Number one priority. Right, done that. New number one priority. Right, done that too. New number one priority...
(Ignore that some of them seem to pop up again)
Rest assured, not one member of my government will rest until ALL the priorities are met. Right, lets get some lunch
The whole point of being the government is that you excel at running everything - which amounts to a huge proportion of all human concerns in the UK - that government has taken to itself to run.
That's why they employ directly and indirectly several million people to get it done. The idea that some random thought is 'Number One Priority' is like Tesco saying that they will focus on biscuits but not bread for five years.
As this horrific and unnecessary war enters its fifth year the West and especially the United States needs to understand the truth: Putin does not want to end this war. Putin does not want peace.
Putin will not stop the slaughter until he faces much greater pressure. So for heaven’s sake let’s get on with it.
Impound his entire shadow fleet. Unfreeze all his frozen assets and give them to Ukraine. Give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take out all the Russian drone factories.
Do all of it now. Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he feels he has no choice.
That moment could come soon. The Russian economy is reeling. Russian casualties are enormous. But on this miserable anniversary of Putin’s invasion the fundamental problem is the same as it has been for the last four years.
The Ukrainians fight like heroes while we in the West pussyfoot and delay. The West can end the war this year - if we stop pussyfooting around.
Who then went on to support Trump in 2024 ! Not sure how Johnson can both support Ukraine and a Russian puppet at the same time .
If he’d backed Kamala, Trump wouldn’t give him the time of day now. How would that have been better for Ukraine?
MI6 needed better kompromat on Trump than Putin had.
It might still be buried in their version of the Epstein files.
Number one priority. Right, done that. New number one priority. Right, done that too. New number one priority...
(Ignore that some of them seem to pop up again)
Rest assured, not one member of my government will rest until ALL the priorities are met. Right, lets get some lunch
The other possibility is that he's a big Star Trek fan and so turns to deputy leader, looks up his number 1 priority for the day and says, "Make it so, number one"
Number one priority. Right, done that. New number one priority. Right, done that too. New number one priority...
(Ignore that some of them seem to pop up again)
Rest assured, not one member of my government will rest until ALL the priorities are met. Right, lets get some lunch
The other possibility is that he's a big Star Trek fan and so turns to deputy leader, looks up his number 1 priority for the day and says, "Make it so, number one"
Did you know Picard opened a needle and thread shop affer he left Starfleet called Make It Sew?
Number one priority. Right, done that. New number one priority. Right, done that too. New number one priority...
(Ignore that some of them seem to pop up again)
Rest assured, not one member of my government will rest until ALL the priorities are met. Right, lets get some lunch
The other possibility is that he's a big Star Trek fan and so turns to deputy leader, looks up his number 1 priority for the day and says, "Make it so, number one"
Did you know Picard opened a needle and thread shop affer he left Starfleet called Make It Sew?
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
You need to do better than this
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
You need to do better than this
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
The fact that people can't even see how dangerous this sort of agenda is is what is scary to me, as @kinabalu points out. With reference to the Third Reich, the persecution of the Jews did not start with the gas chambers. It started with small measures designed to mark out a minority group as different, inferior and subject tobparticular state surveillance and control. Of course, if you have concerns about animal welfare pursue those, but not as a proxy for an attack on a specific religious group. If you think religious practitioners need a state license go ahead, but it needs to be applied across all religions. I would hope FGM and so called honour crimes are already being persecuted aggressively as they are illegal. Sharia courts are religious bodies that people voluntarily make recourse to on matters of marriage etc. Madrassas are Sunday schools where children are taught the Koran. What is the case that the state needs to be prohibiting these activities specifically for Muslims, in a society that otherwise supports freedom of religion?
I largely agree.
And it brings it back to a point I have made before - that the scaffold the process of fear leading to demonisation leading to hatred is built on is ignorance. Which is why one place the demonisation of Muslims takes root where there aren't many, so there is no personal experience to give the lie to the propaganda.
IMO the way round it - in addition to operating the immigration systems effectively etc - is to build conversation not distance, and to rebuild a civil society from the bottom upwards.
Here's an interesting conversation of James o'Brien with a caller concerned about Muslims and Sharia Law, with JoB doing his probing questions thing, and the caller repeating talking points, including the false claim that "Sadiq Khan supports Sharia Law", and there are "army of men of fighing age" echoes.
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
You need to do better than this
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
Guardian on topic of under 16s social media ban.
Nothing to do with Darren Jones
Take the blinkers off
Darren Jones was updating the HOC yesteday on the release of documents and he came under sustained attack from his own side
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
You need to do better than this
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
Guardian on topic of under 16s social media ban.
Nothing to do with Darren Jones
Take the blinkers off
Darren Jones was updating the HOC yesteday on the release of documents and he came under sustained attack from his own side
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
You need to do better than this
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
Guardian on topic of under 16s social media ban.
Nothing to do with Darren Jones
Take the blinkers off
Darren Jones was updating the HOC yesteday on the release of documents and he came under sustained attack from his own side
It is not me wearing blinkers
I'm not talking about documents.
You're fixated on that issue.
I'm talking about social media ban.
So how will a “social media ban” on under-16s work in practice?
Hint: if it involves adults having to change their behaviours, then it’s not actually to do with protecting children.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
No charges yet, there is nothing to prejudice
If Keir Starmer twatted someone live on telly the video wouldnt be inadmissable in court if he were subsequently charged with assault just because we all saw it There is no sub judice pre charge
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
Cynics suggest that Mandelson was arrested yesterday only to save the government from embarrassing disclosures. What changed, the ask, between Mandelson's homes being searched and his oddly-timed and short-lived arrest yesterday?
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
Parliament is supreme
As the courts found out when they wanted MPs gagged over family courts.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
As a policy plank of my UnDictatorship, I will establish religious courts for my religion.
I foresee that a petition to ban all religious courts will be proposed within 10 minutes or so. Backed by all the other religious courts.
Hermann the Irascible may not have been the most famous of British Kings, but he had some good ideas.
They’re securing a loan to Ukraine with frozen Russian assets in the EU.
I thought they'd abandoned the plan to use the Russian assets, and it was backed by the EU budget?
Has Putin's stooge Orban dropped his obstruction?
AIUI it is funded from EU member budgets. To be repaid by Ukraine only when repreparations are made. If that doesn't happen then EU reserves right to use frozen Russian assets for repayments further down the line. Hungary and a couple of others don't have to pay in.
Also 60bn of it has to be spent with EU defence firms so not costing the whole amount.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
The fact that people can't even see how dangerous this sort of agenda is is what is scary to me, as @kinabalu points out. With reference to the Third Reich, the persecution of the Jews did not start with the gas chambers. It started with small measures designed to mark out a minority group as different, inferior and subject tobparticular state surveillance and control. Of course, if you have concerns about animal welfare pursue those, but not as a proxy for an attack on a specific religious group. If you think religious practitioners need a state license go ahead, but it needs to be applied across all religions. I would hope FGM and so called honour crimes are already being persecuted aggressively as they are illegal. Sharia courts are religious bodies that people voluntarily make recourse to on matters of marriage etc. Madrassas are Sunday schools where children are taught the Koran. What is the case that the state needs to be prohibiting these activities specifically for Muslims, in a society that otherwise supports freedom of religion?
The persecution of the Jews started with boycotts, casual murder and beatings in the streets, summary detention in concentrations camps (along with communists, socialists, the asocial), dismissal from a range of occupations, and removal of citizenship.
It started with a mix of state-sanctioned street violence and legal changes. Have we seen comparable state-sanctioned street violence in the UK? Fortunately not yet, but I note that many of the populist right treat Lucy Connolly, someone who called for street violence, as a martyr. The attitude towards the riots and other hotel protests is a step in that direction.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Of course. But that's because the use of shame or ostracism in life generally is part of the (sub optimal) way humans behave in the world as a whole, and something people generally are within their rights to use and as a general thing can't be legislated about under a 'People Behaving Nicely Act'.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Have you heard the story of the young lady in New York, 1984?
She couldn’t believe that Ronald Reagan won 49 states, since she didn’t know anyone who voted for him.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Of course. But that's because the use of shame or ostracism in life generally is part of the (sub optimal) way humans behave in the world as a whole, and something people generally are within their rights to use and as a general thing can't be legislated about under a 'People Behaving Nicely Act'.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
To me there is a big difference between individuals using such emotions (natural if horrible) and organisations, especially significant organisations, such as the big religions, using the same emotions to drive behaviour.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Of course. But that's because the use of shame or ostracism in life generally is part of the (sub optimal) way humans behave in the world as a whole, and something people generally are within their rights to use and as a general thing can't be legislated about under a 'People Behaving Nicely Act'.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
To me there is a big difference between individuals using such emotions (natural if horrible) and organisations, especially significant organisations, such as the big religions, using the same emotions to drive behaviour.
So, how does this work in practice? The Roman Catholic Church opposes divorce. Some Catholics may thus choose not to get divorced. What happens next? We arrest the Archbishop of Westminster?
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Have you heard the story of the young lady in New York, 1984?
She couldn’t believe that Ronald Reagan won 49 states, since she didn’t know anyone who voted for him.
That's when Republicans knew how to PROPERLY steal an election...
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
Bollox, he wants to avoid the truth coming out as long as possible. Mandelson should never have even been considered but despite everything Starmer gave him the post. At best he is useless.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Of course. But that's because the use of shame or ostracism in life generally is part of the (sub optimal) way humans behave in the world as a whole, and something people generally are within their rights to use and as a general thing can't be legislated about under a 'People Behaving Nicely Act'.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
To me there is a big difference between individuals using such emotions (natural if horrible) and organisations, especially significant organisations, such as the big religions, using the same emotions to drive behaviour.
So, how does this work in practice? The Roman Catholic Church opposes divorce. Some Catholics may thus choose not to get divorced. What happens next? We arrest the Archbishop of Westminster?
Well, it probably helps to reduce the influence of the Catholic Church on Britons that the country has an established Protestant church, thereby settling the question as to whether religion was subordinate to civil power.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
With reference to May's locals etc and Reform, the outlying possibilities afaics are Assume a good performance in the non London English second tier council locals
High end - win Wales, second in Scotland with SNP in a weak minority, win a few London councils, second in thd vote, win majority in a few of the first tier councils
Low end - second in Wales, third or worse in Scotland in seats, no majority council control in London and 3rd/4th in wards and vote, fall short in most of the counties except maybe Essex
If nearer the latter and they lose in Gorton etc i could see the narrative shift dramatically
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Of course. But that's because the use of shame or ostracism in life generally is part of the (sub optimal) way humans behave in the world as a whole, and something people generally are within their rights to use and as a general thing can't be legislated about under a 'People Behaving Nicely Act'.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
To me there is a big difference between individuals using such emotions (natural if horrible) and organisations, especially significant organisations, such as the big religions, using the same emotions to drive behaviour.
So, how does this work in practice? The Roman Catholic Church opposes divorce. Some Catholics may thus choose not to get divorced. What happens next? We arrest the Archbishop of Westminster?
Well, it probably helps to reduce the influence of the Catholic Church on Britons that the country has an established Protestant church, thereby settling the question as to whether religion was subordinate to civil power.
There's a fair amount of shame and ostracism flying around at the moment and it seems to be the primary means of social control. Six months 'inside' would be just about tolerable if one could resume a normal life thereafter but a suspended sentence coupled with professional expulsion and social disgrace is a much harsher penalty.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
Can you be sure nobody on that list might sue for libel for the implication that they might leak?
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
Not only that, the 'law' as passed by parliament is literally for all docs to be released with onky natsec risks etc reviewed by the committee first. Plod has zero authority here and there is no sub judice pre charge in any case
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Of course. But that's because the use of shame or ostracism in life generally is part of the (sub optimal) way humans behave in the world as a whole, and something people generally are within their rights to use and as a general thing can't be legislated about under a 'People Behaving Nicely Act'.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
To me there is a big difference between individuals using such emotions (natural if horrible) and organisations, especially significant organisations, such as the big religions, using the same emotions to drive behaviour.
So, how does this work in practice? The Roman Catholic Church opposes divorce. Some Catholics may thus choose not to get divorced. What happens next? We arrest the Archbishop of Westminster?
This was a draft bill from 2016 that attempted to deal with some of this.
It is obviously complicated and difficult to legislate effectively on. I'm generally against such legislation purely because "something needs to be done", so would be happy to downgrade this on my original post from sensible to worthy of consideration. The intent of stopping sharia courts is sensible though, they are not healthy for our society.
Banning sharia courts is very unlike some of Leon's other suggestions which are just included amongst some reasonable ones to make his illiberal rhetoric sound more valid.
And yet Rubio found time to visit Orban to give him a boost ahead of the upcoming election.
The U.S. administration did not send a single representative to the official commemoration events marking the anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, nor did it issue a single word through its embassy in Kyiv -- not even a standard diplomatic boilerplate.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
Err, surely the ones respecting the law are the ones that agree that courts should decide who should be deported rather than that being up to politicians and newspaper editors?
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
Err, surely the ones respecting the law are the ones that agree that courts should decide who should be deported rather than that being up to politicians and newspaper editors?
I thought law enforcement is done by a town hall meeting, which turns into a riot when a lady shouts out “Won’t somebody think of the children!!!”
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
Err, surely the ones respecting the law are the ones that agree that courts should decide who should be deported rather than that being up to politicians and newspaper editors?
I thought law enforcement is done by a town hall meeting, which turns into a riot when a lady shouts out “Won’t somebody think of the children!!!”
.
Isn’t that the Online Safety Act and the proponents of the under 16 social media ban.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
I do not twist words but point out your misrepresentations
You clearly have not read the explanation of the Intelligence committee members responsibility otherwise you would know all members are subject to the official secrets act
You are making allegations against mps with no evidence, in an attempt to play down the serious nature of this crisis and not once have you expressed any sympathy for the female victims of Epstein crimes
With reference to May's locals etc and Reform, the outlying possibilities afaics are Assume a good performance in the non London English second tier council locals
High end - win Wales, second in Scotland with SNP in a weak minority, win a few London councils, second in thd vote, win majority in a few of the first tier councils
Low end - second in Wales, third or worse in Scotland in seats, no majority council control in London and 3rd/4th in wards and vote, fall short in most of the counties except maybe Essex
If nearer the latter and they lose in Gorton etc i could see the narrative shift dramatically
In the latter case, will they not still have hundreds of new councillors elected, because these are largely elections last contested in 2022, back when Boris Johnson was PM, and Reform were basically nowhere? And you have them beating Labour in Wales at the low-end too.
I think the media would prefer the story that Labour are in most trouble, and save the story of things falling apart for Reform for later. Apart from anything else, piling in on a crisis for Labour (or the Tories) has the chance of leading to the respective leader of those parties being toppled, which isn't the case for Reform, and that's much more exciting for the journalists.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
Starmer claims he's done nothing wrong. He may have even convinced himself he has done nothing wrong.
It doesn't necessarily follow from this that he has done nothing wrong. At the very least, he seems to be remarkably gullible to have been taken in by a man who's historically been well known for a certain degree of economy with the truth.
A thought experiment for you.
Imagine that amongst the documents currently not being released is a document that basically says "Mandelson is a wrong'un who was best mates with Epstein and appears to have been leaking him confidential documentation over the period x-y" followed a a number of pages of evidence backing this up. Let's further assume that Starmer saw that and ignored it.
What would he be doing now? Well he's only got two choices - resign, or try to cover up. So obviously, being a slimeball, he's gone for cover up.
Now, if that has happened (and I'm not saying that it has), then it would probably be in the interests of the British people for it all to come out, and Starmer have to deal with the resulting scandal even if that means that Lord Underpants gets to spend less time at HM's pleasure than he truly deserves.
Mandy is now a washed up old has-been. Obviously, it would be better if he got the on full traitor experience, and ended up hanging in chains at execution dock, but that's trivial compared to the questions the whole thing raises about the suitability of those running the country right here and right now.
With reference to May's locals etc and Reform, the outlying possibilities afaics are Assume a good performance in the non London English second tier council locals
High end - win Wales, second in Scotland with SNP in a weak minority, win a few London councils, second in thd vote, win majority in a few of the first tier councils
Low end - second in Wales, third or worse in Scotland in seats, no majority council control in London and 3rd/4th in wards and vote, fall short in most of the counties except maybe Essex
If nearer the latter and they lose in Gorton etc i could see the narrative shift dramatically
In the latter case, will they not still have hundreds of new councillors elected, because these are largely elections last contested in 2022, back when Boris Johnson was PM, and Reform were basically nowhere? And you have them beating Labour in Wales at the low-end too.
I think the media would prefer the story that Labour are in most trouble, and save the story of things falling apart for Reform for later. Apart from anything else, piling in on a crisis for Labour (or the Tories) has the chance of leading to the respective leader of those parties being toppled, which isn't the case for Reform, and that's much more exciting for the journalists.
Perhaps. But i think the attraction of pivoting to a 'havent sealed the deal' will be more attractive to them We will see i guess as i personally suspect we will be closer to low end than high end (but not immeduately adjacent!)
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
People keep saying “ban under-16s from social media” like it’s just putting a sign on the door and job done. It isn’t. The only way it actually works is if everyone has to prove they’re over 16.
And that’s the bit that stinks. Because once you build a system where you’ve got to prove who you are, or at least prove your age, just to exist online, you’ve basically built the front door for a government-backed digital ID. Call it “age assurance” if you want. It’s still a checkpoint.
I’m fundamentally against a UK government ID because it flips the whole relationship between the citizen and the state. In this country, the default is supposed to be: you’re allowed to get on with your life unless there’s a good reason to stop you. You’re not meant to spend your day going “excuse me officer, here’s my papers” just to use a website, buy something, travel somewhere, speak to someone, whatever.
Once that infrastructure exists, it won’t stay “just for kids”. It never does. It’ll be “just for this one thing”, then “just for fraud”, then “just for safety”, then “just for elections”, then suddenly everything you do is tied to a shiny little token that can be demanded any time someone fancies it. Function creep isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s how humans behave when they’ve built a system and want to squeeze more value out of it.
And don’t kid yourself it’ll be private. If it’s government-backed, someone will want logs, audits, enforcement hooks, exceptions, “lawful access”, the whole lot. Even if they swear blind they won’t. The temptation is baked in.
If you want to protect kids online, then do the hard work: make the platforms safer by design, enforce proper defaults, limit the worst engagement mechanics, go after the companies that make money from addictive rubbish. Don’t build a national identity scheme by the back door and pretend it’s just a safeguarding measure.
Because I’m not proving who I am to live my daily life, and I’m definitely not signing up to a “papers please” internet just because politicians want an easy headline.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Of course. But that's because the use of shame or ostracism in life generally is part of the (sub optimal) way humans behave in the world as a whole, and something people generally are within their rights to use and as a general thing can't be legislated about under a 'People Behaving Nicely Act'.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
To me there is a big difference between individuals using such emotions (natural if horrible) and organisations, especially significant organisations, such as the big religions, using the same emotions to drive behaviour.
Adult autonomy is basic. Freedom of religion is basic; this entails freedom to self-subject to its disciplines (which will vary from highly meritorious to abjectly appalling) or not as you choose. That institutions like religion, government, trade unions, big business, big sport will act in ways which display the sub optimal side of human nature is unavoidable. Legislation and law in a liberal society can only go so far.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Of course. But that's because the use of shame or ostracism in life generally is part of the (sub optimal) way humans behave in the world as a whole, and something people generally are within their rights to use and as a general thing can't be legislated about under a 'People Behaving Nicely Act'.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
To me there is a big difference between individuals using such emotions (natural if horrible) and organisations, especially significant organisations, such as the big religions, using the same emotions to drive behaviour.
Adult autonomy is basic. Freedom of religion is basic; this entails freedom to self-subject to its disciplines (which will vary from highly meritorious to abjectly appalling) or not as you choose. That institutions like religion, government, trade unions, big business, big sport will act in ways which display the sub optimal side of human nature is unavoidable. Legislation and law in a liberal society can only go so far.
Freedom of religion is already qualified in multiple ways in the UK, HRA, Equality act, employment law for example. It is not and shouldn't be absolute.
People keep saying “ban under-16s from social media” like it’s just putting a sign on the door and job done. It isn’t. The only way it actually works is if everyone has to prove they’re over 16.
And that’s the bit that stinks. Because once you build a system where you’ve got to prove who you are, or at least prove your age, just to exist online, you’ve basically built the front door for a government-backed digital ID. Call it “age assurance” if you want. It’s still a checkpoint.
I’m fundamentally against a UK government ID because it flips the whole relationship between the citizen and the state. In this country, the default is supposed to be: you’re allowed to get on with your life unless there’s a good reason to stop you. You’re not meant to spend your day going “excuse me officer, here’s my papers” just to use a website, buy something, travel somewhere, speak to someone, whatever.
Once that infrastructure exists, it won’t stay “just for kids”. It never does. It’ll be “just for this one thing”, then “just for fraud”, then “just for safety”, then “just for elections”, then suddenly everything you do is tied to a shiny little token that can be demanded any time someone fancies it. Function creep isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s how humans behave when they’ve built a system and want to squeeze more value out of it.
And don’t kid yourself it’ll be private. If it’s government-backed, someone will want logs, audits, enforcement hooks, exceptions, “lawful access”, the whole lot. Even if they swear blind they won’t. The temptation is baked in.
If you want to protect kids online, then do the hard work: make the platforms safer by design, enforce proper defaults, limit the worst engagement mechanics, go after the companies that make money from addictive rubbish. Don’t build a national identity scheme by the back door and pretend it’s just a safeguarding measure.
Because I’m not proving who I am to live my daily life, and I’m definitely not signing up to a “papers please” internet just because politicians want an easy headline.
It would be trivial, if anyone cared about privacy, to use trusted third parties to generate tokens proving age. Everything else would be anonymous.
It’s noteworthy that when this solution is proposed, the politicians go away, then come back to say that such proposals “don’t meet their requirements”.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
As I don't really agree with any of this, and it asserts quite a lot, may I just make three comments.
1) You misunderstand the history of common law. So, for example, murder is a crime not because a statute has made it so, but because our judicial traditions time out of mind made it so and have kept it so, and have continuously refined and explicated what it means. The arrests of A M-W and Mandelson appear to be on suspicion of crimes judge created at common law without parliamentary interference.
2) The Lord Chancellor is not a judge. (These days no-one can remember his or her name).
3) The fact of whether someone is here illegally or without lawful reason or excuse, or without lawful reason to remain, is a question of fact and law. Ultimately all matters of fact and law are things I and you (and therefore everyone else) are entitled to have decided by due process and not by the body that wants to deport me.
People keep saying “ban under-16s from social media” like it’s just putting a sign on the door and job done. It isn’t. The only way it actually works is if everyone has to prove they’re over 16.
And that’s the bit that stinks. Because once you build a system where you’ve got to prove who you are, or at least prove your age, just to exist online, you’ve basically built the front door for a government-backed digital ID. Call it “age assurance” if you want. It’s still a checkpoint.
I’m fundamentally against a UK government ID because it flips the whole relationship between the citizen and the state. In this country, the default is supposed to be: you’re allowed to get on with your life unless there’s a good reason to stop you. You’re not meant to spend your day going “excuse me officer, here’s my papers” just to use a website, buy something, travel somewhere, speak to someone, whatever.
Once that infrastructure exists, it won’t stay “just for kids”. It never does. It’ll be “just for this one thing”, then “just for fraud”, then “just for safety”, then “just for elections”, then suddenly everything you do is tied to a shiny little token that can be demanded any time someone fancies it. Function creep isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s how humans behave when they’ve built a system and want to squeeze more value out of it.
And don’t kid yourself it’ll be private. If it’s government-backed, someone will want logs, audits, enforcement hooks, exceptions, “lawful access”, the whole lot. Even if they swear blind they won’t. The temptation is baked in.
If you want to protect kids online, then do the hard work: make the platforms safer by design, enforce proper defaults, limit the worst engagement mechanics, go after the companies that make money from addictive rubbish. Don’t build a national identity scheme by the back door and pretend it’s just a safeguarding measure.
Because I’m not proving who I am to live my daily life, and I’m definitely not signing up to a “papers please” internet just because politicians want an easy headline.
It would be trivial, if anyone cared about privacy, to use trusted third parties to generate tokens proving age. Everything else would be anonymous.
It’s noteworthy that when this solution is proposed, the politicians go away, then come back to say that such proposals “don’t meet their requirements”.
To which the follow up question is - so what are your requirements - preferably in bullet form so we can pull them apart an make you look like the luddites you are
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
You need to do better than this
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
Guardian on topic of under 16s social media ban.
Nothing to do with Darren Jones
Take the blinkers off
I would support a Jones social media ban. Either that, or put them all on just one social media platform that the rest of us could ignore: jonesnet
People keep saying “ban under-16s from social media” like it’s just putting a sign on the door and job done. It isn’t. The only way it actually works is if everyone has to prove they’re over 16.
And that’s the bit that stinks. Because once you build a system where you’ve got to prove who you are, or at least prove your age, just to exist online, you’ve basically built the front door for a government-backed digital ID. Call it “age assurance” if you want. It’s still a checkpoint.
I’m fundamentally against a UK government ID because it flips the whole relationship between the citizen and the state. In this country, the default is supposed to be: you’re allowed to get on with your life unless there’s a good reason to stop you. You’re not meant to spend your day going “excuse me officer, here’s my papers” just to use a website, buy something, travel somewhere, speak to someone, whatever.
Once that infrastructure exists, it won’t stay “just for kids”. It never does. It’ll be “just for this one thing”, then “just for fraud”, then “just for safety”, then “just for elections”, then suddenly everything you do is tied to a shiny little token that can be demanded any time someone fancies it. Function creep isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s how humans behave when they’ve built a system and want to squeeze more value out of it.
And don’t kid yourself it’ll be private. If it’s government-backed, someone will want logs, audits, enforcement hooks, exceptions, “lawful access”, the whole lot. Even if they swear blind they won’t. The temptation is baked in.
If you want to protect kids online, then do the hard work: make the platforms safer by design, enforce proper defaults, limit the worst engagement mechanics, go after the companies that make money from addictive rubbish. Don’t build a national identity scheme by the back door and pretend it’s just a safeguarding measure.
Because I’m not proving who I am to live my daily life, and I’m definitely not signing up to a “papers please” internet just because politicians want an easy headline.
Don't worry, Fujitsu is going to get the contract to run it.
People keep saying “ban under-16s from social media” like it’s just putting a sign on the door and job done. It isn’t. The only way it actually works is if everyone has to prove they’re over 16.
And that’s the bit that stinks. Because once you build a system where you’ve got to prove who you are, or at least prove your age, just to exist online, you’ve basically built the front door for a government-backed digital ID. Call it “age assurance” if you want. It’s still a checkpoint.
I’m fundamentally against a UK government ID because it flips the whole relationship between the citizen and the state. In this country, the default is supposed to be: you’re allowed to get on with your life unless there’s a good reason to stop you. You’re not meant to spend your day going “excuse me officer, here’s my papers” just to use a website, buy something, travel somewhere, speak to someone, whatever.
Once that infrastructure exists, it won’t stay “just for kids”. It never does. It’ll be “just for this one thing”, then “just for fraud”, then “just for safety”, then “just for elections”, then suddenly everything you do is tied to a shiny little token that can be demanded any time someone fancies it. Function creep isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s how humans behave when they’ve built a system and want to squeeze more value out of it.
And don’t kid yourself it’ll be private. If it’s government-backed, someone will want logs, audits, enforcement hooks, exceptions, “lawful access”, the whole lot. Even if they swear blind they won’t. The temptation is baked in.
If you want to protect kids online, then do the hard work: make the platforms safer by design, enforce proper defaults, limit the worst engagement mechanics, go after the companies that make money from addictive rubbish. Don’t build a national identity scheme by the back door and pretend it’s just a safeguarding measure.
Because I’m not proving who I am to live my daily life, and I’m definitely not signing up to a “papers please” internet just because politicians want an easy headline.
Don't worry, Fujitsu is going to get the contract to run it.
I'd suggest the Royal Mail, then it will never get delivered.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Of course. But that's because the use of shame or ostracism in life generally is part of the (sub optimal) way humans behave in the world as a whole, and something people generally are within their rights to use and as a general thing can't be legislated about under a 'People Behaving Nicely Act'.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
To me there is a big difference between individuals using such emotions (natural if horrible) and organisations, especially significant organisations, such as the big religions, using the same emotions to drive behaviour.
Adult autonomy is basic. Freedom of religion is basic; this entails freedom to self-subject to its disciplines (which will vary from highly meritorious to abjectly appalling) or not as you choose. That institutions like religion, government, trade unions, big business, big sport will act in ways which display the sub optimal side of human nature is unavoidable. Legislation and law in a liberal society can only go so far.
Freedom of religion is already qualified in multiple ways in the UK, HRA, Equality act, employment law for example. It is not and shouldn't be absolute.
Noted. In fact I noted it in an earlier post. I am free to believe in a religion which sacrifices children on the altar, but I am not free to practice it.
People keep saying “ban under-16s from social media” like it’s just putting a sign on the door and job done. It isn’t. The only way it actually works is if everyone has to prove they’re over 16.
And that’s the bit that stinks. Because once you build a system where you’ve got to prove who you are, or at least prove your age, just to exist online, you’ve basically built the front door for a government-backed digital ID. Call it “age assurance” if you want. It’s still a checkpoint.
I’m fundamentally against a UK government ID because it flips the whole relationship between the citizen and the state. In this country, the default is supposed to be: you’re allowed to get on with your life unless there’s a good reason to stop you. You’re not meant to spend your day going “excuse me officer, here’s my papers” just to use a website, buy something, travel somewhere, speak to someone, whatever.
Once that infrastructure exists, it won’t stay “just for kids”. It never does. It’ll be “just for this one thing”, then “just for fraud”, then “just for safety”, then “just for elections”, then suddenly everything you do is tied to a shiny little token that can be demanded any time someone fancies it. Function creep isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s how humans behave when they’ve built a system and want to squeeze more value out of it.
And don’t kid yourself it’ll be private. If it’s government-backed, someone will want logs, audits, enforcement hooks, exceptions, “lawful access”, the whole lot. Even if they swear blind they won’t. The temptation is baked in.
If you want to protect kids online, then do the hard work: make the platforms safer by design, enforce proper defaults, limit the worst engagement mechanics, go after the companies that make money from addictive rubbish. Don’t build a national identity scheme by the back door and pretend it’s just a safeguarding measure.
Because I’m not proving who I am to live my daily life, and I’m definitely not signing up to a “papers please” internet just because politicians want an easy headline.
Don't worry, Fujitsu is going to get the contract to run it.
I'd suggest the Royal Mail, then it will never get delivered.
Careful about libelling posties - they all have side gigs as assassins.
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
We interviewed AJP Naylor, leading historian on the Great Muslim Persecution in Britain which started in the latter half of the 2020s and lasted for almost a decade. How did it happen? What were the warning signs?
"Perhaps the biggest red flag was the way prejudice against this particular minority became normalised in the UK," he says. "The banality of it all. The insouciance of the people expressing it as if acute distaste, hatred even, for Muslims was the most natural thing in the world."
Pressed for an example Naylor namechecks a discussion forum, PB.com, very influential at the time, where one day its most active voice published a detailed list of ways in which the lives of Muslims in Britain could and should be made unpleasant. It finished with the chillingly casual "and so on and so forth".
"In those six words, their content and tone, lay the seeds of all that came after," says Naylor. It's clear that for all his deep understanding of this topic, all the books written, lectures delivered, documentaries made, he remains deeply troubled by it.
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
is hardly the coming of The Fourth Reich.
Its a hotchpotch.
Sensible - Prohibit sharia courts, ban cousin marriage, fiercely prosecute FGM and honour crimes.
Arguable but not very consistent with the western democracy claiming to be protected - Ban halal, burqa, niqab
Discriminatory, illiberal and vindictive - Licensing of imams/mosques and closing down madrasas
Would we close down the various courts that exist in other religions? And other non-religious forms of mediation?
Weirdly I'd consider licensing less problematic. If an estate repeatedly kills raptors, or a pub causes havoc, their licenses can be withdrawn. Not sure why that couldn't be the case for a religious institution that encourages violence or breaking UK law.
Mediation is fine. The difference between that and a UK sharia court is that through social and familial pressure the sharia courts at least meander into the realms of enforcement rather than simply mediation.
Don't we see that in other religions? It's not usual to read of people cut off from one or other of the smaller, more 'enthusiastic' Christian sects for marrying outside the church, or similar.
Probably yes and if it were a law it should be applied to any body, religious or not, that seeks to enforce dispute resolutions with such pressure in a parallel setup to HMGs courts.
Decision making, mediation and arbitration bodies falling outside a specific legal framework are not uncommon. Any religion, within the law, can do this on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers. Extra-legal enforcement is a crime.
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Extra legal enforcement through violence is a crime. Not aware of any crime being committed if it is enforced through shame or ostracism or similar.
Of course. But that's because the use of shame or ostracism in life generally is part of the (sub optimal) way humans behave in the world as a whole, and something people generally are within their rights to use and as a general thing can't be legislated about under a 'People Behaving Nicely Act'.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
To me there is a big difference between individuals using such emotions (natural if horrible) and organisations, especially significant organisations, such as the big religions, using the same emotions to drive behaviour.
Adult autonomy is basic. Freedom of religion is basic; this entails freedom to self-subject to its disciplines (which will vary from highly meritorious to abjectly appalling) or not as you choose. That institutions like religion, government, trade unions, big business, big sport will act in ways which display the sub optimal side of human nature is unavoidable. Legislation and law in a liberal society can only go so far.
Freedom of religion is already qualified in multiple ways in the UK, HRA, Equality act, employment law for example. It is not and shouldn't be absolute.
I would argue religion actually LIMITs our freedoms, some religions more than others.
People keep saying “ban under-16s from social media” like it’s just putting a sign on the door and job done. It isn’t. The only way it actually works is if everyone has to prove they’re over 16.
And that’s the bit that stinks. Because once you build a system where you’ve got to prove who you are, or at least prove your age, just to exist online, you’ve basically built the front door for a government-backed digital ID. Call it “age assurance” if you want. It’s still a checkpoint.
I’m fundamentally against a UK government ID because it flips the whole relationship between the citizen and the state. In this country, the default is supposed to be: you’re allowed to get on with your life unless there’s a good reason to stop you. You’re not meant to spend your day going “excuse me officer, here’s my papers” just to use a website, buy something, travel somewhere, speak to someone, whatever.
Once that infrastructure exists, it won’t stay “just for kids”. It never does. It’ll be “just for this one thing”, then “just for fraud”, then “just for safety”, then “just for elections”, then suddenly everything you do is tied to a shiny little token that can be demanded any time someone fancies it. Function creep isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s how humans behave when they’ve built a system and want to squeeze more value out of it.
And don’t kid yourself it’ll be private. If it’s government-backed, someone will want logs, audits, enforcement hooks, exceptions, “lawful access”, the whole lot. Even if they swear blind they won’t. The temptation is baked in.
If you want to protect kids online, then do the hard work: make the platforms safer by design, enforce proper defaults, limit the worst engagement mechanics, go after the companies that make money from addictive rubbish. Don’t build a national identity scheme by the back door and pretend it’s just a safeguarding measure.
Because I’m not proving who I am to live my daily life, and I’m definitely not signing up to a “papers please” internet just because politicians want an easy headline.
Don't worry, Fujitsu is going to get the contract to run it.
I'd suggest the Royal Mail, then it will never get delivered.
Careful about libelling posties - they all have side gigs as assassins.
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
You need to do better than this
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
Guardian on topic of under 16s social media ban.
Nothing to do with Darren Jones
Take the blinkers off
I would support a Jones social media ban. Either that, or put them all on just one social media platform that the rest of us could ignore: jonesnet
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
You need to do better than this
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
Guardian on topic of under 16s social media ban.
Nothing to do with Darren Jones
Take the blinkers off
I would support a Jones social media ban. Either that, or put them all on just one social media platform that the rest of us could ignore: jonesnet
But if you do that… how do we keep up with the Jones’s?
People keep saying “ban under-16s from social media” like it’s just putting a sign on the door and job done. It isn’t. The only way it actually works is if everyone has to prove they’re over 16.
And that’s the bit that stinks. Because once you build a system where you’ve got to prove who you are, or at least prove your age, just to exist online, you’ve basically built the front door for a government-backed digital ID. Call it “age assurance” if you want. It’s still a checkpoint.
I’m fundamentally against a UK government ID because it flips the whole relationship between the citizen and the state. In this country, the default is supposed to be: you’re allowed to get on with your life unless there’s a good reason to stop you. You’re not meant to spend your day going “excuse me officer, here’s my papers” just to use a website, buy something, travel somewhere, speak to someone, whatever.
Once that infrastructure exists, it won’t stay “just for kids”. It never does. It’ll be “just for this one thing”, then “just for fraud”, then “just for safety”, then “just for elections”, then suddenly everything you do is tied to a shiny little token that can be demanded any time someone fancies it. Function creep isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s how humans behave when they’ve built a system and want to squeeze more value out of it.
And don’t kid yourself it’ll be private. If it’s government-backed, someone will want logs, audits, enforcement hooks, exceptions, “lawful access”, the whole lot. Even if they swear blind they won’t. The temptation is baked in.
If you want to protect kids online, then do the hard work: make the platforms safer by design, enforce proper defaults, limit the worst engagement mechanics, go after the companies that make money from addictive rubbish. Don’t build a national identity scheme by the back door and pretend it’s just a safeguarding measure.
Because I’m not proving who I am to live my daily life, and I’m definitely not signing up to a “papers please” internet just because politicians want an easy headline.
Don't worry, Fujitsu is going to get the contract to run it.
I'd suggest the Royal Mail, then it will never get delivered.
Careful about libelling posties - they all have side gigs as assassins.
People keep saying “ban under-16s from social media” like it’s just putting a sign on the door and job done. It isn’t. The only way it actually works is if everyone has to prove they’re over 16.
And that’s the bit that stinks. Because once you build a system where you’ve got to prove who you are, or at least prove your age, just to exist online, you’ve basically built the front door for a government-backed digital ID. Call it “age assurance” if you want. It’s still a checkpoint.
I’m fundamentally against a UK government ID because it flips the whole relationship between the citizen and the state. In this country, the default is supposed to be: you’re allowed to get on with your life unless there’s a good reason to stop you. You’re not meant to spend your day going “excuse me officer, here’s my papers” just to use a website, buy something, travel somewhere, speak to someone, whatever.
Once that infrastructure exists, it won’t stay “just for kids”. It never does. It’ll be “just for this one thing”, then “just for fraud”, then “just for safety”, then “just for elections”, then suddenly everything you do is tied to a shiny little token that can be demanded any time someone fancies it. Function creep isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s how humans behave when they’ve built a system and want to squeeze more value out of it.
And don’t kid yourself it’ll be private. If it’s government-backed, someone will want logs, audits, enforcement hooks, exceptions, “lawful access”, the whole lot. Even if they swear blind they won’t. The temptation is baked in.
If you want to protect kids online, then do the hard work: make the platforms safer by design, enforce proper defaults, limit the worst engagement mechanics, go after the companies that make money from addictive rubbish. Don’t build a national identity scheme by the back door and pretend it’s just a safeguarding measure.
Because I’m not proving who I am to live my daily life, and I’m definitely not signing up to a “papers please” internet just because politicians want an easy headline.
It would be trivial, if anyone cared about privacy, to use trusted third parties to generate tokens proving age. Everything else would be anonymous.
It’s noteworthy that when this solution is proposed, the politicians go away, then come back to say that such proposals “don’t meet their requirements”.
To which the follow up question is - so what are your requirements - preferably in bullet form so we can pull them apart an make you look like the luddites you are
It’s not Luddism - they want all anonymity removed online.
No, they won’t realise it includes themselves until the actual anvil lands on their actual head
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
You need to do better than this
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
Guardian on topic of under 16s social media ban.
Nothing to do with Darren Jones
Take the blinkers off
I would support a Jones social media ban. Either that, or put them all on just one social media platform that the rest of us could ignore: jonesnet
We have the bizarre sight of the Leader of the Opposition berating the Leader of the Liberal Democrats for proposing a motion on their Opposition Day today that is almost word for word what the Official Opposition are considering on their next opposition day, because the Tories want the credit for proposing it first.
The fact that it is a gnats bollock away from proposed Government policy just about sums up how utterly useless the official opposition are, with puerile ego based grandstandinf and the avowed intention to argue about absolutely everything even what they fundamentally agree with.
Utterly utterly bizarre. 5 year olds behave better.
A long way from the mutual cooperation we have seen from all Party's in the very recent and general past on key issues.
You need to do better than this
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
Guardian on topic of under 16s social media ban.
Nothing to do with Darren Jones
Take the blinkers off
I would support a Jones social media ban. Either that, or put them all on just one social media platform that the rest of us could ignore: jonesnet
But if you do that… how do we keep up with the Jones’s?
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
"No-one is talking about AMW or Mandelson, they're all taking about coastal erosion"? Really? This is as mad as yesterday's "the arrest of Mandelson was a tactic to divert everyone away from the brilliance of Bridget Phillipson".
I'd say AMW and Mandelson are the number one topical topics of conversation among my IRL conversations and whatsapp threads. And why not? High status humans transgressing societal behavioural norms is the #1 topic of conversation in any human society anywhere, and this is far, far juicier than most. It would be astonishing were it not the #1 topic of conversation. Particularly when it turns out the two people involved are the two worst people in the country.
From your list, #2 is definitely weather, "when will it stop being dreary" having become really quite pressing. Today is lovely though. My best day of solar generation since October.
Immigration and cost of living both get a look in too.
You're also missing off winter Olympics, which gets a surprising amount of traction.
Comments
That's why they employ directly and indirectly several million people to get it done. The idea that some random thought is 'Number One Priority' is like Tesco saying that they will focus on biscuits but not bread for five years.
It might still be buried in their version of the Epstein files.
Where is your link that the Lib Dem motion is the same that the conservatives are considering for their next opposition day debate ?
And by the way, opposition parties oppose, and they have been gifted so much by a failing labour administration it is difficult where to start
Also, if you had listened to Darren Jones at the dispatch box yesterday the utter fury came from his own backbenchers who seem to be in a very angry mood
I notice that Zia Yousef has a similar look around the eyes to Kash Patel.
Nothing to do with Darren Jones
Take the blinkers off
And it brings it back to a point I have made before - that the scaffold the process of fear leading to demonisation leading to hatred is built on is ignorance. Which is why one place the demonisation of Muslims takes root where there aren't many, so there is no personal experience to give the lie to the propaganda.
IMO the way round it - in addition to operating the immigration systems effectively etc - is to build conversation not distance, and to rebuild a civil society from the bottom upwards.
Here's an interesting conversation of James o'Brien with a caller concerned about Muslims and Sharia Law, with JoB doing his probing questions thing, and the caller repeating talking points, including the false claim that "Sadiq Khan supports Sharia Law", and there are "army of men of fighing age" echoes.
I think JoB is a little too blunt, but it's an interesting conversation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHk5KRh11KY
It is not me wearing blinkers
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You're fixated on that issue.
I'm talking about social media ban.
Hint: if it involves adults having to change their behaviours, then it’s not actually to do with protecting children.
If Keir Starmer twatted someone live on telly the video wouldnt be inadmissable in court if he were subsequently charged with assault just because we all saw it
There is no sub judice pre charge
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
https://www.google.com/search?q=intelligence+committee&oq=intelligence+comm&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgCEAAYgAQyBggAEEUYOTINCAEQLhjHARjRAxiABDIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABDIHCAoQABiABDIHCAsQABiABDIHCAwQABiABDIHCA0QABiABNIBCDY2NDVqMGo0qAIOsAIB8QUzHKZUUhA8cw&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Quit whining.
https://x.com/ep_president/status/2026268932529692939
They’re securing a loan to Ukraine with frozen Russian assets in the EU.
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
You can't legislate for people who are voluntarily under an authority. That's just the human condition. Nor can you legislate to prevent family life in general, including among those with strange philosophical or religious views.
What you can do is have robust child protection systems, and you can require all organisations of every sort to have them in place, and for these to be assessed. And you can have laws applying to everyone which will sometimes impinge on freedom of action, if not freedom of thought. It is lawful to have a religion which believes in killing your first born child (or indeed someone else's) but it is not lawful to put that belief into action. And groups that hold such beliefs are liable to careful scrutiny. Leon is right to draw attention to the possibilities of law making, though it needs thinking through in detail.
WRT Islam, there is only one sane option. Which is slow absorption into the broadly liberal, freedom of religion mainstream. This has happened to the Christian traditions here, and was not always the case. Christianity has not aways been a liberal religion but it mostly is now. It can't be quick. Quick answers are not available and what can't be solved has to be managed.
Other insane options are available, as widely discussed here.
Find Out Now voting intention (Restore Britain and Your Party included)
🟦 Reform UK: 25%
🟢 Greens: 18%
🔴 Labour: 16%
🔵 Conservatives: 16%
🟠 Lib Dems: 11%
⬛ Restore Britain: 7%
🔴 Your Party: 1%
Turnout adjusted, Don’t knows excluded
[Find Out Now, 20–21 February, N=3,029]
As the courts found out when they wanted MPs gagged over family courts.
Has Putin's stooge Orban dropped his obstruction?
I foresee that a petition to ban all religious courts will be proposed within 10 minutes or so. Backed by all the other religious courts.
Hermann the Irascible may not have been the most famous of British Kings, but he had some good ideas.
Also 60bn of it has to be spent with EU defence firms so not costing the whole amount.
Reform -3%
Greens nc
Labour nc
Conservatives nc
Lib Dems +1%
Their previous poll had Others at 7%, so likely includes a large amount of the combined 8% for Your and Restore.
By enforcement I mean enforcement, not the ordinary stuff of behaving like a horrible human being. (Just wondering how many PB posters would find themselves in prison....)
Cost of Living
Weather
Climate Change
Immigration
Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
She couldn’t believe that Ronald Reagan won 49 states, since she didn’t know anyone who voted for him.
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
None of the people you mention are actually on the committee - https://isc.independent.gov.uk/committee-membership/
Nor is Putin, Trump or the Loch Ness Monster
Assume a good performance in the non London English second tier council locals
High end - win Wales, second in Scotland with SNP in a weak minority, win a few London councils, second in thd vote, win majority in a few of the first tier councils
Low end - second in Wales, third or worse in Scotland in seats, no majority council control in London and 3rd/4th in wards and vote, fall short in most of the counties except maybe Essex
If nearer the latter and they lose in Gorton etc i could see the narrative shift dramatically
Plod has zero authority here and there is no sub judice pre charge in any case
Here's another fine Ness you've gotten us into.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0136/16136.pdf
It is obviously complicated and difficult to legislate effectively on. I'm generally against such legislation purely because "something needs to be done", so would be happy to downgrade this on my original post from sensible to worthy of consideration. The intent of stopping sharia courts is sensible though, they are not healthy for our society.
Banning sharia courts is very unlike some of Leon's other suggestions which are just included amongst some reasonable ones to make his illiberal rhetoric sound more valid.
Dodgy as fuck
The U.S. administration did not send a single representative to the official commemoration events marking the anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, nor did it issue a single word through its embassy in Kyiv -- not even a standard diplomatic boilerplate.
This is all just tragic at this point.
https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/2026273798647885834
Then everybody gets torches and pitchforks….
Pearls don’t clutch themselves.
You clearly have not read the explanation of the Intelligence committee members responsibility otherwise you would know all members are subject to the official secrets act
You are making allegations against mps with no evidence, in an attempt to play down the serious nature of this crisis and not once have you expressed any sympathy for the female victims of Epstein crimes
NPR reports the Justice Department is withholding Epstein files tied to allegations that Donald Trump sexually abused a minor.
https://x.com/allenanalysis/status/2026285260481208381
I think the media would prefer the story that Labour are in most trouble, and save the story of things falling apart for Reform for later. Apart from anything else, piling in on a crisis for Labour (or the Tories) has the chance of leading to the respective leader of those parties being toppled, which isn't the case for Reform, and that's much more exciting for the journalists.
It doesn't necessarily follow from this that he has done nothing wrong. At the very least, he seems to be remarkably gullible to have been taken in by a man who's historically been well known for a certain degree of economy with the truth.
A thought experiment for you.
Imagine that amongst the documents currently not being released is a document that basically says "Mandelson is a wrong'un who was best mates with Epstein and appears to have been leaking him confidential documentation over the period x-y" followed a a number of pages of evidence backing this up. Let's further assume that Starmer saw that and ignored it.
What would he be doing now? Well he's only got two choices - resign, or try to cover up. So obviously, being a slimeball, he's gone for cover up.
Now, if that has happened (and I'm not saying that it has), then it would probably be in the interests of the British people for it all to come out, and Starmer have to deal with the resulting scandal even if that means that Lord Underpants gets to spend less time at HM's pleasure than he truly deserves.
Mandy is now a washed up old has-been. Obviously, it would be better if he got the on full traitor experience, and ended up hanging in chains at execution dock, but that's trivial compared to the questions the whole thing raises about the suitability of those running the country right here and right now.
Probably not worth staying up for.
We will see i guess as i personally suspect we will be closer to low end than high end (but not immeduately adjacent!)
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
And that’s the bit that stinks. Because once you build a system where you’ve got to prove who you are, or at least prove your age, just to exist online, you’ve basically built the front door for a government-backed digital ID. Call it “age assurance” if you want. It’s still a checkpoint.
I’m fundamentally against a UK government ID because it flips the whole relationship between the citizen and the state. In this country, the default is supposed to be: you’re allowed to get on with your life unless there’s a good reason to stop you. You’re not meant to spend your day going “excuse me officer, here’s my papers” just to use a website, buy something, travel somewhere, speak to someone, whatever.
Once that infrastructure exists, it won’t stay “just for kids”. It never does. It’ll be “just for this one thing”, then “just for fraud”, then “just for safety”, then “just for elections”, then suddenly everything you do is tied to a shiny little token that can be demanded any time someone fancies it. Function creep isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s how humans behave when they’ve built a system and want to squeeze more value out of it.
And don’t kid yourself it’ll be private. If it’s government-backed, someone will want logs, audits, enforcement hooks, exceptions, “lawful access”, the whole lot. Even if they swear blind they won’t. The temptation is baked in.
If you want to protect kids online, then do the hard work: make the platforms safer by design, enforce proper defaults, limit the worst engagement mechanics, go after the companies that make money from addictive rubbish. Don’t build a national identity scheme by the back door and pretend it’s just a safeguarding measure.
Because I’m not proving who I am to live my daily life, and I’m definitely not signing up to a “papers please” internet just because politicians want an easy headline.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
Starmers obviously been told to shut his yak
It’s noteworthy that when this solution is proposed, the politicians go away, then come back to say that such proposals “don’t meet their requirements”.
1) You misunderstand the history of common law. So, for example, murder is a crime not because a statute has made it so, but because our judicial traditions time out of mind made it so and have kept it so, and have continuously refined and explicated what it means. The arrests of A M-W and Mandelson appear to be on suspicion of crimes judge created at common law without parliamentary interference.
2) The Lord Chancellor is not a judge. (These days no-one can remember his or her name).
3) The fact of whether someone is here illegally or without lawful reason or excuse, or without lawful reason to remain, is a question of fact and law. Ultimately all matters of fact and law are things I and you (and therefore everyone else) are entitled to have decided by due process and not by the body that wants to deport me.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, they won’t realise it includes themselves until the actual anvil lands on their actual head
Sean Connery and Harrison Ford together: "Yes?"
I'd say AMW and Mandelson are the number one topical topics of conversation among my IRL conversations and whatsapp threads. And why not? High status humans transgressing societal behavioural norms is the #1 topic of conversation in any human society anywhere, and this is far, far juicier than most. It would be astonishing were it not the #1 topic of conversation. Particularly when it turns out the two people involved are the two worst people in the country.
From your list, #2 is definitely weather, "when will it stop being dreary" having become really quite pressing. Today is lovely though. My best day of solar generation since October.
Immigration and cost of living both get a look in too.
You're also missing off winter Olympics, which gets a surprising amount of traction.