Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
I am no export on what has happened in Gaza, but from the outside it did appear (at least initially) that the IDF was getting civilians to move out of areas prior to those areas being attacked. I have no idea if those that have sadly been killed were outside those areas, or chose to remain, or where held in place by Hamas. I have seen no evidence of Gazans being rounded up, taken away and shot en masse, for instance. Its no different to the dead of course but the conduct in Srebrenica seems very different to that in Gaza.
Meanwhile, in Scotland (copied from BBC) The former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell is facing a charge of embezzling £459,000 from the party over a period of more than 12 years, it has emerged. Details of the case against Murrell, the estranged husband of former first minister Nicola Sturgeon, are contained in a copy of an indictment seen by BBC News. According to the document, Murrell is accused of embezzling the funds between August 2010 and January 2023.
Bloody government overreach. Trying to ban a group known for violence against legitimate businesses and some of its members clearly have Hamas sympathies. What’s the world coming to.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
I am no export on what has happened in Gaza, but from the outside it did appear (at least initially) that the IDF was getting civilians to move out of areas prior to those areas being attacked. I have no idea if those that have sadly been killed were outside those areas, or chose to remain, or where held in place by Hamas. I have seen no evidence of Gazans being rounded up, taken away and shot en masse, for instance. Its no different to the dead of course but the conduct in Srebrenica seems very different to that in Gaza.
The use of hunger as a weapon of war, by restricting food supplies to Gaza, would seem to me to be where Israel comes closest to an act of genocide (or where it is hardest to dispute, depending on which side of the line you place it), which is very different from what happened in Srebrenica.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
I am no export on what has happened in Gaza, but from the outside it did appear (at least initially) that the IDF was getting civilians to move out of areas prior to those areas being attacked. I have no idea if those that have sadly been killed were outside those areas, or chose to remain, or where held in place by Hamas. I have seen no evidence of Gazans being rounded up, taken away and shot en masse, for instance. Its no different to the dead of course but the conduct in Srebrenica seems very different to that in Gaza.
The use of hunger as a weapon of war, by restricting did supplies to Gaza, would seem to me to be where Israel comes closest to an act of genocide (or where it is hardest to dispute, depending on which side of the line you place it), which is very different from what happened in Srebrenica.
I wonder about this though. There were also stories of Hamas hording the supplies. And at least one child was used to depict starvation when in fact there was something else going on.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
I don't think mass killing has an exact template. Armenia was different from the Holodomor which was different from the Holocaust which was different from Rwanda which was different from Srebrenica which was different from Gaza. What they do have in common is the deliberate slaughter of large numbers of unarmed civilians.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Gaza shows a frequent reckless disregard for civilian casualties, on the part of the IDF. There have also been cases of deliberate murder, too.
At Srebrenicia, thousands of civilians were rounded up, and put to death in cold blood, based solely upon their ethnicity.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
I am no export on what has happened in Gaza, but from the outside it did appear (at least initially) that the IDF was getting civilians to move out of areas prior to those areas being attacked. I have no idea if those that have sadly been killed were outside those areas, or chose to remain, or where held in place by Hamas. I have seen no evidence of Gazans being rounded up, taken away and shot en masse, for instance. Its no different to the dead of course but the conduct in Srebrenica seems very different to that in Gaza.
The use of hunger as a weapon of war, by restricting did supplies to Gaza, would seem to me to be where Israel comes closest to an act of genocide (or where it is hardest to dispute, depending on which side of the line you place it), which is very different from what happened in Srebrenica.
I wonder about this though. There were also stories of Hamas hording the supplies. And at least one child was used to depict starvation when in fact there was something else going on.
Hamas can be expected to have secured what limited food was available for their fighters, but I don't think it's seriously possible to dispute that there was a major deficit in food supplies. The idea that famine conditions were created due to Hamas hoarding of adequate supplies allowed in by Israel is risible.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Should is prominent in the highway code - ignoring should leaves you open to careless driving.
Another code of practice which uses "should":
..In this Code of Practice, where the text uses the word ‘must’ it refers to a statutory requirement under primary legislation, regulations or case law. The bodies listed in paragraph iv. must have regard to the Code of Practice. This means that whenever they are taking decisions they must give consideration to what the Code says. They cannot ignore it. They must fulfil their statutory duties towards children and young people with SEN or disabilities in the light of the guidance set out in it. They must be able to demonstrate in their arrangements for children and young people with SEN or disabilities that they are fulfilling their statutory duty to have regard to the Code. So, where the text uses the word ‘should’ it means that the guidance contained in this Code must be considered and that those who must have regard to it will be expected to explain any departure from it...
The word is all over codes of practice, and parses of legislation, but I think @algarkirk is correct in thinking it is strongly avoided in primary legislation.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
Srebrenica isn't a good example. Bosniaks has soucht shelter in Srebrenica. Men were separated from women and children, taken to convenient places such as schools, shot, and buried in mass graves. The women and children were raped. The bodies were later moved and reberuid, to hide the crime. As a result, most are not whole.
However... if the UN had not been there, the Serbs could have done the same thing with bombs and shells, which would not look a lot different to Gaza.
We’re lucky to have an impartial judiciary in this country .
Personally I don't want 'protestors' wielding sledgehammers and attacking people as part of their 'protest'. Nor is causing hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds worth of damage to military hardware acceptable. Palestine Action were not banned because they planned a march to Trafalgar Square. I think some on here conflate the ban with a stance of backing Israel and not caring about the people of Gaza. Its not, its about the rule of law in the UK.
A exceptionally weak straw man fallacy. No one else here wants that, and those who behave that way should be prosecuted under our extensive and comprehensive criminal law. Attacking people with a sledgehammer is already illegal.
(Notwithstanding the fact they were found innocent by a jury).
The case is, I think, still subjudice ? There is another charge being brought.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
I don't think mass killing has an exact template. Armenia was different from the Holodomor which was different from the Holocaust which was different from Rwanda which was different from Srebrenica which was different from Gaza. What they do have in common is the deliberate slaughter of large numbers of unarmed civilians.
Sure, and so it hinges on whether the slaughter of civilians is deliberate or incidental. I think that the specifics of the case in Srebtenica make it more obvious that it was deliberate, while the situation in Gaza is rather different (although, as SeanF points out, there's plenty about the way in which Israel has acted that is more obviously unlawful even if one considered it not to qualify as genocide).
Bloody government overreach. Trying to ban a group known for violence against legitimate businesses and some of its members clearly have Hamas sympathies. What’s the world coming to.
Most unreasonable of them
It's tried to ban it for terrorism. Violence is not necessarily terrorism, and having Hamas sympathies is not yet a crime.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Of course the post is mindless but the worst part is the false equivalence.You would have to go a long way to convince any civilised people that killing 80,000 people 25,000 of them children was either deserved or served any purpose whatsoever.....
Blowing up a single building with 28 people inside 15 of them children to assassinate a single person is on its own an atrocity. Several hundred makes it difficult to find the words.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
I don't think mass killing has an exact template. Armenia was different from the Holodomor which was different from the Holocaust which was different from Rwanda which was different from Srebrenica which was different from Gaza. What they do have in common is the deliberate slaughter of large numbers of unarmed civilians.
That is true but the element of intent, on the part of the perpetrator, "to destroy a people in whole or part, on grounds of their racial, ethnical or religious group," is crucial to proving the charge.
We can just make genocide synonymous with unlawful mass killing, but ultimately that downgrades the charge.
Hasn't that already happened, at least temporarily ?
No it's been extended to 3 job shares
From your article:
..The role is undoable because it is several jobs rolled into one, each requiring a different set of skills. The role is now about (i) running Cabinet business, (ii) advising the PM, (iii) chairing senior official meetings, (iv) ensuring a smooth transition of power after an election and (v) leading the civil service. Leading the civil service is a huge job that is often neglected, because the Cabinet Secretary is spending their time on crisis management and daily firefighting...
..6. There is a better way of making the centre work The roles could be: a) Cabinet Coordinator (providing the agenda, minutes, and a more dynamic committee system to ensure departmental agreement on key issues) b) Chief Executive of the Civil Service (the big reformer of Whitehall) c) PM’s Chief of Staff / No.10 Principal Private Secretary to drive the Prime Minister’s agenda...
Just make the three job shares permanent, and you're half way there.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Of course the post is mindless but the worst part is the false equivalence.You would have to go a long way to convince any civilised people that killing 80,000 people 25,000 of them children was either deserved or served any purpose whatsoever.....
Blowing up a single building with 28 people inside 15 of them children to assassinate a single person is on its own an atrocity. Several hundred makes it difficult to find the words.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
I don't think mass killing has an exact template. Armenia was different from the Holodomor which was different from the Holocaust which was different from Rwanda which was different from Srebrenica which was different from Gaza. What they do have in common is the deliberate slaughter of large numbers of unarmed civilians.
That is true but the element of intent, on the part of the perpetrator, "to destroy a people in whole or part, on grounds of their racial, ethnical or religious group," is crucial to proving the charge.
We can just make genocide synonymous with unlawful mass killing, but ultimately that downgrades the charge.
It would perhaps be better if we would take unlawful mass killing more seriously. It shouldn't take genocide for people to act.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
Srebrenica isn't a good example. Bosniaks has soucht shelter in Srebrenica. Men were separated from women and children, taken to convenient places such as schools, shot, and buried in mass graves. The women and children were raped. The bodies were later moved and reberuid, to hide the crime. As a result, most are not whole.
However... if the UN had not been there, the Serbs could have done the same thing with bombs and shells, which would not look a lot different to Gaza.
Just reading through the wiki, the Dutch Prime Minister resigned 7 years later because of a report that found their troops should have done more to prevent it. A striking contrast to our government today over Gaza, and shows how what is considered acceptable has changed over the last 25 years. Depressing.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
I don't think mass killing has an exact template. Armenia was different from the Holodomor which was different from the Holocaust which was different from Rwanda which was different from Srebrenica which was different from Gaza. What they do have in common is the deliberate slaughter of large numbers of unarmed civilians.
That is true but the element of intent, on the part of the perpetrator, "to destroy a people in whole or part, on grounds of their racial, ethnical or religious group," is crucial to proving the charge.
We can just make genocide synonymous with unlawful mass killing, but ultimately that downgrades the charge.
The fact is that there are members of the Israeli government who are unashamed génocidaires repeatedly calling for the extermination of the Palestinian people and/or their ethnic cleansing from Gaza AND the West Bank. Unfortunately there also seems to be a substantial section of the Israeli public who agree with them.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
I don't think mass killing has an exact template. Armenia was different from the Holodomor which was different from the Holocaust which was different from Rwanda which was different from Srebrenica which was different from Gaza. What they do have in common is the deliberate slaughter of large numbers of unarmed civilians.
That is true but the element of intent, on the part of the perpetrator, "to destroy a people in whole or part, on grounds of their racial, ethnical or religious group," is crucial to proving the charge.
We can just make genocide synonymous with unlawful mass killing, but ultimately that downgrades the charge.
Well you have "in part" the Israelis didn't have to set out to destroy all the Palestinians, just some of them. And then there is the Cambodian genocide where I know of no intent to specifically destroy the Khmer people, other than that just happened to be the country the KR were brutally running.
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Should is prominent in the highway code - ignoring should leaves you open to careless driving.
I think the problem with 'should' as a legal term is that it fails to compel, and therefore gives a discretion with an ill defined bias about how that discretion is exercised.
It is there in guidance, but I doubt if it is used in primary legislation.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
I don't think mass killing has an exact template. Armenia was different from the Holodomor which was different from the Holocaust which was different from Rwanda which was different from Srebrenica which was different from Gaza. What they do have in common is the deliberate slaughter of large numbers of unarmed civilians.
That is true but the element of intent, on the part of the perpetrator, "to destroy a people in whole or part, on grounds of their racial, ethnical or religious group," is crucial to proving the charge.
We can just make genocide synonymous with unlawful mass killing, but ultimately that downgrades the charge.
The fact is that there are members of the Israeli government who are unashamed génocidaires repeatedly calling for the extermination of the Palestinian people and/or their ethnic cleansing from Gaza AND the West Bank. Unfortunately there also seems to be a substantial section of the Israeli public who agree with them.
This is true. However it's also true that there are quite a large number of Palestinians and other Arabs calling for the extermination of the Israeli people. Both sides seem genocidal.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Fair enough. How about the use of the word "should" in guidance and/or court verdicts?
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Well it wouldn't have been Sturgeon. She didn't pass her driving test until October 2023.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
I don't think mass killing has an exact template. Armenia was different from the Holodomor which was different from the Holocaust which was different from Rwanda which was different from Srebrenica which was different from Gaza. What they do have in common is the deliberate slaughter of large numbers of unarmed civilians.
That is true but the element of intent, on the part of the perpetrator, "to destroy a people in whole or part, on grounds of their racial, ethnical or religious group," is crucial to proving the charge.
We can just make genocide synonymous with unlawful mass killing, but ultimately that downgrades the charge.
The fact is that there are members of the Israeli government who are unashamed génocidaires repeatedly calling for the extermination of the Palestinian people and/or their ethnic cleansing from Gaza AND the West Bank. Unfortunately there also seems to be a substantial section of the Israeli public who agree with them.
This is true. However it's also true that there are quite a large number of Palestinians and other Arabs calling for the extermination of the Israeli people. Both sides seem genocidal.
The UK calls only one of those sides 'a strong ally'. Understandably a lot of British people might have a problem with that.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Of course the post is mindless but the worst part is the false equivalence.You would have to go a long way to convince any civilised people that killing 80,000 people 25,000 of them children was either deserved or served any purpose whatsoever.....
Blowing up a single building with 28 people inside 15 of them children to assassinate a single person is on its own an atrocity. Several hundred makes it difficult to find the words.
Was 7 October genocide?
Unless a number trigger applies to the definition, yes, absolutely.
If Hamas had the ability on that day to kill another million or five million Israelis they would have done so.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
Srebrenica doesn't seem like an obvious analogue for Gaza. There are loads of differences which make the two very different, even if you were to label both as genocide.
Srebrenica isn't a good example. Bosniaks has soucht shelter in Srebrenica. Men were separated from women and children, taken to convenient places such as schools, shot, and buried in mass graves. The women and children were raped. The bodies were later moved and reberuid, to hide the crime. As a result, most are not whole.
However... if the UN had not been there, the Serbs could have done the same thing with bombs and shells, which would not look a lot different to Gaza.
Just reading through the wiki, the Dutch Prime Minister resigned 7 years later because of a report that found their troops should have done more to prevent it. A striking contrast to our government today over Gaza, and shows how what is considered acceptable has changed over the last 25 years. Depressing.
Indeed. The mechanism was there to call on NATO air and artillery strikes but there was a lot of confusion and it didn't happen. The Dutch knew what would likely happen to the Bosniaks. Ratko Mladic had stood on the centre of Srebrenica and called for the "Turks" to be externinated.
As you might tell, I went there on my holiday last here and it had an effect, one of those things I was periphally aware of at the time. Thirty years on, feelings are still raw.
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Well it wouldn't have been Sturgeon. She didn't pass her driving test until October 2023.
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Some marriages must be much more incurious than my own. If a high five-figure campervan appeared on my drive, the missus would be very vigorously quizzing me on how the effing eff I had funded that...
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Well it wouldn't have been Sturgeon. She didn't pass her driving test until October 2023.
A VW Golf would have been a handy sized vehicle to learn to drive a car I would have thought. Not suggesting anyone did mind.
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Some marriages must be much more incurious than my own. If a high five-figure campervan appeared on my drive, the missus would be very vigorously quizzing me on how the effing eff I had funded that...
To paraphrase Father Ted, I believe it was simply resting on the drive.
Bloody government overreach. Trying to ban a group known for violence against legitimate businesses and some of its members clearly have Hamas sympathies. What’s the world coming to.
Most unreasonable of them
It's tried to ban it for terrorism. Violence is not necessarily terrorism, and having Hamas sympathies is not yet a crime.
Hamas are a proscribed group, so expressing support for them is a crime.
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Some marriages must be much more incurious than my own. If a high five-figure campervan appeared on my drive, the missus would be very vigorously quizzing me on how the effing eff I had funded that...
Mine would have been getting ready to divorce me... No campervans!
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Well it wouldn't have been Sturgeon. She didn't pass her driving test until October 2023.
Will she testify, do we think?
I would doubt that she would be a useful witness for either the defence or the prosecution.
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Well it wouldn't have been Sturgeon. She didn't pass her driving test until October 2023.
Will she testify, do we think?
What are the Scottish laws on spouses testifying against/to back up each other?
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Some marriages must be much more incurious than my own. If a high five-figure campervan appeared on my drive, the missus would be very vigorously quizzing me on how the effing eff I had funded that...
Mine would have been getting ready to divorce me... No campervans!
Sounds like you've got a keeper.
(Cue the gag about the girlfriend with a yellow top and big gloves....)
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Well it wouldn't have been Sturgeon. She didn't pass her driving test until October 2023.
Will she testify, do we think?
What are the Scottish laws on spouses testifying against/to back up each other?
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Well it wouldn't have been Sturgeon. She didn't pass her driving test until October 2023.
Will she testify, do we think?
I would doubt that she would be a useful witness for either the defence or the prosecution.
Her memory level is apparently somewhat worse than a late-stage Alzheimers patient, so that makes sense.
Bloody government overreach. Trying to ban a group known for violence against legitimate businesses and some of its members clearly have Hamas sympathies. What’s the world coming to.
Most unreasonable of them
It's tried to ban it for terrorism. Violence is not necessarily terrorism, and having Hamas sympathies is not yet a crime.
Hamas are a proscribed group, so expressing support for them is a crime.
One that is often ignored during large scale protests as it would be challenging to arrest them.
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Some marriages must be much more incurious than my own. If a high five-figure campervan appeared on my drive, the missus would be very vigorously quizzing me on how the effing eff I had funded that...
To paraphrase Father Ted, I believe it was simply resting on the drive.
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Genocide does not require the total extinction of a people.
The Dispaches on Palestine Action on Monday is well worth a watch. It is clear that the reason PA was proscribed was damage to property, and much of the government briefing untrue.
It was, wasn't it? The group wasn't proscribed at the time.
While impossible to be sure what was going on in the jury room, it does seem that the jurors accepted the argument that the protesters were acting to prevent greater crimes.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford council website, so surely definitive.
Paul Belcome Constantine Golding Conservative 1815 52% Elected Andrew Mark Judson Reform UK 917 26% Not elected Peter James Kates Labour 425 12% Not elected Josie McMaster Green Party 245 7% Not elected Kay Kirkham Liberal Democrats 83 2% Not elected Sabine Ebert-Forbes Independent 29 1% Not elected
'Goldman Sachs’ top lawyer, Kathy Ruemmler, has announced her resignation after emails in the latest tranche of Epstein files revealed she had a close relationship with the convicted child sex offender , who she called “Uncle Jeffrey”.
'Norway’s former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland has been charged with “aggravated corruption” after a police probe into his alleged ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to the law firm representing him.
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Some marriages must be much more incurious than my own. If a high five-figure campervan appeared on my drive, the missus would be very vigorously quizzing me on how the effing eff I had funded that...
People can be remarkably incurious, when they need to be.
In POCA cases, a surprising number of high-flying, professionally qualified spouses, turn out to be completely ignorant of financial affairs, and left all such decisions to the spouse who’s being pursued by the authorities
"British conservatives have much to learn from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz"
Inter alia, he’s now very overtly calling for a European nuclear deterrent. I presume that will now happen
You seem to be new to this Europe thing.
He will be asking for the French to give their nuclear deterrent to Europe. The French will refuse. Nothing* will happen.
* The French have offered to extend their nuclear umbrella to cover Europe, but they certainly want to keep control of it, rather than to hand it over.
"British conservatives have much to learn from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz"
To an extent, Merz is good on European defence but in some polls his centre right CDU still trail the populist right AfD (although the CDU combined with their SPD coalition partners are still ahead)
Hasn't that already happened, at least temporarily ?
No it's been extended to 3 job shares
From your article:
..The role is undoable because it is several jobs rolled into one, each requiring a different set of skills. The role is now about (i) running Cabinet business, (ii) advising the PM, (iii) chairing senior official meetings, (iv) ensuring a smooth transition of power after an election and (v) leading the civil service. Leading the civil service is a huge job that is often neglected, because the Cabinet Secretary is spending their time on crisis management and daily firefighting...
..6. There is a better way of making the centre work The roles could be: a) Cabinet Coordinator (providing the agenda, minutes, and a more dynamic committee system to ensure departmental agreement on key issues) b) Chief Executive of the Civil Service (the big reformer of Whitehall) c) PM’s Chief of Staff / No.10 Principal Private Secretary to drive the Prime Minister’s agenda...
Just make the three job shares permanent, and you're half way there.
Thats way too pragmatic for the civil service.
Starmer would get great kudos for having the balls to do it.
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Some marriages must be much more incurious than my own. If a high five-figure campervan appeared on my drive, the missus would be very vigorously quizzing me on how the effing eff I had funded that...
Mine would have been getting ready to divorce me... No campervans!
Sounds like you've got a keeper.
(Cue the gag about the girlfriend with a yellow top and big gloves....)
When we were first an item we did several camping trips but she has very clearly told me that she likes indoor plumbing and not having to cross a field in the night to go to a toilet. I'm sad about this as I love camping but in a few years I'll be able to start taking my three year old son.
Ch 4 News gives Ratcliffe a well deserved hammering. He avoided £4 billion in tax in the last 5 years lived as a tax exile in Monaco and claimed we had 21 million immigrants when the figure was 3 million. Presumably they were paying the tax he was avoiding
There's a bit of a side-of-a-bus argument going on here. The left repeatedly making the point that 'only' 3 million immigrants have arrived in the last five years isn't the zinger they think it is.
Though otoh it highlights ‘hard headed businessman’ Ratcliffe is either speaking through his arse or is a dishonest propagandiser. Also that the right despite their opportunistic outrage is mostly responsible for that 3 million.
The reality is that average annual net migration was higher under the Tories than under Labour. And yet somehow this is all the fault of "the left". Lol.
I think you're misunderstanding. Noone's denying that the Tories were terrible at controlling immigration. But also, no-one's voting for the left to keep immigration down because they don't appear to consider it a problem. Saying "it's only 3 million in five years" only reinforces this view. And pushes more voters towards Reform i.e. the party which majors on immigration and wasn't the right wing party in government when immigration surged. And this is bad news for Labour, because the more one right-wing party is clear of the other, the worse Labour do. And Reform is already the one in the lead.
Nobody is saying "it's only three million." They're saying that someone who doesn't know the difference between 3 million and 21 million is perhaps not very well informed on this topic. As for Reform not being in power when immigration surged, they currently contain more of the Johnson cabinet than the Tories do, so I'm not sure that comment is even true. Has it occurred to you that maybe these people keep screaming immigration because they want power and they've figured it's the easiest way to get it?
He didn't get the numbers wrong but the dates. He obviously meant to say that the population was 58 million in 2000 rather than in 2020.
LOL! on today's hot topic I think the good news is that it would be fairly easy for you to script AI to repost MAGA propaganda freeing you up to try and excuse Ratcliffe's racist missteps, probably there'd be enough of a productivity boost to take on Rupert Lowe or even the whole of Reform.
Bluntly, my reaction to Ratcliffe was "ill-informed berk". But Ratcliffe isn't up for election. And my reaction to the backlash, led by SKS, to Jim Ratcliffe was "you lot genuinely don't see the problem with immigration, do you? Occasionally you say you do - but it makes you feel bad to be on that side of the argument: and you're much more comfortable bashing anyone calking for less immigration than you are calling for less immigration yourself". And I'm a comfortable middle class voter in a suburb with nice middle class immigrants. I'm not likely to be pushed to Reform. But voters in, say, Denton, or Gorton, might react differently when reminded about how many immigrants the country has grown by in the last five years. And they're not going to be bashing the Tories there because the Tories are almost completely absent.
Immigration under Starmer’s government has fallen hugely. It’s down 69% from the peak under Johnson and is still falling. Does that not demonstrate that he/they do care about reducing immigration?
It mostly demonstrates that the stuff Sunak did in a panic as the full horror of the Boriswave became apparent is having some effect. I'm not aware of anything significant the Labour government has done to further reduce legal migration.
But also, it's worth remembering that immigration was a massive issue before the Boriswave. What was Brexit about if not immigration (those with longer memories may recall the farce of Cameron's "Emergency Brake" agreement). The reality is that the the British public want zero net migration, and have consistently voted for lower migration at pretty much every plausible opportunity for at least the last 20 years. Don't get me wrong, it's better for it to be at 200k net than 800k net, but any politician trying to claim that current 200k net is OK because it's less that 800k net is likely to get very short shift. It's still at least 200k too high.
Taking a step back, imagine if we could snap our fingers and remove 20% of the population. Leaving aside the morals of what happens to them for a second, just think about how much better it would make the country. House prices would drop spectacularly. Trains wouldn't be nearly as overcrowded. The traffic situation on the roads would improve massively. Etc, etc.
That's what could have happened if we'd just left immigration at more or less zero for the last 25 years. Ratcliffe is essentially right - we've allowed in way too many extra people, and really without any supporting infrastructure.
Far too late to turn the clock back now, and I'm not for a moment advocating chucking people out who are here legitimately, but it does demonstrate why we should be aiming for net emigration for the next 25 years rather than continuing net immigration.
OK, so most of that is wrong.
The Government doesn’t think 200k is OK. They’re aiming for lower immigration and the numbers are expected to drop further.
Let’s say we could remove 20% of the population, would this realise the utopia you imagine? No, of course not. The country would be 20% less productive. We would have 20% less of an economy. The trains would not stop being overcrowded, because there would be 20% less money to pay for them, so we’d have to run 20% fewer trains.
Populations support themselves. Populations generate wealth that then pays for the infrastructure they need. A smaller population can afford less infrastructure. If we’ve not invested enough in infrastructure, then the problem is not the size of the population, it’s our choice not to invest more in infrastructure.
Necroing this some more - I think you're wrong. And the reason you're wrong is simple - the difference between capex and revenue spend. With 20% less population, there wouldn't be 20% fewer trains, because the limiting factor on all the busy bits of our railway network is the track. And we haven't built any significant amount of track in the last 20 years.
With housing - housing lasts for generations. If we had a completely stable population (which is more complex than just immigration - things like household size get involved too), we'd hardly need to build any houses, as we'd only need to replace ones which were too dilapidated to be worth maintaining. But as the population goes up, we suddenly need more houses - say 1 per 4 immigrants. The average new house last year cost £414k, so each immigrant effectively has a one off cost on arrival of ~£104k in housing Capex. That's an average of at least 4 years of their economic output, and *someone* is having to pay for that (very often UK taxpayers, one way or another).
Same with roads. If we had enough roads before the immigrants came, we didn't need to build more. But now, we've a combination of extra congestion caused by not having built enough, and the extra cost of the additional roads we had to build because of the extra people.
Infrastructure, by it's very nature is expensive and long lived. Increasing the population by 20% means one of two things - either stretching the existing infrastructure to cope, or building more, at great expense.
So, yes - in the long run, a smaller population can only afford to pay for less infrastructure, but because the timeline of infrastructure spending is decades, and most of the expense is capex rather than maintenance, loads of immigration over a short period of time means either stretching the infrastructure or loads of capex. For the most part, we couldn't afford the capex, so have opted to stretch the infrastructure instead.
So in practice, I'm right. If we hadn't had significant immigration since 2000, our trains and roads would be much less overcrowded, and our houses much cheaper.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford's site:
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52% Andrew Judson Reform 917 26% Peter Kates Labour 425 12% Josie McMaster Green 245 7% Kay Kirkham LD 83 2% Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1%
Labour vote down 20% in that ward on 2024, looks like lots of Labour tactical voting for the Tories which enabled the Conservatives to hold Worth Valley ward over Reform despite the Tory vote also slightly declining. LD vote also looks to have halved in the Tories favour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_City_of_Bradford_Metropolitan_District_Council_election
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford's site:
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52% Andrew Judson Reform 917 26% Peter Kates Labour 425 12% Josie McMaster Green 245 7% Kay Kirkham LD 83 2% Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1%
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Instead we now hear that Starmer and Mahmood will appeal against the ruling.
They appear incapable of understanding the immense political damage that their approach to the Gaza conflict has done in fragmenting support for Labour across the left, particularly since the start of the 2024 general election campaign when the party was polling at around 45% rather than its current 20% average.
This was an opportunity to start to claw back some of that damage, simply by doing nothing and moving on. Instead they are doubling down by appealing.
So much for a supposed reset of Starmer's approach as PM. He is politically tone deaf on a monumental scale. I wonder what would have happened if the court judgement had been made on Monday not Friday morning, would his Cabinet ministers and the PLP still have decided that the time was not right to move against Starmer that evening?
Starmer must go. And when he is eventually dragged kicking and screaming from No 10, Mahmood doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of replacing him.
“Russia has to give up this terrible war against Ukraine, and we have to do everything what is needed to bring them to the point where they see no further advantages for them to continue this terrible war.”
So no change in strategy there. I think this is a failing strategy, it gives all the agency to Russia deciding when the war ends.
The allegations against Peter Murrell include embezzling cash from the SNP to purchase a motorhome, a Jaguar and a VW Golf. Who drove the Jaguar, and who drove the Golf?
Asking for a friend.
Some marriages must be much more incurious than my own. If a high five-figure campervan appeared on my drive, the missus would be very vigorously quizzing me on how the effing eff I had funded that...
It could be like the Ballses around 2009, and they have different main residences !
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford's site:
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52% Andrew Judson Reform 917 26% Peter Kates Labour 425 12% Josie McMaster Green 245 7% Kay Kirkham LD 83 2% Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1%
I am not convinced I believe that. You wouldn't get this "never a Tory" voting Reform-lite, even to oust the fascists.
Well I am sorry but mathematically there is no other explanation. The Reform 26% vote from nowhere almost all came from the Tories but the Labour vote down 20% and the LD vote down 2% and tactically voting Tory meant the overall Tory voteshare declined only 4% and ensured the Tories comfortably won
Remains prescribed until order of court pending appeal process
Human Rights Act no doubt
A fantastic win for freedom and everyone who has fought for a Palestinian State and recognition.
I don't advocate violence or vandalism, but when you are the subject of genocide and a world order that either supports it like Trump or stands back and condones it like Starmer, then it is no surprise.
The Labour Government has too late in the day recognised the claims for a 2 state solution. It must now agree with this legal ruling, desist all prosecutions, release all prisoners and appoint a Minister for Palestine to work with and for a 2 state solution and lobby with other global powers who are supportive.
All arms sales to Israel should be stopped immediately.
That should not stop all ongoing measures to stop anti semitism, but the UK should be clear it supports the rights of all Jews to live peacefully and in safety in the UK but that extremes of Zionism will not be tolerated in the same way extremes of Islam are not tolerated.
There are some real signs in places like Manchester of decent moderate Jews and Muslims living and working together to fight extremes in both their religions.
Finally the UK must lead in any fight for regime change in Israel, so that the majority there that don't want Netanyahu either are supported and he is bought to justice for internal corruption and by the world at large for his genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Nothing short of a full apology from Starmer will suffice.
Completely agree. That's one of main reasons his personal ratings are in deep shit. You don't see it on here but this thing is more salient with those on the left and centre left than anything else and neither Starmer nor any of his lieutenants seem to have appreciated it.
My guess is that almost half Zack's support is from Labour voters who have withdrawn their support because of Starmer's tacit support for Israel.
Does your second sentence mean 'for people on the left and centre-left, this is the most important issue' or 'this issue is more important for people on the centre-left and left than for people on the right'? It reads like you mean the former - but, really?
This is totemic. It is clearly not the most important issue in their lives but for many (Israel's genocide) is now seen as good versus evil. An actual genocide going on in plain sight and one our government have supported. I believe that come a general,election other things might take over but for now amongst those I know nothing political has ever made them more angry with Starmer and his Party.
And the evil was brought upon them by the actions of Hamas. As Arthur Harris said "They have sown the wind..."
What an awful and mindless post.
So according to you the women and children of Gaza deserved all they got because a racist, misogynistic death cult conducted the most disgusting torture and murder of 1500 innocent Israelis. So in order to punish Hamas, 70,000 people Hamas couldn't care less about deserved to die, horribly.
That's not my opinion. I didn't want anyone to die. Its been horrific. Its not about punishing Hamas, its about defeating, destroying, removing Hamas.
I have no idea how the middle east ever becomes stable. I support a Palestinian State. But I am increasingly fed up with the idea of it being a genocide and with the whitewashing of history that is ongoing.
That post was going so well until that last sentence.
I'm sorry that we differ on this. I believe that the definition of a genocide has been stretched in recent times. If Israel has set out to eliminate all Gazans would their not have been (a) a lot more dead and (b) a lot more done to stop them?
Lemkin's definition of genocide was narrow, and tightly-drawn, and activists who want to claim their place in the genocide sun have chafed at this, and have tried to broaden it, to encompass all manner of cruel actions.
My own view is that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes, in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and most of his cabinet are war criminals. I would dispute that they have committed genocide, and when you can condemn people for serious crimes anyway, I don't see the need to claim genocide.
Srebrenica is commonly defined as a genocide without hitherto the pearl clutching seen in regard to Gaza. What would you say the differences are between that and what's happened in Gaza?
I am no export on what has happened in Gaza, but from the outside it did appear (at least initially) that the IDF was getting civilians to move out of areas prior to those areas being attacked. I have no idea if those that have sadly been killed were outside those areas, or chose to remain, or where held in place by Hamas. I have seen no evidence of Gazans being rounded up, taken away and shot en masse, for instance. Its no different to the dead of course but the conduct in Srebrenica seems very different to that in Gaza.
Multiple times.
eg 25/9/2025 because we are sending in the IDF: Israel has warned all residents of Gaza City to leave immediately in anticipation of a huge ground offensive.
The military's Arabic spokesman told as many as one million Palestinians living in Gaza's biggest urban centre to evacuate southwards. "Remaining in the area is extremely dangerous," he said.
On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said air strikes that had destroyed high-rise buildings in Gaza City in recent days were "only the beginning of the main, intensive operation" to capture what he has described as Hamas's last important stronghold. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg47kvld8go
or permanent clearance (May 2025):
An Israeli government minister has vowed that “Gaza will be entirely destroyed” as a result of an Israeli military victory, and that its Palestinian population will “leave in great numbers to third countries”, raising fears of ethnic cleansing in the occupied territory.
The declaration on Tuesday by the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, came a day after Israel’s security cabinet approved a plan for Operation Gideon’s Chariots, which an Israeli official said would entail “the conquest of the Gaza Strip and the holding of the territories”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/06/hamas-israel-hunger-war-in-gaza
WIfey is on set of The Housekeeper (as producer, the film's bonders require it) and is loving the performances Sir RIchard Eyre is getting out of Sir Anthony Hopkins, Helena Bonham Carter, Caitríona Balfe and up-and-coming star Emma Laird as Daphne du Maurier.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford council website, so surely definitive.
Paul Belcome Constantine Golding Conservative 1815 52% Elected Andrew Mark Judson Reform UK 917 26% Not elected Peter James Kates Labour 425 12% Not elected Josie McMaster Green Party 245 7% Not elected Kay Kirkham Liberal Democrats 83 2% Not elected Sabine Ebert-Forbes Independent 29 1% Not elected
Assisted suicide would be a lot better if they flew you to Disko Bay in Greenland, gave you an Inuit girl for a night, then a load of heroin cocaine and fentanyl, and let you walk alone on to the ice cap. Never to return
That’s so much than some hideous beige sofa in a Zurich suburb
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford's site:
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52% Andrew Judson Reform 917 26% Peter Kates Labour 425 12% Josie McMaster Green 245 7% Kay Kirkham LD 83 2% Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1%
I am not convinced I believe that. You wouldn't get this "never a Tory" voting Reform-lite, even to oust the fascists.
Well I am sorry but mathematically there is no other explanation. The Reform 26% vote from nowhere almost all came from the Tories but the Labour vote down 20% and the LD vote down 2% and tactically voting Tory meant the overall Tory voteshare declined only 4% and ensured the Tories comfortably won
I'd rather take my chances with Reform-ICE-Nazis than vote for a Tory party set on leaving the ECHR.
DP World Chairman and Chief Executive Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem resigned from the Dubai-based global ports operator after documents released by the Justice Department showed he had ties to Jeffrey Epstein https://x.com/WSJ/status/2022289595111494075
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Should is prominent in the highway code - ignoring should leaves you open to careless driving.
I think the problem with 'should' as a legal term is that it fails to compel, and therefore gives a discretion with an ill defined bias about how that discretion is exercised.
It is there in guidance, but I doubt if it is used in primary legislation.
The Highway Code has lots of "musts" which compel , and lots of "shoulds" which guide but also allow you to deviate if there is good reason.
If there is some traffic in the slow lane and I am travelling at the speed limit (so not impeding traffic) I remain in the middle lane as that is safer than dodging in and out of lanes. Using the inside lane is a "should" in the Highway Code. Check it out.
People who complain that I am breaking the law don't understand the distinction between "must" and "should". They are often the ones who do break the law by overtaking me at 80mph, sometimes on the inside.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford's site:
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52% Andrew Judson Reform 917 26% Peter Kates Labour 425 12% Josie McMaster Green 245 7% Kay Kirkham LD 83 2% Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1%
I am not convinced I believe that. You wouldn't get this "never a Tory" voting Reform-lite, even to oust the fascists.
Well I am sorry but mathematically there is no other explanation. The Reform 26% vote from nowhere almost all came from the Tories but the Labour vote down 20% and the LD vote down 2% and tactically voting Tory meant the overall Tory voteshare declined only 4% and ensured the Tories comfortably won
I'd rather take my chances with Reform-ICE-Nazis than vote for a Tory party set on leaving the ECHR.
Reform are also support leaving the ECHR but regardless of what you think the Worth Valley by election is key evidence Tory candidates and councillors in Tory held seats and wards can win Labour and LD tactical votes to beat Reform
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Should is prominent in the highway code - ignoring should leaves you open to careless driving.
I think the problem with 'should' as a legal term is that it fails to compel, and therefore gives a discretion with an ill defined bias about how that discretion is exercised.
It is there in guidance, but I doubt if it is used in primary legislation.
The Highway Code has lots of "musts" which compel , and lots of "shoulds" which guide but also allow you to deviate if there is good reason.
If there is some traffic in the slow lane and I am travelling at the speed limit (so not impeding traffic) I remain in the middle lane as that is safer than dodging in and out of lanes. Using the inside lane is a "should" in the Highway Code. Check it out.
People who complain that I am breaking the law don't understand the distinction between "must" and "should". They are often the ones who do break the law by overtaking me at 80mph, sometimes on the inside.
If there is space for someone to undertake you then there is space for you to be in lane 1, and, unless you are overtaking traffic in lane 1, that's where you should be. Your speed is irrelevant.
I have been in Bangladesh during a general election. The amount of posters and leaflets is astonishing. (So many candidates and so many of the voters are illiterate that they all have an individual emblem (such as a bicycle) so people can still visualise who they are voting for on the ballot paper.)
(I have also been in Equatorial Guinea during an election - you don't go out after about 2pm because the candidates bribe the voters with beer. Messy. Very messy...)
Via @Moreincommon_, 30 Jan - 10 Feb. Changes w/ 18 Jun - 3 Jul.
Unlikely, the Tories have also leaked heavily to Reform since 2021
Although there is not the visible enthusiasm in Wales for Reform that I saw in central and coastal Lincolnshire yesterday, they are still popular. That poll is a warning to Plaid to crush Labour or risk a fascist- conservative coalition.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford's site:
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52% Andrew Judson Reform 917 26% Peter Kates Labour 425 12% Josie McMaster Green 245 7% Kay Kirkham LD 83 2% Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1%
One of the slightly more interesting bits is that they have called it "Reform Jewish Alliance", which is stupidly confusing given that much of British Judaism is characterised as "Reform Judaism" since 1840, and contrasts with other parties who go for "XYZ Friends of Israel".
They have also been demonstrating their deputy leader's exceptional political judgement.
class="Bold">rel="Leon">Assisted suicide would be a lot better if they flew you to Disko Bay in Greenland, gave you an Inuit girl for a night, then a load of heroin cocaine and fentanyl, and let you walk alone on to the ice cap. Never to return
That’s so much than some hideous beige sofa in a Zurich suburb
I wonder if the Speccie will front the cash for you to write such an autobiographical piece...
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Should is prominent in the highway code - ignoring should leaves you open to careless driving.
I think the problem with 'should' as a legal term is that it fails to compel, and therefore gives a discretion with an ill defined bias about how that discretion is exercised.
It is there in guidance, but I doubt if it is used in primary legislation.
The Highway Code has lots of "musts" which compel , and lots of "shoulds" which guide but also allow you to deviate if there is good reason.
If there is some traffic in the slow lane and I am travelling at the speed limit (so not impeding traffic) I remain in the middle lane as that is safer than dodging in and out of lanes. Using the inside lane is a "should" in the Highway Code. Check it out.
People who complain that I am breaking the law don't understand the distinction between "must" and "should". They are often the ones who do break the law by overtaking me at 80mph, sometimes on the inside.
If there is space for someone to undertake you then there is space for you to be in lane 1, and, unless you are overtaking traffic in lane 1, that's where you should be. Your speed is irrelevant.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford's site:
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52% Andrew Judson Reform 917 26% Peter Kates Labour 425 12% Josie McMaster Green 245 7% Kay Kirkham LD 83 2% Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1%
I am not convinced I believe that. You wouldn't get this "never a Tory" voting Reform-lite, even to oust the fascists.
Well I am sorry but mathematically there is no other explanation. The Reform 26% vote from nowhere almost all came from the Tories but the Labour vote down 20% and the LD vote down 2% and tactically voting Tory meant the overall Tory voteshare declined only 4% and ensured the Tories comfortably won
Hahaha. Many alternative explanations available from the open-minded.... - aha I see your problem.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Should is prominent in the highway code - ignoring should leaves you open to careless driving.
I think the problem with 'should' as a legal term is that it fails to compel, and therefore gives a discretion with an ill defined bias about how that discretion is exercised.
It is there in guidance, but I doubt if it is used in primary legislation.
The Highway Code has lots of "musts" which compel , and lots of "shoulds" which guide but also allow you to deviate if there is good reason.
If there is some traffic in the slow lane and I am travelling at the speed limit (so not impeding traffic) I remain in the middle lane as that is safer than dodging in and out of lanes. Using the inside lane is a "should" in the Highway Code. Check it out.
People who complain that I am breaking the law don't understand the distinction between "must" and "should". They are often the ones who do break the law by overtaking me at 80mph, sometimes on the inside.
If there is space for someone to undertake you then there is space for you to be in lane 1, and, unless you are overtaking traffic in lane 1, that's where you should be. Your speed is irrelevant.
Theres been a few Reform X posters trumpeting a Ref gain in Worth Valley. However..... The MP (Robbie Moore) and Tory HQ have just posted Tory Hold.......
From Bradford's site:
Paul Golding Conservative 1815 52% Andrew Judson Reform 917 26% Peter Kates Labour 425 12% Josie McMaster Green 245 7% Kay Kirkham LD 83 2% Sabine Ebert-Forbes Ind 29 1%
I am not convinced I believe that. You wouldn't get this "never a Tory" voting Reform-lite, even to oust the fascists.
Well I am sorry but mathematically there is no other explanation. The Reform 26% vote from nowhere almost all came from the Tories but the Labour vote down 20% and the LD vote down 2% and tactically voting Tory meant the overall Tory voteshare declined only 4% and ensured the Tories comfortably won
I'd rather take my chances with Reform-ICE-Nazis than vote for a Tory party set on leaving the ECHR.
Reform are also support leaving the ECHR but regardless of what you think the Worth Valley by election is key evidence Tory candidates and councillors in Tory held seats and wards can win Labour and LD tactical votes to beat Reform
What we haven't got is percentage turnout, and similar figures for the last (say) three council elections.
I think I'm right in saying that there's some evidence that people who haven't voted before/for some time are more likely to vote Reform.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Fair enough. How about the use of the word "should" in guidance and/or court verdicts?
It is used in guidance, as to judgments I have no thoughts.
Its use in guidance indicates - as mentioned earlier by someone - that it has a realistic meaning of some precision, along the lines of 'this is what you do, and if you don't there needs to be a reason'.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Should is prominent in the highway code - ignoring should leaves you open to careless driving.
I think the problem with 'should' as a legal term is that it fails to compel, and therefore gives a discretion with an ill defined bias about how that discretion is exercised.
It is there in guidance, but I doubt if it is used in primary legislation.
The Highway Code has lots of "musts" which compel , and lots of "shoulds" which guide but also allow you to deviate if there is good reason.
If there is some traffic in the slow lane and I am travelling at the speed limit (so not impeding traffic) I remain in the middle lane as that is safer than dodging in and out of lanes. Using the inside lane is a "should" in the Highway Code. Check it out.
People who complain that I am breaking the law don't understand the distinction between "must" and "should". They are often the ones who do break the law by overtaking me at 80mph, sometimes on the inside.
If there is space for someone to undertake you then there is space for you to be in lane 1, and, unless you are overtaking traffic in lane 1, that's where you should be. Your speed is irrelevant.
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Should is prominent in the highway code - ignoring should leaves you open to careless driving.
I think the problem with 'should' as a legal term is that it fails to compel, and therefore gives a discretion with an ill defined bias about how that discretion is exercised.
It is there in guidance, but I doubt if it is used in primary legislation.
The Highway Code has lots of "musts" which compel , and lots of "shoulds" which guide but also allow you to deviate if there is good reason.
If there is some traffic in the slow lane and I am travelling at the speed limit (so not impeding traffic) I remain in the middle lane as that is safer than dodging in and out of lanes. Using the inside lane is a "should" in the Highway Code. Check it out.
People who complain that I am breaking the law don't understand the distinction between "must" and "should". They are often the ones who do break the law by overtaking me at 80mph, sometimes on the inside.
The Highway Code is very good on this. Where it says "must" there will be a note referencing the relevant piece of law.
The HWC status is that the advice therein can be used by a court as a guide to good practice - which, yes, would pretty much mean could be an indicator of driving without due care.
Thusly:
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
Of course, Telegraph-wallahs would prefer "shalt" and "shouldst".
🏴New Senedd voting intention. Reform UK holds a 7-point lead over Plaid, while Labour is in third. ➡️ REF UK 31% (+29) 🌼 PLAID 24% (+4) 🌹 LAB 20% (–20) 🌳 CON 13% (–13) 🔶 LIB DEM 6% (+1) 🌍 GREEN 5% (+3) 30/1 - 10/2 N=806 (16+) changes w 2021 constituency vote
Plaid still clear favourites to win most seats on Betfair - though they have drifted a bit during the day:
“Although some of PA's actions did constitute acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the nature and scale of PA's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
I am not sure the courts should be making that assessment to be honest.
Is it not the role of the courts to interpret what laws mean?
Yeah, of course. The power is:
Terrorism Act 2000, s3
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
That’s a very wide power, but it doesn’t appear to give a “level of terrorism” to warrant proscription. It would presumably just have to be a rational opinion.
The word 'may' on its own (and in sub section 3) means that the SoS has to consider properly wider matters than whether it falls under the terrorism definition. It means the SoS has a discretion. Once you have a discretion it follows as night follows day that its use can be challenged, and among other things, the level of activity is going to be an arguable consideration. Starmer himself is an expert practitioner in exactly this field.
Perhaps you can help me. I've been reading a lot of legislation and court verdicts recently and I need guidance on words. Is my interpretation of the following correct?
"must": you are compelled by law to do so
"should": you are recommended to do so but there are circs in which you may not
"may": you are allowed to do so but may choose not to do so
So far as I can recall the word 'should' is never used in legislation. I don't think it is capable of having a meaning in law. Whereas 'must', 'shall', and 'may' are explicable. Yes, 'must' (and 'shall') means you have to, 'may' means there is a discretion. The use of discretion in law is always capable of being complicated.
Should is prominent in the highway code - ignoring should leaves you open to careless driving.
I think the problem with 'should' as a legal term is that it fails to compel, and therefore gives a discretion with an ill defined bias about how that discretion is exercised.
It is there in guidance, but I doubt if it is used in primary legislation.
The Highway Code has lots of "musts" which compel , and lots of "shoulds" which guide but also allow you to deviate if there is good reason.
If there is some traffic in the slow lane and I am travelling at the speed limit (so not impeding traffic) I remain in the middle lane as that is safer than dodging in and out of lanes. Using the inside lane is a "should" in the Highway Code. Check it out.
People who complain that I am breaking the law don't understand the distinction between "must" and "should". They are often the ones who do break the law by overtaking me at 80mph, sometimes on the inside.
If there is space for someone to undertake you then there is space for you to be in lane 1, and, unless you are overtaking traffic in lane 1, that's where you should be. Your speed is irrelevant.
"Should"?
{it’s 2030 and the Russians have invaded Lithuania}
Russian General : What’s holding up the advance? Why are we stuck at Raseiniai? Officer : There’s one man in a British WWII tank, parked on a roundabout. Anyone comes up to the stop line, he engages. General : 37 days!!! Officer : There’s no shifting him. He keeps shouting stuff about traffic laws.
class="Bold">rel="Leon">Assisted suicide would be a lot better if they flew you to Disko Bay in Greenland, gave you an Inuit girl for a night, then a load of heroin cocaine and fentanyl, and let you walk alone on to the ice cap. Never to return
That’s so much than some hideous beige sofa in a Zurich suburb
Comments
The former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell is facing a charge of embezzling £459,000 from the party over a period of more than 12 years, it has emerged.
Details of the case against Murrell, the estranged husband of former first minister Nicola Sturgeon, are contained in a copy of an indictment seen by BBC News.
According to the document, Murrell is accused of embezzling the funds between August 2010 and January 2023.
Most unreasonable of them
Although we didn't really get to see this either in the Daily Mail or on PB. Starmer is heckled during a speech at a synagogue.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/11/nigel-farage-heckled-reform-jewish-alliance-launch?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Oh wait, sorry it wasn't Starmer it was Farage.
At Srebrenicia, thousands of civilians were rounded up, and put to death in cold blood, based solely upon their ethnicity.
..In this Code of Practice, where the text uses the word ‘must’ it refers to a statutory
requirement under primary legislation, regulations or case law.
The bodies listed in paragraph iv. must have regard to the Code of Practice. This
means that whenever they are taking decisions they must give consideration to what
the Code says. They cannot ignore it. They must fulfil their statutory duties towards
children and young people with SEN or disabilities in the light of the guidance set out
in it. They must be able to demonstrate in their arrangements for children and young
people with SEN or disabilities that they are fulfilling their statutory duty to have
regard to the Code. So, where the text uses the word ‘should’ it means that the
guidance contained in this Code must be considered and that those who must have
regard to it will be expected to explain any departure from it...
The word is all over codes of practice, and parses of legislation, but I think @algarkirk is correct in thinking it is strongly avoided in primary legislation.
However... if the UN had not been there, the Serbs could have done the same thing with bombs and shells, which would not look a lot different to Gaza.
Blowing up a single building with 28 people inside 15 of them children to assassinate a single person is on its own an atrocity. Several hundred makes it difficult to find the words.
We can just make genocide synonymous with unlawful mass killing, but ultimately that downgrades the charge.
..The role is undoable because it is several jobs rolled into one, each requiring a different set of skills. The role is now about (i) running Cabinet business, (ii) advising the PM, (iii) chairing senior official meetings, (iv) ensuring a smooth transition of power after an election and (v) leading the civil service. Leading the civil service is a huge job that is often neglected, because the Cabinet Secretary is spending their time on crisis management and daily firefighting...
..6. There is a better way of making the centre work
The roles could be:
a) Cabinet Coordinator (providing the agenda, minutes, and a more dynamic committee system to ensure departmental agreement on key issues)
b) Chief Executive of the Civil Service (the big reformer of Whitehall)
c) PM’s Chief of Staff / No.10 Principal Private Secretary to drive the Prime Minister’s agenda...
Just make the three job shares permanent, and you're half way there.
Asking for a friend.
It is there in guidance, but I doubt if it is used in primary legislation.
If Hamas had the ability on that day to kill another million or five million Israelis they would have done so.
As you might tell, I went there on my holiday last here and it had an effect, one of those things I was periphally aware of at the time. Thirty years on, feelings are still raw.
If only we had a Scottish legal expert on here...
(Cue the gag about the girlfriend with a yellow top and big gloves....)
"British conservatives have much to learn from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz"
LibDems on 2%. Hmm...
Ruemmler said on Thursday she would step down as the bank’s chieflegal officer and general counsel at the end of June.'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/12/goldman-sachs-lawyer-resigns-jeffrey-epstein
'Norway’s former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland has been charged with “aggravated corruption” after a police probe into his alleged ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to the law firm representing him.
Elden Law Firm confirmed to CNN on Thursday that Jagland is “charged with aggravated corruption,” adding that he “denies all charges.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/13/europe/norway-pm-jagland-charged-epstein-ties-intl-hnk
In POCA cases, a surprising number of high-flying, professionally qualified spouses, turn out to be completely ignorant of financial affairs, and left all such decisions to the spouse who’s being pursued by the authorities
Surely only Reform voters consume left overs without employing the services of at least a microwave oven or an air fryer!
He will be asking for the French to give their nuclear deterrent to Europe. The French will refuse. Nothing* will happen.
* The French have offered to extend their nuclear umbrella to cover Europe, but they certainly want to keep control of it, rather than to hand it over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_German_federal_election
Starmer would get great kudos for having the balls to do it.
With 20% less population, there wouldn't be 20% fewer trains, because the limiting factor on all the busy bits of our railway network is the track. And we haven't built any significant amount of track in the last 20 years.
With housing - housing lasts for generations. If we had a completely stable population (which is more complex than just immigration - things like household size get involved too), we'd hardly need to build any houses, as we'd only need to replace ones which were too dilapidated to be worth maintaining. But as the population goes up, we suddenly need more houses - say 1 per 4 immigrants. The average new house last year cost £414k, so each immigrant effectively has a one off cost on arrival of ~£104k in housing Capex. That's an average of at least 4 years of their economic output, and *someone* is having to pay for that (very often UK taxpayers, one way or another).
Same with roads. If we had enough roads before the immigrants came, we didn't need to build more. But now, we've a combination of extra congestion caused by not having built enough, and the extra cost of the additional roads we had to build because of the extra people.
Infrastructure, by it's very nature is expensive and long lived. Increasing the population by 20% means one of two things - either stretching the existing infrastructure to cope, or building more, at great expense.
So, yes - in the long run, a smaller population can only afford to pay for less infrastructure, but because the timeline of infrastructure spending is decades, and most of the expense is capex rather than maintenance, loads of immigration over a short period of time means either stretching the infrastructure or loads of capex. For the most part, we couldn't afford the capex, so have opted to stretch the infrastructure instead.
So in practice, I'm right. If we hadn't had significant immigration since 2000, our trains and roads would be much less overcrowded, and our houses much cheaper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_City_of_Bradford_Metropolitan_District_Council_election
They appear incapable of understanding the immense political damage that their approach to the Gaza conflict has done in fragmenting support for Labour across the left, particularly since the start of the 2024 general election campaign when the party was polling at around 45% rather than its current 20% average.
This was an opportunity to start to claw back some of that damage, simply by doing nothing and moving on. Instead they are doubling down by appealing.
So much for a supposed reset of Starmer's approach as PM. He is politically tone deaf on a monumental scale. I wonder what would have happened if the court judgement had been made on Monday not Friday morning, would his Cabinet ministers and the PLP still have decided that the time was not right to move against Starmer that evening?
Starmer must go. And when he is eventually dragged kicking and screaming from No 10, Mahmood doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of replacing him.
“Russia has to give up this terrible war against Ukraine, and we have to do everything what is needed to bring them to the point where they see no further advantages for them to continue this terrible war.”
So no change in strategy there. I think this is a failing strategy, it gives all the agency to Russia deciding when the war ends.
eg 25/9/2025 because we are sending in the IDF:
Israel has warned all residents of Gaza City to leave immediately in anticipation of a huge ground offensive.
The military's Arabic spokesman told as many as one million Palestinians living in Gaza's biggest urban centre to evacuate southwards. "Remaining in the area is extremely dangerous," he said.
On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said air strikes that had destroyed high-rise buildings in Gaza City in recent days were "only the beginning of the main, intensive operation" to capture what he has described as Hamas's last important stronghold.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg47kvld8go
or permanent clearance (May 2025):
An Israeli government minister has vowed that “Gaza will be entirely destroyed” as a result of an Israeli military victory, and that its Palestinian population will “leave in great numbers to third countries”, raising fears of ethnic cleansing in the occupied territory.
The declaration on Tuesday by the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, came a day after Israel’s security cabinet approved a plan for Operation Gideon’s Chariots, which an Israeli official said would entail “the conquest of the Gaza Strip and the holding of the territories”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/06/hamas-israel-hunger-war-in-gaza
https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/2022245418483257541
Senedd Voting Intention:
RFM: 31% (+3)
PLC: 24% (-2)
LAB: 20% (-3)
CON: 13% (+3)
LDM: 6% (-1)
GRN: 5% (+1)
Via @Moreincommon_, 30 Jan - 10 Feb.
Changes w/ 18 Jun - 3 Jul.
That’s so much than some hideous beige sofa in a Zurich suburb
http://www.astronautix.com/a/alfa.html
https://x.com/WSJ/status/2022289595111494075
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrzwn4yg7jo
If there is some traffic in the slow lane and I am travelling at the speed limit (so not impeding traffic) I remain in the middle lane as that is safer than dodging in and out of lanes. Using the inside lane is a "should" in the Highway Code. Check it out.
People who complain that I am breaking the law don't understand the distinction between "must" and "should". They are often the ones who do break the law by overtaking me at 80mph, sometimes on the inside.
(I have also been in Equatorial Guinea during an election - you don't go out after about 2pm because the candidates bribe the voters with beer. Messy. Very messy...)
Although there is not the visible enthusiasm in Wales for Reform that I saw in central and coastal Lincolnshire yesterday, they are still popular. That poll is a warning to Plaid to crush Labour or risk a fascist- conservative coalition.
They have also been demonstrating their deputy leader's exceptional political judgement.
That’s so much than some hideous beige sofa in a Zurich suburb
I wonder if the Speccie will front the cash for you to write such an autobiographical piece...
I think I'm right in saying that there's some evidence that people who haven't voted before/for some time are more likely to vote Reform.
Its use in guidance indicates - as mentioned earlier by someone - that it has a realistic meaning of some precision, along the lines of 'this is what you do, and if you don't there needs to be a reason'.
The HWC status is that the advice therein can be used by a court as a guide to good practice - which, yes, would pretty much mean could be an indicator of driving without due care.
Thusly:
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
Of course, Telegraph-wallahs would prefer "shalt" and "shouldst".
Plaid 1.58 / 1.66
Reform 2.5 / 2.94
Russian General : What’s holding up the advance? Why are we stuck at Raseiniai?
Officer : There’s one man in a British WWII tank, parked on a roundabout. Anyone comes up to the stop line, he engages.
General : 37 days!!!
Officer : There’s no shifting him. He keeps shouting stuff about traffic laws.
I fecked that up!