further..
In 2023 only 2 people had their British citizenship removed on the basis that to do so was "conducive to the public good".
The most recent definition of this that I have found thus far is that:
The Government considers that deprivation on ‘conducive grounds’ is an appropriate response to activities such as those involving: • national security, including espionage and acts of terrorism directed at this country or an allied power; • unacceptable behaviour of the kind mentioned in the then Home Secretary’s Statement of 24 August 2005 ‘glorification’ of terrorism etc 14; • war crimes; and • serious and organised crime.
I'm not sure that his tweets meet the standard for glorification of terrorism, though that argument might be more easily made about tweets made by his sister. And I haven't looked at the 2005 statement.
They don't. Max is making a very broad claim for which he presents no evidence or precedent.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dm9944glpo.amp ... Although the home secretary has powers to strip a dual national of their citizenship if it is deemed not to be "conducive to the public good", in practice this has typically been used in cases linked to terrorism or serious organised crime where someone is deemed a national security threat. It is understood that Downing Street believes that this high bar is not met in this case. Any decision to strip someone of their citizenship is also likely to face a potentially lengthy and expensive legal challenge...
Jewish News understands government officials believe that his actions do not meet the legal threshold required for revoking citizenship or initiating deportation proceedings.
Officials within the Government appear to believe there are no grounds for removing Fattah’s citizenship, as case law has established this can only be done in cases of fraud, or against dangerous criminals and terrorists...
No doubt there are politicians who would claim that arbitrary powers to remove citizenship already exist (as Max seems to to believe). But to do so for what are speech offences dating back a decade would represent a very large expansion of arbitrary power.
It's almost a certainty that there will be a disclosure failure which comes under the pretty wide bucket of fraud. If a smart lawyer can't find some technical rule that was broken during the application process then they aren't looking hard enough.
We don't need new laws to revoke his citizenship, the existing ones will do just fine you're just looking in the wrong place and Labour are too scared of losing their Muslim voters to do the right thing.
Still in all of this I blame the Tories the most for giving him citizenship in the first place. He should have been denied citizenship and denied entry and his horrible sister should have had her citizenship revoked after her disgusting comments supporting Hamas and the October 7th attacks.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
The authorities are suspicious of spontaneous gatherings nowa days. Everything has to be organised and paid for.
Not just the authorities sadly. I don't know if everyone really is more fearful thesedays, I'm a bit of a house hermit myself anyway, but I've seen people get worried just because someone walks near their house or, gods forbid, two teenagers stand together.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
I can understand the Primrose Hill decision. It has a pretty small, narrow peak, that would only accommodate a couple of hundred people. But everybody would want to get to the top as that's where the best, possibly only, view of the fireworks would be. Thousands trying to get to the prime view would be pretty chaotic.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
I can understand the Primrose Hill decision. It has a pretty small, narrow peak, that would only accommodate a couple of hundred people. But everybody would want to get to the top as that's where the best, possibly only, view of the fireworks would be. Thousands trying to get to the prime view would be pretty chaotic.
why has it never been an issue until this year though?
Are these people simply fuckwits or like UKIP/Brexit/Reform's Nathan Gill do they accept dirty post-Soviet money to write/speak their shite?
Some people are pro Russian fuckwits, like the Prime Minister of India.
India is producing military drones for Russia as well. The government should have acted when the news was made public and suspended the trade deal, revoked visas and suspended issuance of new student, work and visitor visas for Indian nationals until the policy is reversed. Modi needs to learn the hard way there are consequences and cutting the Indian elite and their kids access to the UK would be something tangible.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
One of the interesting things about the Begum case is that it allowed the government to remove her British citizenship on the grounds that she was eligible, but had never held, Bangladeshi citizenship.
So, using the same legal principle an antisemitic government from either the right or left could remove British citizenship from any Jewish person it chose, even if they were British by descent for centuries, on the grounds that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Thats the problem with bad laws, they don't just apply to bad people.
Every British citizen is sorta eligible for Irish citizenship (their British citizenship gives them the right to reside in Ireland and after a number of years they can apply for Irish citizenship).
I don't know if this theoretical entitlement is on a par with Begum's entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship, which the government there insisted she wouldn't be given.
But you could argue it gives every British citizen a theoretical second citizenship, and therefore the possibility of losing their British citizenship.
IIRC the argument in the Begum case was that whether she had claimed it or not the law of the land in Bangladesh meant she had it (or the right to it) automatically.
Whether that is true or not (and I think the Bangladeshi authorities said she did not), and as tenuous and not particularly persuasive as it was, it would technically be different to a situation where anyone could claim a second citizenship.
As per the Aussie scandal mentioned yesterday, there have been situations of people having citizenships they were not even aware of which rendered them ineligible to hold office, so things can get weird.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
I can understand the Primrose Hill decision. It has a pretty small, narrow peak, that would only accommodate a couple of hundred people. But everybody would want to get to the top as that's where the best, possibly only, view of the fireworks would be. Thousands trying to get to the prime view would be pretty chaotic.
why has it never been an issue until this year though?
Not sure, but I guess because of the stabbing/murder there on NYE 2023; the trial finished in October this year. And maybe because of just sheer weight of numbers heading there, which I understand has increased a lot in recent years.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
I can understand the Primrose Hill decision. It has a pretty small, narrow peak, that would only accommodate a couple of hundred people. But everybody would want to get to the top as that's where the best, possibly only, view of the fireworks would be. Thousands trying to get to the prime view would be pretty chaotic.
why has it never been an issue until this year though?
It's been a bit of a shitfest, at least for the last few years (there's been a stabbing before). I suspect they'll end up selling tickets for it from next year.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
I can understand the Primrose Hill decision. It has a pretty small, narrow peak, that would only accommodate a couple of hundred people. But everybody would want to get to the top as that's where the best, possibly only, view of the fireworks would be. Thousands trying to get to the prime view would be pretty chaotic.
why has it never been an issue until this year though?
Sadly, our key, prime Primrose Hill correspondent is one Leon, late of this parish.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She was very young and had been groomed when she embarked. It’s not a simple case of her being a wrong un.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The quote I used was a deliberate effort by Frank Herbert to emphasise, to idiots, that Paul is not a saviour. He is a disaster.
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Actually Abd Al Fatah has a better claim to citizenship through his mother being a citizen than Kemi Badenoch. Also Badenoch committed a crime with a potential two year prison sentence attached if Harriet Harman had decided to press charges, which is probably more serious than anything Abd Al Fatah has done, if we are talking about revoking citizenship.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
I can understand the Primrose Hill decision. It has a pretty small, narrow peak, that would only accommodate a couple of hundred people. But everybody would want to get to the top as that's where the best, possibly only, view of the fireworks would be. Thousands trying to get to the prime view would be pretty chaotic.
why has it never been an issue until this year though?
It's been a bit of a shitfest, at least for the last few years (there's been a stabbing before). I suspect they'll end up selling tickets for it from next year.
In the US or Australia, the police would have gone - “problematic shit heads are going to cause trouble? Awesome, let’s go there in force and arrest them.”
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
I can understand the Primrose Hill decision. It has a pretty small, narrow peak, that would only accommodate a couple of hundred people. But everybody would want to get to the top as that's where the best, possibly only, view of the fireworks would be. Thousands trying to get to the prime view would be pretty chaotic.
why has it never been an issue until this year though?
It's been a bit of a shitfest, at least for the last few years (there's been a stabbing before). I suspect they'll end up selling tickets for it from next year.
In the US or Australia, the police would have gone - “problematic shit heads are going to cause trouble? Awesome, let’s go there in force and arrest them.”
Being a bit drunk and lairy, with a frisson of danger from random violence was pretty much a staple of nights out when I were a lad.
People need to let off steam every now and then.
We are a society that now fears each others presence except in the most controlled ways. Its not healthy.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Actually Abd Al Fatah has a better claim to citizenship through his mother being a citizen than Kemi Badenoch. Also Badenoch committed a crime with a potential two year prison sentence attached if Harriet Harman had decided to press charges, which is probably more serious than anything Abd Al Fatah has done, if we are talking about revoking citizenship.
But el Fattah's mother only holds citizenship on the same basis that Badenoch does. You're basically saying that el Fattah has a stronger claim to citizenship than his own mother, which shows the absurdity of your argument. It's laughable.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Actually Abd Al Fatah has a better claim to citizenship through his mother being a citizen than Kemi Badenoch. Also Badenoch committed a crime with a potential two year prison sentence attached if Harriet Harman had decided to press charges, which is probably more serious than anything Abd Al Fatah has done, if we are talking about revoking citizenship.
But el Fattah's mother only holds citizenship on the same basis that Badenoch does. You're basically saying that el Fattah has a stronger claim to citizenship than his own mother, which shows the absurdity of your argument. It's laughable.
based on the number of vips supporting Al Fatah's application, he's likely in the top 1% of british citizens.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The quote I used was a deliberate effort by Frank Herbert to emphasise, to idiots, that Paul is not a saviour. He is a disaster.
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
That’s on Herbert.
He wrote the Harkonnens to be over the top evil, (a slaving, incestuous, paedophile rapist, heads the family. His chief enforcer is a moronic psychopath. His heir is an intelligent psychopath). The Atreides are written to be hugely sympathetic.
Then, he complains that readers see Paul as heroic … when he’s written to be heroic.
So, he writes Dune Messiah seeks to correct this perception, only to retcon it in Children of Dune, where it turns out that deaths of billions in the jihad were necessary, in order to prevent humanity’s extinction.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She was very young and had been groomed when she embarked. It’s not a simple case of her being a wrong un.
She was 15 when she left, so young but not that young. “Groomed” is her claim not proven in court
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The quote I used was a deliberate effort by Frank Herbert to emphasise, to idiots, that Paul is not a saviour. He is a disaster.
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
That’s on Herbert.
He wrote the Harkonnens to be over the top evil, (a slaving, incestuous, paedophile rapist, heads the family. His chief enforcer is a moronic psychopath. His heir is an intelligent psychopath). The Atreides are written to be hugely sympathetic.
Then, he complains that readers see Paul as heroic … when he’s written to be heroic.
So, he writes Dune Messiah seeks to correct this perception, only to retcon it in Children of Dune, where it turns out that deaths of billions in the jihad were necessary, in order to prevent humanity’s extinction.
To be fair to Paul, the retcon was that he wasn’t genocidy *enough*. But his boy did good on that line.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The quote I used was a deliberate effort by Frank Herbert to emphasise, to idiots, that Paul is not a saviour. He is a disaster.
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
That’s on Herbert.
He wrote the Harkonnens to be over the top evil, (a slaving, incestuous, paedophile rapist, heads the family. His chief enforcer is a moronic psychopath. His heir is an intelligent psychopath). The Atreides are written to be hugely sympathetic.
Then, he complains that readers see Paul as heroic … when he’s written to be heroic.
So, he writes Dune Messiah seeks to correct this perception, only to retcon it in Children of Dune, where it turns out that deaths of billions in the jihad were necessary, in order to prevent humanity’s extinction.
To be fair to Paul, the retcon was that he wasn’t genocidy *enough*. But his boy did good on that line.
I hadn’t known till recently that Herbert had a gay son, who he utterly despised, and that surely feeds through into his portrayal of the Baron.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The quote I used was a deliberate effort by Frank Herbert to emphasise, to idiots, that Paul is not a saviour. He is a disaster.
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
I always got the impression that Herbert wanted both his cake and to eat it in that respect. The first book was interesting; it went downhill rapidly after that, IMO.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She was very young and had been groomed when she embarked. It’s not a simple case of her being a wrong un.
She was 15 when she left, so young but not that young. “Groomed” is her claim not proven in court
And she carried on committing crimes, well past 18.
Youth and ignorance should be taken into account in sentencing. But…
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The quote I used was a deliberate effort by Frank Herbert to emphasise, to idiots, that Paul is not a saviour. He is a disaster.
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
That’s on Herbert.
He wrote the Harkonnens to be over the top evil, (a slaving, incestuous, paedophile rapist, heads the family. His chief enforcer is a moronic psychopath. His heir is an intelligent psychopath). The Atreides are written to be hugely sympathetic.
Then, he complains that readers see Paul as heroic … when he’s written to be heroic.
So, he writes Dune Messiah seeks to correct this perception, only to retcon it in Children of Dune, where it turns out that deaths of billions in the jihad were necessary, in order to prevent humanity’s extinction.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Actually Abd Al Fatah has a better claim to citizenship through his mother being a citizen than Kemi Badenoch. Also Badenoch committed a crime with a potential two year prison sentence attached if Harriet Harman had decided to press charges, which is probably more serious than anything Abd Al Fatah has done, if we are talking about revoking citizenship.
But el Fattah's mother only holds citizenship on the same basis that Badenoch does. You're basically saying that el Fattah has a stronger claim to citizenship than his own mother, which shows the absurdity of your argument. It's laughable.
I'm talking about Abd el Fattah's claim to citizenship on current rules, not his mother's. Who's being absurd here?
Any case the whole thing about revoking citizenship is nonsense.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The quote I used was a deliberate effort by Frank Herbert to emphasise, to idiots, that Paul is not a saviour. He is a disaster.
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
I always got the impression that Herbert wanted both his cake and to eat it in that respect. The first book was interesting; it went downhill rapidly after that, IMO.
His beliefs were paleoconservative. He thought all politicians were rotten, but that you were better off with blatantly rotten leaders, than with leaders who were idealistic, who he saw as wolves in sheep’s’ clothing.
So, he thought readers would read between the lines, and realise it’s better to be ruled by Harkonnens than Atreides.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She made her choice aged 15.
Yes choices have consequences, but performative nonsense from both Conservative and now a Labour government regarding her citizenship is legally and morally questionable. If she has a case to answer she should be charged tried, convicted and punished.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Actually Abd Al Fatah has a better claim to citizenship through his mother being a citizen than Kemi Badenoch. Also Badenoch committed a crime with a potential two year prison sentence attached if Harriet Harman had decided to press charges, which is probably more serious than anything Abd Al Fatah has done, if we are talking about revoking citizenship.
But el Fattah's mother only holds citizenship on the same basis that Badenoch does. You're basically saying that el Fattah has a stronger claim to citizenship than his own mother, which shows the absurdity of your argument. It's laughable.
I'm talking about Abd el Fattah's claim to citizenship on current rules, not his mother's. Who's being absurd here?
Any case the whole thing about revoking citizenship is nonsense.
Imagine if Badenoch had never returned to the UK but then had a child in Nigeria. Would that child have a stronger claim to UK citizenship despite never having been here?
Perhaps we need to decide between jus soli and jus sanguinis instead of an incoherent mixture of both.
Minnesota has traditionally been the US state with the highest levels of trust between citizens and government due to its mostly (originally) Scandinavian population.
This was clearly a population that pre-dated Scandi-Noir where every second politician is secretly a murderer.
"You know what honestly causes confusion and, well, uncomfortable feelings? That representatives from India, the Emirates, and several other countries condemned supposed drone strikes on Putin's residence that never even happened. But where's their condemnation? By the way, condemnation of the fact that they're bombing our children and killing our people this whole time. I don't hear anything from India or the Emirates about that, to be honest," - Zelenskyy said to journalists on Tuesday, Dec. 30. https://x.com/KaterynaLis/status/2006036418850664478A
Pretty absurd we're even debating this, given that Putin had been targeting Zelensky continuously for three years.
I would say he can see himself out, but perhaps he can't.
From that clip - usual Dom. Right on the problem. No idea what his solution is, but it will be the wrong one, of course.
I know what you mean, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong on the problem as well here.
Dom's theory of government is to get a small number of enormous brains and lock them in a small room. Then pipe national-level data into that room, so these mega minds can decide what to do, and pipe those decisions out for the rest of us (hereafter called "minions") to act on.
There are a bajillion ways that this model doesn't work, but it's attractive if you believe in the Great Man version of history.
I'm reminded of the description of Manuel Fraga- a relatively open minister under Franco, incredibly reactionary in democratic Spain. He was so clever, they said, that the Spanish State could fit inside his head. Unfortunately, that limited his vision of the state to what could fit in his head, and democratic nations are bigger than that.
And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew, That one small head could carry all he knew
Great quote! I didn't know it. Dr Google reports it's from Oliver Goldsmith's poem, The Deserted Village. 😀
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The quote I used was a deliberate effort by Frank Herbert to emphasise, to idiots, that Paul is not a saviour. He is a disaster.
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
I always got the impression that Herbert wanted both his cake and to eat it in that respect. The first book was interesting; it went downhill rapidly after that, IMO.
I didn't manage to make it through the first book. And I managed the whole of The Silmarillion.
I did however quite enjoy the "Dune: Prophecy" TV show, which I see has just started filming its second series.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The quote I used was a deliberate effort by Frank Herbert to emphasise, to idiots, that Paul is not a saviour. He is a disaster.
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
I always got the impression that Herbert wanted both his cake and to eat it in that respect. The first book was interesting; it went downhill rapidly after that, IMO.
Up to God-Emperor is readable. The last ones? Jeez.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
This Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die? That's alt-right loonytunes stuff. What's happening?
I am not sure Starmer being personally responsible for the genocide of 70,000 Gazans to protect the status quo of Israel correspondents with "this Labour government thinks that western society deserves to die". I am not sure they can be guilty of both.
70k ? Slacker
…There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—”
I think there was an Eddie Izzard joke about the tremendous work ethic of mass murderers, in the sense that killing even ten is monstrous, but get into the millions and you are more left wondering how they found time in the day to achieve it.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
The quote I used was a deliberate effort by Frank Herbert to emphasise, to idiots, that Paul is not a saviour. He is a disaster.
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
I always got the impression that Herbert wanted both his cake and to eat it in that respect. The first book was interesting; it went downhill rapidly after that, IMO.
His beliefs were paleoconservative. He thought all politicians were rotten, but that you were better off with blatantly rotten leaders, than with leaders who were idealistic, who he saw as wolves in sheep’s’ clothing.
So, he thought readers would read between the lines, and realise it’s better to be ruled by Harkonnens than Atreides.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She made her choice aged 15.
Yes choices have consequences, but performative nonsense from both Conservative and now a Labour government regarding her citizenship is legally and morally questionable. If she has a case to answer she should be charged tried, convicted and punished.
The current situation is wholly unsatisfactory.
She made her choice and voluntarily left the country.
Closing the door behind her, legally, is wholly satisfactory.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Actually Abd Al Fatah has a better claim to citizenship through his mother being a citizen than Kemi Badenoch. Also Badenoch committed a crime with a potential two year prison sentence attached if Harriet Harman had decided to press charges, which is probably more serious than anything Abd Al Fatah has done, if we are talking about revoking citizenship.
But el Fattah's mother only holds citizenship on the same basis that Badenoch does. You're basically saying that el Fattah has a stronger claim to citizenship than his own mother, which shows the absurdity of your argument. It's laughable.
I'm talking about Abd el Fattah's claim to citizenship on current rules, not his mother's. Who's being absurd here?
Any case the whole thing about revoking citizenship is nonsense.
Imagine if Badenoch had never returned to the UK but then had a child in Nigeria. Would that child have a stronger claim to UK citizenship despite never having been here?
Perhaps we need to decide between jus soli and jus sanguinis instead of an incoherent mixture of both.
The child would have a claim their mother would have no longer have if she applied now because the rules changed. But rules changes don't remove citizenship retrospectively and nor should it. I don't know why we are discussing this
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Actually Abd Al Fatah has a better claim to citizenship through his mother being a citizen than Kemi Badenoch. Also Badenoch committed a crime with a potential two year prison sentence attached if Harriet Harman had decided to press charges, which is probably more serious than anything Abd Al Fatah has done, if we are talking about revoking citizenship.
But el Fattah's mother only holds citizenship on the same basis that Badenoch does. You're basically saying that el Fattah has a stronger claim to citizenship than his own mother, which shows the absurdity of your argument. It's laughable.
I'm talking about Abd el Fattah's claim to citizenship on current rules, not his mother's. Who's being absurd here?
Any case the whole thing about revoking citizenship is nonsense.
Imagine if Badenoch had never returned to the UK but then had a child in Nigeria. Would that child have a stronger claim to UK citizenship despite never having been here?
Perhaps we need to decide between jus soli and jus sanguinis instead of an incoherent mixture of both.
The child would have a claim their mother would have no longer have if she applied now because the rules changed. But rules changes don't remove citizenship retrospectively and nor should it. I don't know why we are discussing this
If she never made the claim, and is no longer able to, then how can the child have one either?
If she had, and was a citizen, then the child could claim, but a claim unpressed should not pass down. Especially if the window to press it has passed.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Actually Abd Al Fatah has a better claim to citizenship through his mother being a citizen than Kemi Badenoch. Also Badenoch committed a crime with a potential two year prison sentence attached if Harriet Harman had decided to press charges, which is probably more serious than anything Abd Al Fatah has done, if we are talking about revoking citizenship.
But el Fattah's mother only holds citizenship on the same basis that Badenoch does. You're basically saying that el Fattah has a stronger claim to citizenship than his own mother, which shows the absurdity of your argument. It's laughable.
I'm talking about Abd el Fattah's claim to citizenship on current rules, not his mother's. Who's being absurd here?
Any case the whole thing about revoking citizenship is nonsense.
Imagine if Badenoch had never returned to the UK but then had a child in Nigeria. Would that child have a stronger claim to UK citizenship despite never having been here?
Perhaps we need to decide between jus soli and jus sanguinis instead of an incoherent mixture of both.
The child would have a claim their mother would have no longer have if she applied now because the rules changed. But rules changes don't remove citizenship retrospectively and nor should it. I don't know why we are discussing this
But if the mother's claim is no longer valid, the child no longer has a claim either since it depended on the mother's.
We're discussing this because our Prime Minister along with the rest of the political elite invested so much political capital in a foreign dissident because of it.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Actually Abd Al Fatah has a better claim to citizenship through his mother being a citizen than Kemi Badenoch. Also Badenoch committed a crime with a potential two year prison sentence attached if Harriet Harman had decided to press charges, which is probably more serious than anything Abd Al Fatah has done, if we are talking about revoking citizenship.
But el Fattah's mother only holds citizenship on the same basis that Badenoch does. You're basically saying that el Fattah has a stronger claim to citizenship than his own mother, which shows the absurdity of your argument. It's laughable.
I'm talking about Abd el Fattah's claim to citizenship on current rules, not his mother's. Who's being absurd here?
Any case the whole thing about revoking citizenship is nonsense.
Imagine if Badenoch had never returned to the UK but then had a child in Nigeria. Would that child have a stronger claim to UK citizenship despite never having been here?
Perhaps we need to decide between jus soli and jus sanguinis instead of an incoherent mixture of both.
The child would have a claim their mother would have no longer have if she applied now because the rules changed. But rules changes don't remove citizenship retrospectively and nor should it. I don't know why we are discussing this
If she never made the claim, and is no longer able to, then how can the child have one either?
If she had, and was a citizen, then the child could claim, but a claim unpressed should not pass down. Especially if the window to press it has passed.
Sorry @williamglenn is muddying the waters with hypotheticals.
The point is, people obtain UK citizenship through their parents being citizens. It's how probably 90+ % of the UK citizens in this board got their citizenship, including myself. It's how Abd Al Fattah got his citizenship. Kemi Badenoch is a rare exception and wouldn't be able to get it now.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
The short answer is that we all gain from having a massive taboo against depriving bad people of citizenship. Now matter how unpleasant their opinions, no matter how much they might cost in the future. Because the path that starts there always ends up in Hell and there isn't a clear off-ramp halfway. Either you accept that people, no matter how awful, have an intrinsic value, or you don't.
You may think that the face-eating leopards are fine, because they are only going to eat bad faces. They're certainly never going to eat your face, because you are sucessful and (at some level) powerful. The repeated lesson of history is that the kindest, most charitable description of that viewpoint is naive.
But again, that precedent is already set. We've revoked citizenship from multiple people. The horse has bolted, the Rubicon is crossed etc...
I'm not asking for an insurrection or for a Reform coup, I'm asking for the Labour government to use the existing laws and legal precedent set down by multiple court cases and victories to revoke this person's citizenship.
This already happens, the government has removed citizenship from multiple people, some under much more tenuous circumstances and the removals have held up in court each time. It's quite bemusing to see all of you argue against a principle that is already established, has been successfully defended in court multiple times and the government continues to use.
The reason the government don't want to do it today is because it will lead to massive infighting within their own party, it's not a principled stand against citizenship revocation or for the right to free speech. It's a simple political calculation that Labour can't afford to lose any more Muslim voters and if they revoke this person's citizenship the "comminute organisers" will turn on them and they won't go out and harvest votes for them.
56 people had their British citizenship revoked between 2000 and 2014 (ish)
The number of people deprived of British citizenship in the grounds of fraud (there are other grounds available to the Secretary of State) in recent years are:
These numbers are much higher than I expected. It doesn't look like it would be exceptional to remove citizenship from this guy (or his sister), except insofar as it would come so soon after his arrival into Britain was so warmly welcomed by numerous Cabinet ministers.
I'm still inclined to suggest that, because the offensive tweets were so long ago, it's not unreasonable to give him a clean slate and the chance to demonstrate better behaviour. But the choice - and it is a choice - is not so new as I had thought.
It seems like British citizenship has been very contingent for some time.
Presumably fraud is rather different to what we are discussing, fake documents, spurious weddings etc mean that the citizenship was granted incorrectly.
I don't think there is any allegation of fraud in this one.
Actually Abd Al Fatah has a better claim to citizenship through his mother being a citizen than Kemi Badenoch. Also Badenoch committed a crime with a potential two year prison sentence attached if Harriet Harman had decided to press charges, which is probably more serious than anything Abd Al Fatah has done, if we are talking about revoking citizenship.
But el Fattah's mother only holds citizenship on the same basis that Badenoch does. You're basically saying that el Fattah has a stronger claim to citizenship than his own mother, which shows the absurdity of your argument. It's laughable.
I'm talking about Abd el Fattah's claim to citizenship on current rules, not his mother's. Who's being absurd here?
Any case the whole thing about revoking citizenship is nonsense.
Imagine if Badenoch had never returned to the UK but then had a child in Nigeria. Would that child have a stronger claim to UK citizenship despite never having been here?
Perhaps we need to decide between jus soli and jus sanguinis instead of an incoherent mixture of both.
The child would have a claim their mother would have no longer have if she applied now because the rules changed. But rules changes don't remove citizenship retrospectively and nor should it. I don't know why we are discussing this
If she never made the claim, and is no longer able to, then how can the child have one either?
If she had, and was a citizen, then the child could claim, but a claim unpressed should not pass down. Especially if the window to press it has passed.
Sorry @williamglenn is muddying the waters with hypotheticals.
The point is, people obtain UK citizenship through their parents being citizens. It's how probably 90+ % of the UK citizens in this board got their citizenship, including myself. It's how Abd Al Fattah got his citizenship. Kemi Badenoch is a rare exception and wouldn't be able to get it now.
Yes, but was Al Fattah's mother a citizen?
If no, and if she's not able to become one, then how is he?
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
The authorities are suspicious of spontaneous gatherings nowa days. Everything has to be organised and paid for.
Not just the authorities sadly. I don't know if everyone really is more fearful thesedays, I'm a bit of a house hermit myself anyway, but I've seen people get worried just because someone walks near their house or, gods forbid, two teenagers stand together.
And then they rage at young people for "inventing mental illness".
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She made her choice aged 15.
Yes choices have consequences, but performative nonsense from both Conservative and now a Labour government regarding her citizenship is legally and morally questionable. If she has a case to answer she should be charged tried, convicted and punished.
The current situation is wholly unsatisfactory.
She made her choice and voluntarily left the country.
Closing the door behind her, legally, is wholly satisfactory.
I don't believe legally and morally we have the right to remove her citizenship.
She was also 15.
Her plight is the result of cheap politics from both the Conservatives and Labour. If she requires sanction, try her and throw her in Holloway for as long as the law requires.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She made her choice aged 15.
Yes choices have consequences, but performative nonsense from both Conservative and now a Labour government regarding her citizenship is legally and morally questionable. If she has a case to answer she should be charged tried, convicted and punished.
The current situation is wholly unsatisfactory.
She made her choice and voluntarily left the country.
Closing the door behind her, legally, is wholly satisfactory.
I don't believe legally and morally we have the right to remove her citizenship.
She was also 15.
Her plight is the result of cheap politics from both the Conservatives and Labour. If she requires sanction, try her and throw her in Holloway for as long as the law requires.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She made her choice aged 15.
Yes choices have consequences, but performative nonsense from both Conservative and now a Labour government regarding her citizenship is legally and morally questionable. If she has a case to answer she should be charged tried, convicted and punished.
The current situation is wholly unsatisfactory.
She made her choice and voluntarily left the country.
Closing the door behind her, legally, is wholly satisfactory.
I don't believe legally and morally we have the right to remove her citizenship.
She was also 15.
Her plight is the result of cheap politics from both the Conservatives and Labour. If she requires sanction, try her and throw her in Holloway for as long as the law requires.
The courts disagree with you.
Since when did you agree with lefty lawyers and judges?
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She made her choice aged 15.
Yes choices have consequences, but performative nonsense from both Conservative and now a Labour government regarding her citizenship is legally and morally questionable. If she has a case to answer she should be charged tried, convicted and punished.
The current situation is wholly unsatisfactory.
She made her choice and voluntarily left the country.
Closing the door behind her, legally, is wholly satisfactory.
I don't believe legally and morally we have the right to remove her citizenship.
She was also 15.
Her plight is the result of cheap politics from both the Conservatives and Labour. If she requires sanction, try her and throw her in Holloway for as long as the law requires.
The courts disagree with you.
Since when did you agree with lefty lawyers and judges?
The courts determine what is legal, not what should be legal.
We can debate whether or not it is moral, but the courts have determined it is legal, whether you like it or not, that is a matter of fact and law.
I'm happy to say the law should be different where I think it should be, but me thinking it should be different has never been a case of saying the law is other than it actually is.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
He has a whole list of Democrats ( including Biden) that he wants, and I quote, " hanged by the neck until they are dead". The problem is the mainstream Republican party is providing him with cover.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
And yet folk insist that anti-Semitism is a feature of the left.
It is.
Horseshoe theory is real though. There's very little real difference between far left and far right.
It's more multi-dimensional than that - the far-anything all converge on each other. See the US Christian Loopy Right and the head choppy types.
I think there may have historically been an assumption that certain far-behaviours were restricted to one side or the other, when whilst the specific occurences within each subset may vary from area to area and from time to time, neither is immune - only the ideologies (which often amount to little more than pretextual posturing) actually differ substantially.
I think there's more an acceptance now that racism, and especially anti-semitism, is not to be found in only one part of the spectrum, even if people can still argue which far-anything has it worse. So it is not as though anti-semitism is a specific feature of the left - it isn't - but that in relatively recent times there's been more acknowledgement there was an issue there as well.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
He has a whole list of Democrats ( including Biden) that he wants, and I quote, " hanged by the neck until they are dead". The problem is the mainstream Republican party is providing him with cover.
American politics provides a lot of cover to pretty despicable things. There seems little that cannot now be justified by being a part of the correct tribe, and that is deeply worrying in a democracy.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
And yet folk insist that anti-Semitism is a feature of the left.
It is.
Horseshoe theory is real though. There's very little real difference between far left and far right.
I used to believe horseshoe concept was simple, like the Laffer Curve, but I am less sure either apply as efficiently in reality as they do in theory.
The far Christian MAGA right have a dilemma. They are reliant on Israel and the Jews for Christ's imminent resurrection. It is utterly bizarre they pray to Jesus, a Jew, and demand the removal of all non-arians from the USA.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She made her choice aged 15.
Yes choices have consequences, but performative nonsense from both Conservative and now a Labour government regarding her citizenship is legally and morally questionable. If she has a case to answer she should be charged tried, convicted and punished.
The current situation is wholly unsatisfactory.
She made her choice and voluntarily left the country.
Closing the door behind her, legally, is wholly satisfactory.
I don't believe legally and morally we have the right to remove her citizenship.
She was also 15.
Her plight is the result of cheap politics from both the Conservatives and Labour. If she requires sanction, try her and throw her in Holloway for as long as the law requires.
The courts disagree with you.
Since when did you agree with lefty lawyers and judges?
The courts determine what is legal, not what should be legal.
We can debate whether or not it is moral, but the courts have determined it is legal, whether you like it or not, that is a matter of fact and law.
I'm happy to say the law should be different where I think it should be, but me thinking it should be different has never been a case of saying the law is other than it actually is.
That was a major issue in the Begum case. The moral case I think is pretty strong, and legally it was obviously sufficiently complex that it had to go all the way to the top for a definitive view so different opinions on what was legal were valid, but there was definitely a sense at the end that expressing the moral case (She's our problem to deal with, etc) was being treated by some as persuasive in itself, as a matter of law. I'm sure the barristers did not frame it that way, and when the final ruling came down IIRC the response was basically 'well, morally we still do not like it', which is fine to do, but media commentators tended to reflect only on the moral arguments over the legal.
Which as I've noted I think can sometimes be counterproductive to then actually creating legal change, as the specifics to do so get lost in a moral argument which the legalistic can bat aside by pointing out it is legal.
The el-Fattah saga proves whether it’s Tories or Labour in government, they’ll fight harder for a man who wants to exterminate the British people than for the British people themselves.
That’s why we won’t do pacts.
The next few years are crucial.
It’s Reform or bust.
Utter shite from Yusuf.
Not really. Labour have repeatedly proven they value this terrorist sympathiser more than law abiding citizens by refusing to revoke his citizenship. They could draw a line in the sand today and embarrass the Tories but they fundamentally agree with his views at some lev that western society deserves to die.
No, really.
El-Fattah is just another rabble rouser - a lot like Yusuf.
Our democracy is well able to cope with such characters. Within the existing system.
What is far more of a risk is authoritarians taking on themselves the power to strip citizenship from those they don't like. They should not have such powers.
The power to do it already exists and has been used multiple times. It's a failing of the Labour party that they seem unable to face down the Islamists in their party and voters to tell this guy to get fucked and deport him back to Egypt where he belongs. That's the realpolitik here, nothing to do with some mythical authoritarians or setting precedents given that the laws already exist and have already been used. Labour are making fools of you "centrist dads" but you're too up your own arses to realise. You've become their useful idiots so scared of the big bad far right that you'll go along with anything they do regardless of how poor the decision is.
That's simply wrong. It's overwhelmingly likely that depriving this guy of his citizenship would require a further change in the law.
We've gone quite far enough in that direction already.
And frankly you can eff of with your "centrist dads up your own arses" schtick. You're just a pound shop authoritarian. Like your new squeeze Trump.
And yet the principle of removing someone's citizenship already exists, the law already exists and has been used before multiple times. You're saying that new legislation would need to be brought but provide no evidence for that assertion.
Every recent victory for common sense has been won by the right over the wokists while centrist dads have been completely invisible telling us "it costs nothing to be kind". Well this is yet another fight in which it will cost us something to be "kind" we've handed out citizenship to someone who hates British people and our way of life. Even now after he's apparently "seen the error of his ways" he's going around saying that the campaign to revoke his citizenship is a "zionist plot".
Please tell me precisely what we gain by having this person in the country? What good does he bring to our nation?
You oppose this action because you don't like the people who want to revoke his citizenship, not because it's the wrong thing to do. Well sometimes when the people who don't like are saying and doing the right things you have to look at your own side and wonder why every single time they find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, on the wrong side of law abiding British citizens while actively turning the nation into a laughing stock all for absolutely zero gain. Again this man brings nothing to the table except a lifetime of welfare payments.
I am quite disgusted that this Government has done nothing to repatriate the trafficked by terrorists, Shamima Begum. Whether she should be tried, convicted and punished on her return to the UK is a separate but appropriate issue for discussion.
When Shamima Begum and El Fattah are the starting point where do we end? MAGA expatriating American born citizens because the level of melatonin the skin metabolises doesn't meet with their approval could happen here. There are plenty of Reform supporters who have dumped Labour and the Conservatives because they like the idea of performative cruelty to people with olive coloured or darker skin tones.
I'm fine from that perspective, although my politics probably gets me a place inside the stadium.
You are denying Begum’s agency. She claims she was trafficked, but only since it was clear her side had lost and that was the most effective way of generating sympathy.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
She made her choice aged 15.
Yes choices have consequences, but performative nonsense from both Conservative and now a Labour government regarding her citizenship is legally and morally questionable. If she has a case to answer she should be charged tried, convicted and punished.
The current situation is wholly unsatisfactory.
She made her choice and voluntarily left the country.
Closing the door behind her, legally, is wholly satisfactory.
I don't believe legally and morally we have the right to remove her citizenship.
She was also 15.
Her plight is the result of cheap politics from both the Conservatives and Labour. If she requires sanction, try her and throw her in Holloway for as long as the law requires.
The courts disagree with you.
Since when did you agree with lefty lawyers and judges?
The courts determine what is legal, not what should be legal.
We can debate whether or not it is moral, but the courts have determined it is legal, whether you like it or not, that is a matter of fact and law.
I'm happy to say the law should be different where I think it should be, but me thinking it should be different has never been a case of saying the law is other than it actually is.
That was a major issue in the Begum case. The moral case I think is pretty strong, and legally it was obviously sufficiently complex that it had to go all the way to the top for a definitive view so different opinions on what was legal were valid, but there was definitely a sense at the end that expressing the moral case (She's our problem to deal with, etc) was being treated by some as persuasive in itself, as a matter of law. I'm sure the barristers did not frame it that way, and when the final ruling came down IIRC the response was basically 'well, morally we still do not like it', which is fine to do, but media commentators tend not to frame it that way.
Bingo!
Its entirely reasonable to not like the law.
It is not reasonable to claim the law is different than what it is.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
And yet folk insist that anti-Semitism is a feature of the left.
It is.
Horseshoe theory is real though. There's very little real difference between far left and far right.
I used to believe horseshoe concept was simple, like the Laffer Curve, but I am less sure either apply as efficiently in reality as they do in theory.
The far Christian MAGA right have a dilemma. They are reliant on Israel and the Jews for Christ's imminent resurrection. It is utterly bizarre they pray to Jesus, a Jew, and demand the removal of all non-arians from the USA.
We could solve a lot of the world’s problems by letting them know that he’s already returned as a goalkeeper for Coventry.
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
And yet folk insist that anti-Semitism is a feature of the left.
It is.
Horseshoe theory is real though. There's very little real difference between far left and far right.
I used to believe horseshoe concept was simple, like the Laffer Curve, but I am less sure either apply as efficiently in reality as they do in theory.
The far Christian MAGA right have a dilemma. They are reliant on Israel and the Jews for Christ's imminent resurrection. It is utterly bizarre they pray to Jesus, a Jew, and demand the removal of all non-arians from the USA.
Jesus wasn’t a Jew, he merely chose to physically manifest as one in his time on earth
This is simply based on his claim. Not confirmed. May be true, may not be. Various press organs have approached the US authorities for comment on the back of it. We will see.
This is simply based on his claim. Not confirmed. May be true, may not be. Various press organs have approached the US authorities for comment on the back of it. We will see.
Given a choice between believing the current US government and believing absolutely anyone who isn’t Josef Goebbels, which one is more likely to be telling the truth?
As the actress said while handing the Bishop Viagra, ‘gee, that’s a hard one.’
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
And yet folk insist that anti-Semitism is a feature of the left.
It is.
Horseshoe theory is real though. There's very little real difference between far left and far right.
I used to believe horseshoe concept was simple, like the Laffer Curve, but I am less sure either apply as efficiently in reality as they do in theory.
The far Christian MAGA right have a dilemma. They are reliant on Israel and the Jews for Christ's imminent resurrection. It is utterly bizarre they pray to Jesus, a Jew, and demand the removal of all non-arians from the USA.
Switching from theology to politics, as I understand the dynamic, over time (going back a 1-1.5 centuries little more than a century) Irish, Italians, Jews, Roman Catholics have started to count at different times as "white", in the view of white nationalist USA as the sandcastle their politics are built on gradually washes away.
I'm not sure about where Orthodox groups are on this spectrum - Greeks, Russians, Serbians etc.
I think that they will embrace (rich) Indians before Muslims, and I'm assuming that rich Arabs get a pass as they have money, whilst poor Arabs are still "dirty".
The latest Republican running for Colorado Governor labels Gov. Jared Polis and others as the "synagogue of Satan Jews" and has called for their execution by hanging.
And yet folk insist that anti-Semitism is a feature of the left.
It is.
Horseshoe theory is real though. There's very little real difference between far left and far right.
I used to believe horseshoe concept was simple, like the Laffer Curve, but I am less sure either apply as efficiently in reality as they do in theory.
The far Christian MAGA right have a dilemma. They are reliant on Israel and the Jews for Christ's imminent resurrection. It is utterly bizarre they pray to Jesus, a Jew, and demand the removal of all non-arians from the USA.
Switching from theology to politics, as I understand the dynamic, over time (going back a 1-1.5 centuries little more than a century) Irish, Italians, Jews, Roman Catholics have started to count at different times as "white", in the view of white nationalist USA as the sandcastle their politics is built on gradually washes away.
I'm not sure about where Orthodox groups are on this spectrum - Greeks, Russians, Serbians etc.
I think that they will embrace (rich) Indians before Muslims, and I'm assuming that rich Arabs get a pass as they have money, whilst poor Arabs are still "dirty".
Haha ! Tautology typo.
"1-1.5 centuries little more than a century" is 2 different descriptions, and I left both in.
This is simply based on his claim. Not confirmed. May be true, may not be. Various press organs have approached the US authorities for comment on the back of it. We will see.
Given a choice between believing the current US government and believing absolutely anyone who isn’t Josef Goebbels, which one is more likely to be telling the truth?
As the actress said while handing the Bishop Viagra, ‘gee, that’s a hard one.’
Very witty and a Nazi reference too 🙄
I personally won’t speculate and won’t take the word of Dom Joly on face value.
Given that they could use aniseed rather than animal scent, it's clearly just a ruse to continue actual fox hunting, do a ban seems justified. The actual control measure for fox numbers would seem to be the motor car. We have plenty of foxes in my urban area and they don't cause an issue if you secure your bins properly. Given I've seen the cubs being taught to raid bins while surrounded by grazing rabbits, I doubt they can be bothered with chickens either.
Next the clowns will want to ban driving cars
There’s a few who do, de growth is very much on the agenda for some. Limit the supply of energy and water and other key essentials and simply live within that and forget growth as it hurts the planet.
The EU has spent millions funding groups looking at it.
Climate change committee has made some suggestions on energy use which it wants to see implemented.
If energy supply is limited, I'd expect a big backlash from the masses. If taxes were put up on flying, transport, meat etc it would obviously favour the wealthy. I dont see how you could go for reduction in energy use without annoying a big part of the population
I’d agree so I expect they will do it by stealth rather than be open and above board about it. We need cheap energy. We’re not going to get it.
The Climate Change Committe is one of those unelected NGO’s that @Sandpit was referring to. It has no accountability. Get money from the govt and lobbies the govt on matters that will affect each and every one of us.
It would be better to abolish many of these NGO’s as the govt just subcontracts policy making to them.
So leave it all to Ed Miliband then?
Effectively we are already doing that with the Climate Change Committee. It’s merely there to lobby for what he/his team wants. Leave it to him and his department let them own it.
Or should we have governance by unelected NGO ?
That would seem to be the conclusion of Blair’s Third Way and Cameron’s Big Society.
Very much so.
I cannot see it changing either as these groups are so well entrenched. Any attempt to remove, or even reduce, them will be met with a robust response and media campaign as they are so well enmeshed with the media.
Irrespective of the facts the public will be convinced life will be worse without them.
Had to laugh at this passage from the CCCs 2025 progress report:
"Last year, we made making electricity cheaper our first recommendation. When people and businesses switch to electric technologies, they are paying more than the actual cost of supplying the extra electricity they demand, because of policy decisions taken many years ago. Removing policy costs from electricity would ensure the underlying cost-savings of switching to efficient electric technologies are captured by households and businesses, encouraging take-up. The Government has made no clear progress on removing policy costs since the election. Making electricity cheaper remains our first recommendation"
So far the government have been close to the opposite. Like so many other issues, it is aware of the problem but not doing anywhere near enough to address it. We are an energy abundant country, whether it is in wind, oil, gas, nuclear, solar.
The effort to reduce energy costs has been pathetic
This is so obvious it drives me nuts. Electricity is already much cleaner than the alternatives (particularly somewhere like Scotland), and over the next 25 years it's the source of energy that the UK will depend on the most. If we want to encourage people to use it, it has to be falling in cost relative to the alternatives, not the opposite. To be fair on the Labour government, they have removed a bunch of the green levies from electricty, which is sensible.
But the fact this obvious advice has been ignored so long rather proves that the CCC does not have the kind of power that the conspiracists think they do. The same goes for the OBR - Truss and Kwarteng bypassed them with ease and actually passed a budget with no oversight at all.
The problem is not a conspiracy - but systemic culture. Much of government is wired to implement rationing/reduction in energy usage. tap water = energy usage, therefore.
This is because, until a decade or two ago, the idea that we really could get to net zero with abundant energy usage was seen as impossible.
Electric cars came out of no-where - from the point of view of governments. They were on a path to hydrogen vehicles - and rationing those.
I saw this, when talking with an ex-Cabinet Office chap. When I started to talk about cheap green energy slowing a massive expansion of consumption, he actually said “but the policy….”
So we need to change the culture from “squeeze energy usage” to “luxuriate in cheap, green energy”
A simple example is the extreme dislike of air conditioning - which is complicating building and raising costs. Not to mention is needed when temperatures regularly go above 27c or so.
The insane cheapness of solar panels probably shouldn't have been a surprise- it was just extrapolating the exisiting trend. The cheapness of batteries (which really do change the dynamics) rather more so. It means that the 'net 5%' solution is pretty obvious; solar wherever we can, wind where it's easy, lots of batteries and gas on standby. We just have to put in the capital spending to make it happen. On top of that, one of the arguments against CO2 extraction solutions (olivine weathering, for example) has tended to be the energy-intensiveness of the processes. Intuitively, it feels like there is a solution where they are used to mop up excess electricity at times of peak production.
On the aircon thing, didn't the government relax the rules this summer?
The more interesting question is when will those on the right notice that their support for fossil fuels really is utterly quixotic?
None of it should have come as a surprise
- electric cars came out of car moding in LA. You could get any car turned into an electric car for about $250k. Most of that was labour. Various companies, including Tesla, started out by building a production line to drop that cost to a fraction.
- the collapse in battery price was a line on a graph.
Etc.
The issue was systemic resistance to change they didn’t authorise.
As a senior US government official put it, concerning another of Musk’s enterprises “no one (in the government) asked for these capabilities or planned them”
The other thing that happened was the improvement in battery range. The first Leaf claimed 100 miles on a full charge. 80 at best for the pool cars we used to use. In tests the new model does around 300 miles.
Range is/was a function of battery cost.
The declining cost of batteries and continuous improvement in their performance (usually expressed in Watt/hours per Kg) made the 300 mile mass market car inevitable.
This is what the graphs showed in 2000.
Batteries lose efficiency over time. How long is the life of a car battery for a newer model before it needs a rather pricey replacement ? Who knows. I guess we will find out.
We have decades of data.
Modern EV batteries degrade at an average rate of about 1.8% per year. EVs generally retain over 80% of their original capacity even after 200,000 miles.
Battery replacement is a £10-15,000 thing. Dropping all the time, as well.
I remember one of the original plans floated by a carmaker was to have replaceable batteries each time you needed a charge. You rocked up and they swapped the battery for a fully charged one, took the old one and recharged it for another punter.
Idea didn’t last of course.
Prices fall over time in general especially as the initial investment costs are paid back. I noticed AESC in Sunderland actually started producing batteries.
The issues are:
That it requires standardised and easily accessible batteries, which is difficult in a car because of packaging constraints.
Agreement between manufacturers to standardise batteries, which would probably have to be on a worldwide or at least continental basis.
The amount of infrastructure required initially is massive, an order of magnitude more investment than Tesla did with their Supercharger network. Not just the batteries themselves, but also the power supply required for fast charging and machinery infrastructure to replace them. Unlike regular chargers they would likely have to be manned.
So it’s unlikely to work for cars, but it may well be an option for lorries which could have massive but standardised batteries.
This is simply based on his claim. Not confirmed. May be true, may not be. Various press organs have approached the US authorities for comment on the back of it. We will see.
Given a choice between believing the current US government and believing absolutely anyone who isn’t Josef Goebbels, which one is more likely to be telling the truth?
As the actress said while handing the Bishop Viagra, ‘gee, that’s a hard one.’
Very witty and a Nazi reference too 🙄
I personally won’t speculate and won’t take the word of Dom Joly on face value.
Perhaps a question for the 2026 PB quiz. How many slabs or PB get bounced at the US Border.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's just capitalism.
They don't want people enjoying the view of the fireworks etc for free.
When I was a student, Trafalgar Square etc was free and unticketed fun. As I recall one of the beer companies paid for free all night tube home too.
Is that right?
Reddit seems to think that Primrose Hill has devolved into a dangerous free-for-all, and that the police don’t have the manpower available to manage it effectively.
So instead they've put up a big unsightly black fence instead.
It’s all very Late Soviet Britain.
I can understand the Primrose Hill decision. It has a pretty small, narrow peak, that would only accommodate a couple of hundred people. But everybody would want to get to the top as that's where the best, possibly only, view of the fireworks would be. Thousands trying to get to the prime view would be pretty chaotic.
Thousands will not be trying to get a good view. I live nearer Parliament Hill, which arguably has better views, and we get maybe 100? There’s been a long-running local argument among the Primrose Hill locals about whether or not to lock out people, not just at NYE: see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65664868
This is simply based on his claim. Not confirmed. May be true, may not be. Various press organs have approached the US authorities for comment on the back of it. We will see.
Given a choice between believing the current US government and believing absolutely anyone who isn’t Josef Goebbels, which one is more likely to be telling the truth?
As the actress said while handing the Bishop Viagra, ‘gee, that’s a hard one.’
Very witty and a Nazi reference too 🙄
I personally won’t speculate and won’t take the word of Dom Joly on face value.
Suspicious character, Dom Joly - he speaks Arabic.
This is an ESTA (Visa free) application. Given that Trump's policy is to insist on tourists supplying details of any email addresses or phone numbers they have used over the previous 10 years, and a 5 year social media history, and that multiple people have already reported exclusion, and others deported, on this bases, it would hardly be a surprise, and would imo be expected. It's a frightened authoritarian regime; that is what they do.
Having said that, Dom Joly should have a rejection email that he can publish.
A man has been arrested after five people were assaulted with a weapon at a hospital.
Merseyside Police say the incident began when a man attended Newton Community Hospital, in Newton-Le-Willows, on Tuesday afternoon and requested an appointment.
"At this stage, it is believed that his request was declined, and when he was asked to leave, he became increasingly agitated and damaged a counter before assaulting several people inside the hospital, with a weapon - possibly a crowbar," a police spokesperson said.
A 20-year-old man, who police say is originally from Afghanistan, has been arrested on suspicion of five counts of wounding with intent, affray and criminal damage.
Apparently he went crazy a he was not happy waiting for an appointment. Not defending him but I must admit to feeling slightly vexed when I’m stuck in a slow queue.
I had lunch yesterday with the executive director of a programme that helps special forces operatives reintegrate with society.
She said her job was to teach them that the “old lady with ten coupons in front of them in the queue” doesn’t behave like other SFOs…
A worthy cause but why is it left to a charity to do the work the Services should do. Admirable they have the time and resources to do it but …
There seems to be a ‘they’re disposable’ attitude going on here.
Perhaps not so much 'they're disposable' as 'they're no longer on the books so who cares?' - something I've got a sense of from some recent memoirs.
I'm also reminded of the closures of the Services hospitals in recent decades. You'd think HMG would at least want to keep some of the specialist expertise (in, for instance, battle fatigue and PTSD) rather than simply assume the NHS would provide. As I understand it, there was some back pedalling, but not much.
The services hospitals were not viable due to their small size, but there are specific military wards (cross services) in NHS hospitals, and also for armed forces consultants employed at NHS hospitals with specific responsibilities. There are several RAF consultants in Lincoln for example.
The forces medical services show very little interest in vetrans after discharge as I am sure @Dura_Ace can testify.
There used to be a large military hospital in Aldershot, closed around the turn of the century from memory.
They had a public A&E, and specialists in unusual areas such as prosthetics and mental health.
Yes, experience from friends says that once you’re discharged, any problems you might have are the NHS’s and not theirs.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost.
This is simply based on his claim. Not confirmed. May be true, may not be. Various press organs have approached the US authorities for comment on the back of it. We will see.
Given a choice between believing the current US government and believing absolutely anyone who isn’t Josef Goebbels, which one is more likely to be telling the truth?
As the actress said while handing the Bishop Viagra, ‘gee, that’s a hard one.’
Very witty and a Nazi reference too 🙄
I personally won’t speculate and won’t take the word of Dom Joly on face value.
Suspicious character, Dom Joly - he speaks Arabic.
This is an ESTA (Visa free) application. Given that Trump's policy is to insist on tourists supplying details of any email addresses or phone numbers they have used over the previous 10 years, and a 5 year social media history, and that multiple people have already reported exclusion, and others deported, on this bases, it would hardly be a surprise, and would imo be expected. It's a frightened authoritarian regime; that is what they do.
Having said that, Dom Joly should have a rejection email that he can publish.
Born in Lebanon.
His TV career has declined since he had a large telephone and he’s creating content. His stuff is all engagement.
He should publish the email.
I doubt it’s harming his profile.
I saw him once in London. I expected him to be taller.
Given that they could use aniseed rather than animal scent, it's clearly just a ruse to continue actual fox hunting, do a ban seems justified. The actual control measure for fox numbers would seem to be the motor car. We have plenty of foxes in my urban area and they don't cause an issue if you secure your bins properly. Given I've seen the cubs being taught to raid bins while surrounded by grazing rabbits, I doubt they can be bothered with chickens either.
Next the clowns will want to ban driving cars
There’s a few who do, de growth is very much on the agenda for some. Limit the supply of energy and water and other key essentials and simply live within that and forget growth as it hurts the planet.
The EU has spent millions funding groups looking at it.
Climate change committee has made some suggestions on energy use which it wants to see implemented.
If energy supply is limited, I'd expect a big backlash from the masses. If taxes were put up on flying, transport, meat etc it would obviously favour the wealthy. I dont see how you could go for reduction in energy use without annoying a big part of the population
I’d agree so I expect they will do it by stealth rather than be open and above board about it. We need cheap energy. We’re not going to get it.
The Climate Change Committe is one of those unelected NGO’s that @Sandpit was referring to. It has no accountability. Get money from the govt and lobbies the govt on matters that will affect each and every one of us.
It would be better to abolish many of these NGO’s as the govt just subcontracts policy making to them.
So leave it all to Ed Miliband then?
Effectively we are already doing that with the Climate Change Committee. It’s merely there to lobby for what he/his team wants. Leave it to him and his department let them own it.
Or should we have governance by unelected NGO ?
That would seem to be the conclusion of Blair’s Third Way and Cameron’s Big Society.
Very much so.
I cannot see it changing either as these groups are so well entrenched. Any attempt to remove, or even reduce, them will be met with a robust response and media campaign as they are so well enmeshed with the media.
Irrespective of the facts the public will be convinced life will be worse without them.
Had to laugh at this passage from the CCCs 2025 progress report:
"Last year, we made making electricity cheaper our first recommendation. When people and businesses switch to electric technologies, they are paying more than the actual cost of supplying the extra electricity they demand, because of policy decisions taken many years ago. Removing policy costs from electricity would ensure the underlying cost-savings of switching to efficient electric technologies are captured by households and businesses, encouraging take-up. The Government has made no clear progress on removing policy costs since the election. Making electricity cheaper remains our first recommendation"
So far the government have been close to the opposite. Like so many other issues, it is aware of the problem but not doing anywhere near enough to address it. We are an energy abundant country, whether it is in wind, oil, gas, nuclear, solar.
The effort to reduce energy costs has been pathetic
This is so obvious it drives me nuts. Electricity is already much cleaner than the alternatives (particularly somewhere like Scotland), and over the next 25 years it's the source of energy that the UK will depend on the most. If we want to encourage people to use it, it has to be falling in cost relative to the alternatives, not the opposite. To be fair on the Labour government, they have removed a bunch of the green levies from electricty, which is sensible.
But the fact this obvious advice has been ignored so long rather proves that the CCC does not have the kind of power that the conspiracists think they do. The same goes for the OBR - Truss and Kwarteng bypassed them with ease and actually passed a budget with no oversight at all.
The problem is not a conspiracy - but systemic culture. Much of government is wired to implement rationing/reduction in energy usage. tap water = energy usage, therefore.
This is because, until a decade or two ago, the idea that we really could get to net zero with abundant energy usage was seen as impossible.
Electric cars came out of no-where - from the point of view of governments. They were on a path to hydrogen vehicles - and rationing those.
I saw this, when talking with an ex-Cabinet Office chap. When I started to talk about cheap green energy slowing a massive expansion of consumption, he actually said “but the policy….”
So we need to change the culture from “squeeze energy usage” to “luxuriate in cheap, green energy”
A simple example is the extreme dislike of air conditioning - which is complicating building and raising costs. Not to mention is needed when temperatures regularly go above 27c or so.
The insane cheapness of solar panels probably shouldn't have been a surprise- it was just extrapolating the exisiting trend. The cheapness of batteries (which really do change the dynamics) rather more so. It means that the 'net 5%' solution is pretty obvious; solar wherever we can, wind where it's easy, lots of batteries and gas on standby. We just have to put in the capital spending to make it happen. On top of that, one of the arguments against CO2 extraction solutions (olivine weathering, for example) has tended to be the energy-intensiveness of the processes. Intuitively, it feels like there is a solution where they are used to mop up excess electricity at times of peak production.
On the aircon thing, didn't the government relax the rules this summer?
The more interesting question is when will those on the right notice that their support for fossil fuels really is utterly quixotic?
None of it should have come as a surprise
- electric cars came out of car moding in LA. You could get any car turned into an electric car for about $250k. Most of that was labour. Various companies, including Tesla, started out by building a production line to drop that cost to a fraction.
- the collapse in battery price was a line on a graph.
Etc.
The issue was systemic resistance to change they didn’t authorise.
As a senior US government official put it, concerning another of Musk’s enterprises “no one (in the government) asked for these capabilities or planned them”
The other thing that happened was the improvement in battery range. The first Leaf claimed 100 miles on a full charge. 80 at best for the pool cars we used to use. In tests the new model does around 300 miles.
Range is/was a function of battery cost.
The declining cost of batteries and continuous improvement in their performance (usually expressed in Watt/hours per Kg) made the 300 mile mass market car inevitable.
This is what the graphs showed in 2000.
Batteries lose efficiency over time. How long is the life of a car battery for a newer model before it needs a rather pricey replacement ? Who knows. I guess we will find out.
We have decades of data.
Modern EV batteries degrade at an average rate of about 1.8% per year. EVs generally retain over 80% of their original capacity even after 200,000 miles.
Battery replacement is a £10-15,000 thing. Dropping all the time, as well.
I remember one of the original plans floated by a carmaker was to have replaceable batteries each time you needed a charge. You rocked up and they swapped the battery for a fully charged one, took the old one and recharged it for another punter.
Idea didn’t last of course.
Prices fall over time in general especially as the initial investment costs are paid back. I noticed AESC in Sunderland actually started producing batteries.
The issues are:
That it requires standardised and easily accessible batteries, which is difficult in a car because of packaging constraints.
Agreement between manufacturers to standardise batteries, which would probably have to be on a worldwide or at least continental basis.
The amount of infrastructure required initially is massive, an order of magnitude more investment than Tesla did with their Supercharger network. Not just the batteries themselves, but also the power supply required for fast charging and machinery infrastructure to replace them. Unlike regular chargers they would likely have to be manned.
So it’s unlikely to work for cars, but it may well be an option for lorries which could have massive but standardised batteries.
Not might be; has been for a while now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20250506-are-chinas-swap-stations-the-future-of-electric-cars ..While battery swap is still largely a nascent sector, China has the world's most developed model by far. While it's mainly used for larger vehicles – close to half of the electric heavy-duty trucks sold in China in 2023 were equipped with battery-swap technology – the country is also seriously experimenting with swaps for personal cars...
This is simply based on his claim. Not confirmed. May be true, may not be. Various press organs have approached the US authorities for comment on the back of it. We will see.
Given a choice between believing the current US government and believing absolutely anyone who isn’t Josef Goebbels, which one is more likely to be telling the truth?
As the actress said while handing the Bishop Viagra, ‘gee, that’s a hard one.’
Very witty and a Nazi reference too 🙄
I personally won’t speculate and won’t take the word of Dom Joly on face value.
Suspicious character, Dom Joly - he speaks Arabic.
This is an ESTA (Visa free) application. Given that Trump's policy is to insist on tourists supplying details of any email addresses or phone numbers they have used over the previous 10 years, and a 5 year social media history, and that multiple people have already reported exclusion, and others deported, on this bases, it would hardly be a surprise, and would imo be expected. It's a frightened authoritarian regime; that is what they do.
Having said that, Dom Joly should have a rejection email that he can publish.
Born in Lebanon.
His TV career has declined since he had a large telephone and he’s creating content. His stuff is all engagement.
He should publish the email.
I doubt it’s harming his profile.
I saw him once in London. I expected him to be taller.
"HELLO! HELLO! I'M STUCK ON A PB THREAD! I SAID A PB THREAD!"
Comments
Unruly mobs of drunks are a great British tradition and a small price to pay for liberty, compared to the Second Ammendment for example.
I mean, we're all vaguely aware there's some places called Scotland and Wales out there (though Ireland is surely just a cruel rumour), barbarian raiders have to come from somwhere, but I assumed there was some kind of teleportation system in place or something.
Max is making a very broad claim for which he presents no evidence or precedent.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dm9944glpo.amp
... Although the home secretary has powers to strip a dual national of their citizenship if it is deemed not to be "conducive to the public good", in practice this has typically been used in cases linked to terrorism or serious organised crime where someone is deemed a national security threat.
It is understood that Downing Street believes that this high bar is not met in this case. Any decision to strip someone of their citizenship is also likely to face a potentially lengthy and expensive legal challenge...
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/legal-constraints-likely-to-prevent-deportation-of-egyptian-extremist-who-called-for-zionist-killings/amp/
.. Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah is unlikely to face deportation from the UK, despite historic social media posts supporting violence against Zionists and derogatory remarks about British people.
Jewish News understands government officials believe that his actions do not meet the legal threshold required for revoking citizenship or initiating deportation proceedings.
Officials within the Government appear to believe there are no grounds for removing Fattah’s citizenship, as case law has established this can only be done in cases of fraud, or against dangerous criminals and terrorists...
No doubt there are politicians who would claim that arbitrary powers to remove citizenship already exist (as Max seems to to believe).
But to do so for what are speech offences dating back a decade would represent a very large expansion of arbitrary power.
Some well travelled Asian friends of mine said it was the most racist place they have ever been, though they were Hindu.
(On Dune, I really hope the next film tackles the whole genocidal jihad business which takes place offscreen in the main sequence books. From listening to some of the comments people made when I was leaving Dune part II I don't think everyone understood what was about to happen. I also find it a failing of the less famous books, as the first book feels huge despite mostly taking place in one place, whereas the later ones feel very small despite what is meant to be massive events happening).
We don't need new laws to revoke his citizenship, the existing ones will do just fine you're just looking in the wrong place and Labour are too scared of losing their Muslim voters to do the right thing.
Still in all of this I blame the Tories the most for giving him citizenship in the first place. He should have been denied citizenship and denied entry and his horrible sister should have had her citizenship revoked after her disgusting comments supporting Hamas and the October 7th attacks.
Whether that is true or not (and I think the Bangladeshi authorities said she did not), and as tenuous and not particularly persuasive as it was, it would technically be different to a situation where anyone could claim a second citizenship.
As per the Aussie scandal mentioned yesterday, there have been situations of people having citizenships they were not even aware of which rendered them ineligible to hold office, so things can get weird.
She made her choice. Choices have consequences
https://x.com/CMShehbaz/status/2005822489709142201?s=20
Because he was horrified by the hero worship for him, from the first book.
"Ref 29.0%
Con 19.0%
Lab 17.8%
Grn 15.3%
LD 12.6%"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/when-next-election-will-reform-win/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-11/4
People need to let off steam every now and then.
We are a society that now fears each others presence except in the most controlled ways. Its not healthy.
He wrote the Harkonnens to be over the top evil, (a slaving, incestuous, paedophile rapist, heads the family. His chief enforcer is a moronic psychopath. His heir is an intelligent psychopath). The Atreides are written to be hugely sympathetic.
Then, he complains that readers see Paul as heroic … when he’s written to be heroic.
So, he writes Dune Messiah seeks to correct this perception, only to retcon it in Children of Dune, where it turns out that deaths of billions in the jihad were necessary, in order to prevent humanity’s extinction.
The first book was interesting; it went downhill rapidly after that, IMO.
Youth and ignorance should be taken into account in sentencing. But…
She is a war criminal.
Any case the whole thing about revoking citizenship is nonsense.
So, he thought readers would read between the lines, and realise it’s better to be ruled by Harkonnens than Atreides.
Yes choices have consequences, but performative nonsense from both Conservative and now a Labour government regarding her citizenship is legally and morally questionable. If she has a case to answer she should be charged tried, convicted and punished.
The current situation is wholly unsatisfactory.
Perhaps we need to decide between jus soli and jus sanguinis instead of an incoherent mixture of both.
https://x.com/KaterynaLis/status/2006036418850664478A
Pretty absurd we're even debating this, given that Putin had been targeting Zelensky continuously for three years.
😀
I did however quite enjoy the "Dune: Prophecy" TV show, which I see has just started filming its second series.
Closing the door behind her, legally, is wholly satisfactory.
If she had, and was a citizen, then the child could claim, but a claim unpressed should not pass down. Especially if the window to press it has passed.
We're discussing this because our Prime Minister along with the rest of the political elite invested so much political capital in a foreign dissident because of it.
MAGA podcaster Joe Oltmann recently said "Violence is probably the only solution."
https://x.com/KyleClark/status/2005880243354021918
The point is, people obtain UK citizenship through their parents being citizens. It's how probably 90+ % of the UK citizens in this board got their citizenship, including myself. It's how Abd Al Fattah got his citizenship. Kemi Badenoch is a rare exception and wouldn't be able to get it now.
If no, and if she's not able to become one, then how is he?
She was also 15.
Her plight is the result of cheap politics from both the Conservatives and Labour. If she requires sanction, try her and throw her in Holloway for as long as the law requires.
Horseshoe theory is real though. There's very little real difference between far left and far right.
We can debate whether or not it is moral, but the courts have determined it is legal, whether you like it or not, that is a matter of fact and law.
I'm happy to say the law should be different where I think it should be, but me thinking it should be different has never been a case of saying the law is other than it actually is.
I think there's more an acceptance now that racism, and especially anti-semitism, is not to be found in only one part of the spectrum, even if people can still argue which far-anything has it worse. So it is not as though anti-semitism is a specific feature of the left - it isn't - but that in relatively recent times there's been more acknowledgement there was an issue there as well.
The far Christian MAGA right have a dilemma. They are reliant on Israel and the Jews for Christ's imminent resurrection. It is utterly bizarre they pray to Jesus, a Jew, and demand the removal of all non-arians from the USA.
Which as I've noted I think can sometimes be counterproductive to then actually creating legal change, as the specifics to do so get lost in a moral argument which the legalistic can bat aside by pointing out it is legal.
Edited
Its entirely reasonable to not like the law.
It is not reasonable to claim the law is different than what it is.
Dom Joly has been refused a visa to the USA because he criticises Donald Trump.
Like I said before, the World Cup is going to be wild.
https://x.com/I_amMukhtar/status/2006124751849185517
As the actress said while handing the Bishop Viagra, ‘gee, that’s a hard one.’
I'm not sure about where Orthodox groups are on this spectrum - Greeks, Russians, Serbians etc.
I think that they will embrace (rich) Indians before Muslims, and I'm assuming that rich Arabs get a pass as they have money, whilst poor Arabs are still "dirty".
"1-1.5 centuries little more than a century" is 2 different descriptions, and I left both in.
Also is/are .
It's a Bank Holiday .... slooooowwww down.
I personally won’t speculate and won’t take the word of Dom Joly on face value.
That it requires standardised and easily accessible batteries, which is difficult in a car because of packaging constraints.
Agreement between manufacturers to standardise batteries, which would probably have to be on a worldwide or at least continental basis.
The amount of infrastructure required initially is massive, an order of magnitude more investment than Tesla did with their Supercharger network. Not just the batteries themselves, but also the power supply required for fast charging and machinery infrastructure to replace them. Unlike regular chargers they would likely have to be manned.
So it’s unlikely to work for cars, but it may well be an option for lorries which could have massive but standardised batteries.
NEW THREAD
This is an ESTA (Visa free) application. Given that Trump's policy is to insist on tourists supplying details of any email addresses or phone numbers they have used over the previous 10 years, and a 5 year social media history, and that multiple people have already reported exclusion, and others deported, on this bases, it would hardly be a surprise, and would imo be expected. It's a frightened authoritarian regime; that is what they do.
Having said that, Dom Joly should have a rejection email that he can publish.
They had a public A&E, and specialists in unusual areas such as prosthetics and mental health.
Yes, experience from friends says that once you’re discharged, any problems you might have are the NHS’s and not theirs.
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost.
His TV career has declined since he had a large telephone and he’s creating content. His stuff is all engagement.
He should publish the email.
I doubt it’s harming his profile.
I saw him once in London. I expected him to be taller.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20250506-are-chinas-swap-stations-the-future-of-electric-cars
..While battery swap is still largely a nascent sector, China has the world's most developed model by far. While it's mainly used for larger vehicles – close to half of the electric heavy-duty trucks sold in China in 2023 were equipped with battery-swap technology – the country is also seriously experimenting with swaps for personal cars...