The SDP was of course boosted by various by elections - which increased their profile and made them appear electable as they were winning everywhere from Croydon to Glasgow to Merseyside. I doubt the Tiggers will get that chance - as I doubt they could mount a serious challenge on that scale.
As for UKIP there are so many offshoots now as well as Batten's UKIP. If we do end up having to elect MEPs is time allocated and election broadcast allocations based on the 2014 European results or the last general election? Does Farage's party really have any capacity to run a national list in barely two months time.
And of course many of the most pro Brexit areas have the smallest MEP allocations - the North east only has 4 seats (i.e. you potentially need 25% of the local vote to get one MEP) and the east midlands 6 whereas London has ten and the south east has 11 (i.e. potentially less than 10% is sufficient). Its much harder to win seats in the former than the latter if the vote is split - its that quirk that resulted in the Lib Dems getting their sole MEP last time (in the largest south east region) and UKIP getting Gerald Batten elected in London.
Farage could as a result end up being a group of one - elected in the south east region!
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
Because power is in the hands of the elected and reviewed by the unelected rather than the other way around.
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?
Not exactly democratic is he
Lying isn't democratic.
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?
Not exactly democratic is he
Lying isn't democratic.
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?
His lips move.
Victorian joke.
I'd be surprised if there was ever a time when politicians were high-minded, serious, and impartial servants of the people who set aside partisan considerations to do the right thing (perhaps WW2).
Perhaps we did have better quality civil servants and MPs back then - or we just remember the good ones?
We used to run nearly one third of the globe with limited resources - apparently the whole of the Sudan (which covers 5 times the area of Germany) was administered by less than 150 civil servants.
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?
Not exactly democratic is he
Lying isn't democratic.
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?
Not exactly democratic is he
Lying isn't democratic.
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?
His lips move.
Victorian joke.
I'd be surprised if there was ever a time when politicians were high-minded, serious, and impartial servants of the people who set aside partisan considerations to do the right thing (perhaps WW2).
Perhaps we did have better quality civil servants and MPs back then - or we just remember the good ones?
We used to run nearly one third of the globe with limited resources - apparently the whole of the Sudan (which covers 5 times the area of Germany) was administered by less than 150 civil servants.
In 1900 there were just 25 civil servants in the Treasury.
Good piece Alastair. I know nobody except Corbyn wants it, but a summer or autumn election could still happen by accident. We could even get one in April.
The DUP have said they will vote against the government in a vote of confidence, if any deal with a backstop passes a ‘meaningful vote’, so we could have an almighty constitutional crisis as soon as this week.
Add in the Independent Group, and a couple more Con defections there leaves Con + DUP with no majority, and a whole pile of urgent legislation that needs to be passed.
Almost certainly too late for an April election now given that an election would have to be announced by next Wednesday for Polling Day to be 18th April. Unlikely that 25th April would be chosen as Local Elections are already scheduled for 2nd May.
You’re probably right there, but I wouldn’t rule out a 2nd May election just yet. Some big decisions are happening this week, and it’s not inconceivable that the government has no majority by Friday.
There has been no majority since the 2017 election - though I assume you mean that DUP support would either be withdrawn or no longer sufficient.
Has this type of Aircraft just entered general use, or has it had several years of accident-free flying. Obviously (using the Poisson distribution) we can get two accidents randomly in a relatively short space of time - that is co-incidence. However a couple of other thoughts.
The fact that a certain type of plane crashes almost always means that there is an increased probability that a second one will crash. The question is: why? It could be a design defect, it could be that a couple of technicians on the ground are being taught incorrect procedures by the same instructor.
First commercial flight, May 22nd 2017. 350 in service. The accidents were on separate continents and one at least has already been admitted to be a technical fault Boeing had knowingly or otherwise concealed.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
The previous crash was with Lion air, an Indonesian airline with a generally poor safety record. Ethiopian is probably the best run airline in Africa.
The design issue with the 737 MAX relates to engine placement. Higher bypass engines with big fans are more efficient than the lighter smaller, engines the 737 was designed for in the 1960's. There isn't enough space for them to be placed fully under the wings. So the engine, which is now heavier, has to be placed in front of the wings, which disturbs the centre of gravity. Boeing compensates for this through software. There may be flaws with the software, or it is possible crews aren't properly adapted to the different handling characteristics when moving from the older version of the plane.
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?
Not exactly democratic is he
Lying isn't democratic.
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?
Not exactly democratic is he
Lying isn't democratic.
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?
His lips move.
Victorian joke.
I'd be surprised if there was ever a time when politicians were high-minded, serious, and impartial servants of the people who set aside partisan considerations to do the right thing (perhaps WW2).
Perhaps we did have better quality civil servants and MPs back then - or we just remember the good ones?
We used to run nearly one third of the globe with limited resources - apparently the whole of the Sudan (which covers 5 times the area of Germany) was administered by less than 150 civil servants.
Presumably that required a - plenty of local administrative support, and b - being able to back up diktats with the threat of imperial force.
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...
Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?
Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.
I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?
We used to run nearly one third of the globe with limited resources - apparently the whole of the Sudan (which covers 5 times the area of Germany) was administered by less than 150 civil servants.
In 1900 there were just 25 civil servants in the Treasury.
That seems unlikely given the size of the building so perhaps the definition has changed and only very senior civil servants used to be counted.
Speaking of which, the Chancellor's spring statement is this Wednesday.
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
Because power is in the hands of the elected and reviewed by the unelected rather than the other way around.
Judicial power has never been in the hands of the elected in this country. We've never elected judges.
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?
Not exactly democratic is he
Lying isn't democratic.
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?
Not exactly democratic is he
Lying isn't democratic.
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?
His lips move.
Victorian joke.
I'd beW2).
Perhaps we did have better quality civil servants and MPs back then - or we just remember the good ones?
We used to run nearly one third of the globe with limited resources - apparently the whole of the Sudan (which covers 5 times the area of Germany) was administered by less than 150 civil servants.
In 1900 there were just 25 civil servants in the Treasury.
That seems unlikely given the size of the building so perhaps the definition has changed and only very senior civil servants used to be counted.
Speaking of which, the Chancellor's spring statement is this Wednesday.
Seems pretty meaningless when there's so much uncertainty - is there any legal scope to delay that?
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
Because power is in the hands of the elected and reviewed by the unelected rather than the other way around.
Judicial power has never been in the hands of the elected in this country. We've never elected judges.
?? Where on earth did I say that they had? You asked why ministers and not the courts to make the decision, and an argument would be that with the minister doing it those with elected authority, entrusted by the people, make the call.
I'm not aghast at the idea of judges doing it, though the process would need thinking about, but surely you can understand the view that major decisions should be made by people entrusted with elected office?
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...
Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?
Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.
I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.
The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.
I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...
So far they're being very guarded in what they say:
Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.
Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.
The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?
Not exactly democratic is he
Lying isn't democratic.
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?
Not exactly democratic is he
Lying isn't democratic.
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?
His lips move.
Victorian joke.
I'd be surprised if there was ever a time when politicians were high-minded, serious, and impartial servants of the people who set aside partisan considerations to do the right thing (perhaps WW2).
Perhaps we did have better quality civil servants and MPs back then - or we just remember the good ones?
We used to run nearly one third of the globe with limited resources - apparently the whole of the Sudan (which covers 5 times the area of Germany) was administered by less than 150 civil servants.
In 1900 there were just 25 civil servants in the Treasury.
The late Professor Parkingson could be quite scathing on the subject.
Good afternoon everyone. Sunday Lunch at an excellent local resturant with a very pleasant, if slightly light to my taste, English Red. (That's was the wine!)
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...
Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?
Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.
I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.
So that'll be 2021 at the earliest?
No,. he's reading it back and thinking "how could I have been so foolish!'
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...
Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?
Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figurle who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.
I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.
So that'll be 2021 at the earliest?
Quite possibly. I wonder when the publisher paid the advance, and if they realised how long it might take to actually publish without throwing a spanner in the works to his successors?
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...
Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?
Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.
I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.
It'll be years then - even 1-2 years after it won't be clear how disastrous things have been, and thus how to play it in his book.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.
The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.
I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...
So far they're being very guarded in what they say:
Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.
Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.
The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...
Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?
Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.
I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.
I doubt we will ever see Cameron's autobiography. It must be depressing to write about unmitigated failure and it is not as if he needs the money.
Seems pretty meaningless when there's so much uncertainty
Especially since apparently there's lots of lovely money that would suddenly appear if the nice Members of Parliament would just vote for the Prime Minister's WA deal that couldn't possibly be found if they don't.
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...
Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?
Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figurle who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.
I imagine that Cameron’s autobiography is waiting for the Brexit process to play out. Putting it out in the middle of the endgame would be somewhat irresponsible in the extreme.
So that'll be 2021 at the earliest?
Quite possibly. I wonder when the publisher paid the advance, and if they realised how long it might take to actually publish without throwing a spanner in the works to his successors?
£800k 'deal' apparently, though how much of that is an advance Idk.
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...
This is why any second referendum is doomed. The politicians who lost by fighting a purely negative campaign have perversely concluded they were not negative enough.
The problem is that leaving hasn't been treated as a serious political project by either side. The referendum should not have been called in the first place before a plan was in place for either outcome. That error could have been corrected by responding to the result by working out a plan before any action was taken. As it is we have blundered into it. If you were serious about leaving you would be arguing to postpone it and do it properly. You do come across leave supporting individuals online who agree. But the elected leavers seem oblivious to practicalities.
If you're serious about leaving, you're aware there are many, many Remainers out there who are not your friends, do not want to work collaboratively in good faith to come up with a good way to leave, and will exploit every possible thing they can- such as a long delay- to undermine your goals.
I'd be surprised if there was ever a time when politicians were high-minded, serious, and impartial servants of the people who set aside partisan considerations to do the right thing (perhaps WW2).
Quite, but in the recent past the UK has been fortunate in that a PM who made a catastrophic misjudgment was follow by another committed to a very different course. Chamberlain (Munich) was followed by Churchill. Eden (Suez) was followed by MacMillan (wind of change). Thatcher (poll tax) was followed by Major (council tax). But this time we have had two disastrous leaders in succession - Cameron's calamitous referendum has been followed by May's equally calamitous and divisive approach to implementing the result.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.
The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.
I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...
So far they're being very guarded in what they say:
Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.
Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.
The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.
The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.
I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...
So far they're being very guarded in what they say:
Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.
Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.
The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.
Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.
Yep. Lion Air losing one could be put down to that airline’s woeful safety record, but a second one will have the Boeing suits getting nervous.
A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.
Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.
Particularly as since 1996 Ethiopia Airlines have a very good safety record - just one crash in 2010, partly attributable to bad weather and partly to pilot error. That's a better record than Air France over the same period.
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?
First, I haven't seen it alleged that any of these women who have been deprived of their British citizenship have done any "fighting for ISIS in Syria."
If you want to have a process for depriving people of their British citizenship, then of course you can suggest ministers - or anyone else you can think of - should be able to initiate that process.
But depriving people of their citizenship - especially citizenship acquired through birth - seems an odd concept to me. Considering it's generally accepted that people shoudn't be made stateless. Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?
Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.
That's a diplomatic consideration not a legal one.
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
Because power is in the hands of the elected and reviewed by the unelected rather than the other way around.
Judicial power has never been in the hands of the elected in this country. We've never elected judges.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
The previous crash was with Lion air, an Indonesian airline with a generally poor safety record. Ethiopian is probably the best run airline in Africa.
The design issue with the 737 MAX relates to engine placement. Higher bypass engines with big fans are more efficient than the lighter smaller, engines the 737 was designed for in the 1960's. There isn't enough space for them to be placed fully under the wings. So the engine, which is now heavier, has to be placed in front of the wings, which disturbs the centre of gravity. Boeing compensates for this through software. There may be flaws with the software, or it is possible crews aren't properly adapted to the different handling characteristics when moving from the older version of the plane.
It's certain that crews were not properly adapted to the changes in the control laws, because those changes were not present in the difference training when pilots moved to the new type.
*** SPECULATION ALERT ***
Lion Air *might* have culpability for the issues the plane had. From what we know so far, Boeing have ultimate responsibility for the fact that when the pilots were faced with a situation they could get out of, they did not have the information they needed and ended up fighting the plane.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.
The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.
I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...
So far they're being very guarded in what they say:
Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.
Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.
The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.
Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.
Yep. Lion Air losing one could be put down to that airline’s woeful safety record, but a second one will have the Boeing suits getting nervous.
A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.
Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.
Particularly as since 1996 Ethiopia Airlines have a very good safety record - just one crash in 2010, partly attributable to bad weather and partly to pilot error. That's a better record than Air France over the same period.
(Edited because I was out by a year.)
I have two rules for flying. Don’t fly with Ryanair, and don’t fly with Air France. AF have killed more of their customers this century than every other EU airline combined.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?
Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.
That's a diplomatic consideration not a legal one.
Whatever sort of consideration you may think it is, can you explain why another country should be expected to take responsibility?
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.
The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.
I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...
So far they're being very guarded in what they say:
Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.
Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.
The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.
Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.
Yep. Lion Air losing one could be put down to that airline’s woeful safety record, but a second one will have the Boeing suits getting nervous.
A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.
Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.
Particularly as since 1996 Ethiopia Airlines have a very good safety record - just one crash in 2010, partly attributable to bad weather and partly to pilot error. That's a better record than Air France over the same period.
(Edited because I was out by a year.)
I have two rules for flying. Don’t fly with Ryanair, and don’t fly with Air France. AF have killed more of their customers this century than every other EU airline combined.
Indeed. As I understand it, the fact the third pilot was in the captain's chair in AF447 and tried to climb out of a stall was one of the key reasons for the crash.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.
The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.
I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...
So far they're being very guarded in what they say:
Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.
Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.
The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.
Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.
Yep. Lion Air losing one could be put down to that airline’s woeful safety record, but a second one will have the Boeing suits getting nervous.
A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.
Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.
Particularly as since 1996 Ethiopia Airlines have a very good safety record - just one crash in 2010, partly attributable to bad weather and partly to pilot error. That's a better record than Air France over the same period.
(Edited because I was out by a year.)
They've also had four hijackings over the last 25 years, including a famous one where the plane crashed into the sea near a beach.
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?
Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.
That's a diplomatic consideration not a legal one.
Of course we no longer grant UK citizenship by birth but by descent/ancestry - and have not done as of right since 1983. Being born here to non British citizen parents makes you a citizen of your parent's country(ies) not a British one - although you can regularise that later!
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
Indeed. Goebbels had a doctorate from one of Europe's oldest and most prestigious universities, for example.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?
Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.
That's a diplomatic consideration not a legal one.
Of course we no longer grant UK citizenship by birth but by descent/ancestry - and have not done as of right since 1983. Being born here to non British citizen parents makes you a citizen of your parent's country(ies) not a British one - although you can regularise that later!
As discussed here previously, the relevant distinction regarding deprival of British citizenship is the one between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalisation. The hurdle for deprival is lower in the case of naturalisation.
Of course we no longer grant UK citizenship by birth but by descent/ancestry - and have not done as of right since 1983. Being born here to non British citizen parents makes you a citizen of your parent's country(ies) not a British one - although you can regularise that later!
Although that is irrelevant to this question as nobody disputes Begum was a British citizen. The question posed is whether she should have been stripped of that, and if so, by whom should it have been done?
Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.
Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.
The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.
Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.
Yep. Lion Air losing one could be put down to that airline’s woeful safety record, but a second one will have the Boeing suits getting nervous.
A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.
Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.
Particularly as since 1996 Ethiopia Airlines have a very good safety record - just one crash in 2010, partly attributable to bad weather and partly to pilot error. That's a better record than Air France over the same period.
(Edited because I was out by a year.)
I have two rules for flying. Don’t fly with Ryanair, and don’t fly with Air France. AF have killed more of their customers this century than every other EU airline combined.
Indeed. As I understand it, the fact the third pilot was in the captain's chair in AF447 and tried to climb out of a stall was one of the key reasons for the crash.
Don’t start me on AF447. Two qualified but junior pilots flew a perfectly serviceable aeroplane into the ocean, forgetting as they did, the stuff they leaned on their first trial lesson as teenagers about stalls, airspeed and instrument reliability.
By the time the Captain got back from his rest and realised what was happening, it was too late to prevent the outcome.
Most other airlines fly such routes with two captains and two first officers, or two and one, just saying...
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I was alwayte them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone po appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?
Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.
That's a diplomatic consideration not a legal one.
Whatever sort of consideration you may think it is, can you explain why another country should be expected to take responsibility?
I didn't say I thought they should be expected to, but I don't think it is a relevant question for them about being 'expected' to take it on - if we take this latest example Bangladesh would quite rightly be furious if Begum becomes their responsibility because, despite their wishes, she is entitled to their citizenship and we got in their first and removed her British rights (this assumes Javid's advice was correct that she could claim Bangladeshi citizenship, if that is wrong he is in even more trouble). I wonder if Hunt was consulted about the decision because I would think Bangladesh would cause a ruckus over it as a result. Javid should have taken that into consideration
But it still isn't about being their being expected to take on responsibility, it's a legal question of responsibility, and their not wanting to have that responsibility is irrelevant. If it is right for this country to do it, if it is legal for this country to do it, and if accepting the diplomatic headache that comes with it seem far more relevant questions. Let's say Begun definitely had Bangladeshi citizenship, no question at all, would it be unacceptable to remove her citizenship still because she was British born?
That seems like an argument against ever removing citizenship at all, which is an entirely separate argument.
Of course we no longer grant UK citizenship by birth but by descent/ancestry - and have not done as of right since 1983. Being born here to non British citizen parents makes you a citizen of your parent's country(ies) not a British one - although you can regularise that later!
Citizenship rules across the globe are incredibly varied, I can see why it is such a complicated area as there are many people who might be citizens of another place without any knowledge of being so!
Sadly I just miss out on qualification for Irish citizenship as a great grandparent was Irish.
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process. .
.
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).
Why ministers and not courts?
What should be the process whereby someone (fighting for ISIS in Syria) comes to the attention of the courts?
First, I haven't seen it alleged that any of these women who have been deprived of their British citizenship have done any "fighting for ISIS in Syria."
If you want to have a process for depriving people of their British citizenship, then of course you can suggest ministers - or anyone else you can think of - should be able to initiate that process.
But depriving people of their citizenship - especially citizenship acquired through birth - seems an odd concept to me. Considering it's generally accepted that people shoudn't be made stateless. Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.
Your suggestion is exactly what happens in practice - a minister notices a problem with someone, and a judge is allowed to review if the subject wishes to contest the minister.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
The previous crash was with Lion air, an Indonesian airline with a generally poor safety record. Ethiopian is probably the best run airline in Africa.
The design issue with the 737 MAX relates to engine placement. Higher bypass engines with big fans are more efficient than the lighter smaller, engines the 737 was designed for in the 1960's. There isn't enough space for them to be placed fully under the wings. So the engine, which is now heavier, has to be placed in front of the wings, which disturbs the centre of gravity. Boeing compensates for this through software. There may be flaws with the software, or it is possible crews aren't properly adapted to the different handling characteristics when moving from the older version of the plane.
It's certain that crews were not properly adapted to the changes in the control laws, because those changes were not present in the difference training when pilots moved to the new type.
*** SPECULATION ALERT ***
Lion Air *might* have culpability for the issues the plane had. From what we know so far, Boeing have ultimate responsibility for the fact that when the pilots were faced with a situation they could get out of, they did not have the information they needed and ended up fighting the plane.
Indeed. Crashes typically have more than one cause which come tragically together on the occasion. Even if Boeing equipment is at fault, there could well be maintenance or piloting issues at play too.
AFAIK the Lion air accident enquiry hasn't completed yet, which will be a problem for Boeing. If the similarities with the first crash hold and as long as they don't have a definitive cause I would expect the entire MAX fleet to be grounded
It seems beyond all logic to me that Labour's student fees promises wouldn't have had a significant effect there.
As election bribes go it was one of the most significant I've ever seen.
It's a very small city with two very large universities. Does anyone know whether similar analysis was carried out for Ceredigion which is the nearest parallel I can think of?
20% in full-time education compared with 24% in Canterbury, according to that link.
The swing from Con to Lab was actually smaller here than the GB average, but it is a very unusual seat, now arguably a four-way marginal, and those two parties are in 4th and 3rd place.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
You did say that leavers were thick compared to Remainers, which suggests you are likely to be on the thick side yourself giving how stupid that is.
Of course we no longer grant UK citizenship by birth but by descent/ancestry - and have not done as of right since 1983. Being born here to non British citizen parents makes you a citizen of your parent's country(ies) not a British one - although you can regularise that later!
Although that is irrelevant to this question as nobody disputes Begum was a British citizen. The question posed is whether she should have been stripped of that, and if so, by whom should it have been done?
If either of her parents was a Bangladeshi citizen at birth - and never renounced that - she is also legally a Bangladeshi citizen at birth. They also allow dual nationality with the UK.
As many Australian MPs have found to their cost just because you have never visited a country or applied for a passport of that country doesn't mean you aren't legally a citizen of that country. Unless she legally opted to renounce it (I very much doubt a 15 year old girl did that) she is a Bangladeshi citizen if her parents were - and their government can pretend otherwise but their nationality laws are clear.
Whether its right or not to remove her UK citizenship is another matter - Javid just got in first.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:
The original study was carried out last June . You can find the results if you google privacy foundation Brexit .
Fascinating results there especially on the Dunning Kruger effect especially related to men .
Not sure, some of the smarter people I have met are as much susceptible to confirmation bias and their own righteousness as dim people.
I was getting howled down by some climate change activists the other week for reading out passages from the IPPC report for 2018 on climate change which was not saying what they were saying it said. People who would consider themselves educated, reasoned and intelligent, bare faced refused to accepted that what they thought the report said wasn’t what it actually said.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:
It seems beyond all logic to me that Labour's student fees promises wouldn't have had a significant effect there.
As election bribes go it was one of the most significant I've ever seen.
It's a very small city with two very large universities. Does anyone know whether similar analysis was carried out for Ceredigion which is the nearest parallel I can think of?
20% in full-time education compared with 24% in Canterbury, according to that link.
The swing from Con to Lab was actually smaller here than the GB average, but it is a very unusual seat, now arguably a four-way marginal, and those two parties are in 4th and 3rd place.
Thanks. So demographically comparable in terms of its student population. I think tuition fees are relevant here as well. Look at the swing from the Liberal Democrats (down 6.9) to Labour (up 10.6) - just enough to tip it to Plaid by a fraction.
Leavers tended to score higher in being more extraverted and conscientious . But the big takeaway much more authoritarian in their views. This was the biggest difference that separated the groups .
First, I haven't seen it alleged that any of these women who have been deprived of their British citizenship have done any "fighting for ISIS in Syria."
If you want to have a process for depriving people of their British citizenship, then of course you can suggest ministers - or anyone else you can think of - should be able to initiate that process.
But depriving people of their citizenship - especially citizenship acquired through birth - seems an odd concept to me. Considering it's generally accepted that people shoudn't be made stateless. Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.
Your suggestion is exactly what happens in practice - a minister notices a problem with someone, and a judge is allowed to review if the subject wishes to contest the minister.
Oh dear. No. Obviously the reason we're having this discussion - as has already been explained ad nauseam above - is that that isn't what currently happens.
The point is that as things are now the minister makes the decision, and that decision takes effect immediately. The person no longer has British citizenship from that point. They have to wait - perhaps several years - for the judicial appeal (not review). During that time all kinds of things may happen.
In the context of the present discussion, a family member may not have access to medical treatment as a result of the political decision, and may die.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
The previous crash was with Lion air, an Indonesian airline with a generally poor safety record. Ethiopian is probably the best run airline in Africa.
The design issue with the 737 MAX relates to engine placement. Higher bypass engines with big fans are more efficient than the lighter smaller, engines the 737 was designed for in the 1960's. There isn't enough space for them to be placed fully under the wings. So the engine, which is now heavier, has to be placed in front of the wings, which disturbs the centre of gravity. Boeing compensates for this through software. There may be flaws with the software, or it is possible crews aren't properly adapted to the different handling characteristics when moving from the older version of the plane.
It's certain that crews were not properly adapted to the changes in the control laws, because those changes were not present in the difference training when pilots moved to the new type.
*** SPECULATION ALERT ***
Lion Air *might* have culpability for the issues the plane had. From what we know so far, Boeing have ultimate responsibility for the fact that when the pilots were faced with a situation they could get out of, they did not have the information they needed and ended up fighting the plane.
Indeed. Crashes typically have more than one cause which come tragically together on the occasion. Even if Boeing equipment is at fault, there could well be maintenance or piloting issues at play too.
AFAIK the Lion air accident enquiry hasn't completed yet, which will be a problem for Boeing. If the similarities with the first crash hold and as long as they don't have a definitive cause I would expect the entire MAX fleet to be grounded
The LionAir accident was IIRC a badly handled unreliable airspeed in the cruise, and there’s a software update being issued by Boeing to assist another crew if they were to encounter a similar issue in future. Pilots should understand pitch and power for their type though, it’s 90% on the crew and 10% on Boeing.
Today’s accident started as soon as they left the ground, very different. Hopefully the black boxes will quickly give an answer.
On tòpic, I think Alastair underestimates how many people voted Labour in 2017 to prevent the kind of Brexit May was advocating. If the next General Election takes place after we’ve left - which it almost certainly will - that reason goes away. I think turnout next time will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
FWIW my canvassing is turning up a LOT of people who say they won't vote next time because of the national mess. Most are Brexiteers who think the political class has sold them out (and this is in deepest prosperous Surrey) but some are just generally fed up. If one tries to turn their attention to the local issues that the election is supposed to be about, they shrug and say yes, but Brexit...
I hate to say “I told you so” but I have been banging on for quite some time about how Brexit identity is stronger than party identity.
Without question. And that is why Labour should be very worried about its 2017 Remain demographic. As ever, Scotland is the canary in the mine on this.
And the nightmare for the Scottish Tories there is if Brexit becomes the fault line rather than independence.
Didn’t 38% of people vote to leave the EU in Scotland? That’s more than traditionally vote Tory.
That's smaller than the 55% vote pool they are currently fishing in.
But surely more could have been done to stop these three schoolgirls joining ISIS?
One curious aspect of this whole affair is that the security services seemed not to notice or wonder about three unaccompanied minors flying on one-way tickets on a known route to ISIS. Burgess and Maclean could escape to Russia because the MI5 teams following Maclean only worked 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. It seems any lessons learned have been forgotten.
By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.
But then what?
I don't know.
I'm afraid those three words are exactly the point.
No they are not because I am not the government or MI5, whose job it is to have a plan. The point is they did not even notice the schoolgirls leaving despite it being fairly obvious, so the only conclusion is the security services were not even looking.
The point is, what were they expected to do instead? Unless you have a reasonable alternative course of action, your criticism isn't valid. It's ridiculous to say 'they should do something' and then say 'I don't know' when asked 'what, exactly?'
Perhaps they should have spotted them. Perhaps they should have tried to do something. But this is ultimately about a 15-year old. She was old enough to know what she was doing. Unfortunately she made a very bad choice. Just as there is a limit to what can be done about a 15 year old boy who joins a gang, so there is a limit to what can be done here.
You’re a teacher, I believe. In loco parentis.
I can only be thankful my children do not attend your school.
On the discussion about Leaver (lack of) intelligence. Not a view I subscribe to. Intelligent people get over invested in their projects, particularly hard won controversial ones, so they suffer from wishful thinking. We all do it. Roland Smith is an example of this. Ireland is simply the first major issue Brexit has bumped into. The many others are still to come
Whatever sort of consideration you may think it is, can you explain why another country should be expected to take responsibility?
I didn't say I thought they should be expected to, but I don't think it is a relevant question for them about being 'expected' to take it on - if we take this latest example Bangladesh would quite rightly be furious if Begum becomes their responsibility because, despite their wishes, she is entitled to their citizenship and we got in their first and removed her British rights (this assumes Javid's advice was correct that she could claim Bangladeshi citizenship, if that is wrong he is in even more trouble). I wonder if Hunt was consulted about the decision because I would think Bangladesh would cause a ruckus over it as a result. Javid should have taken that into consideration
But it still isn't about being their being expected to take on responsibility, it's a legal question of responsibility, and their not wanting to have that responsibility is irrelevant. If it is right for this country to do it, if it is legal for this country to do it, and if accepting the diplomatic headache that comes with it seem far more relevant questions. Let's say Begun definitely had Bangladeshi citizenship, no question at all, would it be unacceptable to remove her citizenship still because she was British born?
That seems like an argument against ever removing citizenship at all, which is an entirely separate argument.
That's my point. If everyone accepts that people shouldn't be left stateless, then that's an argument against removing people's citizenship.
But surely more could have been done to stop these three schoolgirls joining ISIS?
One curious aspect of this whole affair is that the security services seemed not to notice or wonder about three unaccompanied minors flying on one-way tickets on a known route to ISIS. Burgess and Maclean could escape to Russia because the MI5 teams following Maclean only worked 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. It seems any lessons learned have been forgotten.
By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.
But then what?
I don't know.
I'm afraid those three words are exactly the point.
No they are not because I am not the government or MI5, whose job it is to have a plan. The point is they did not even notice the schoolgirls leaving despite it being fairly obvious, so the only conclusion is the security services were not even looking.
The point is, what were they expected to do instead? Unless you have a reasonable alternative course of action, your criticism isn't valid. It's ridiculous to say 'they should do something' and then say 'I don't know' when asked 'what, exactly?'
Perhaps they should have spotted them. Perhaps they should have tried to do something. But this is ultimately about a 15-year old. She was old enough to know what she was doing. Unfortunately she made a very bad choice. Just as there is a limit to what can be done about a 15 year old boy who joins a gang, so there is a limit to what can be done here.
You’re a teacher, I believe. In loco parentis.
I can only be thankful my children do not attend your school.
Gang members, are they ?
No, we don’t live in Cannock.
If it's any consolation, your earlier expressed feeling is mutual. And if your children are anything like you, I am especially glad I do not have the misfortune to teach them.
You are ignorant, rude and unpleasant. I can see how you fit right in with Corbyn's party.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
Indeed. Goebbels had a doctorate from one of Europe's oldest and most prestigious universities, for example.
Limbs in the Loch murderer, William Beggs, has a PhD.
It seems beyond all logic to me that Labour's student fees promises wouldn't have had a significant effect there.
As election bribes go it was one of the most significant I've ever seen.
It's a very small city with two very large universities. Does anyone know whether similar analysis was carried out for Ceredigion which is the nearest parallel I can think of?
20% in full-time education compared with 24% in Canterbury, according to that link.
The swing from Con to Lab was actually smaller here than the GB average, but it is a very unusual seat, now arguably a four-way marginal, and those two parties are in 4th and 3rd place.
Thanks. So demographically comparable in terms of its student population. I think tuition fees are relevant here as well. Look at the swing from the Liberal Democrats (down 6.9) to Labour (up 10.6) - just enough to tip it to Plaid by a fraction.
Ceredigion is the classic four way marginal seat, very small changes in vote share could lead to a different outcome!
Back in ‘99 when I lived there, Aberystwyth was 12k locals and 8k students. I imagine there’s more students now.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
You did say that leavers were thick compared to Remainers, which suggests you are likely to be on the thick side yourself giving how stupid that is.
It doesn't matter much.
This is a democracy where there is no morality or intelligence test on voting. Any mendacious fool has a vote that counts as much as the greatest and most saintly in the land.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
Indeed. Goebbels had a doctorate from one of Europe's oldest and most prestigious universities, for example.
Limbs in the Loch murderer, William Beggs, has a PhD.
And Jeremy Corbyn, a Remainer, failed a polytechnic course.
Edit - although come to think of it, that is in itself quite an achievement given the nature of North London Poly.
It seems beyond all logic to me that Labour's student fees promises wouldn't have had a significant effect there.
As election bribes go it was one of the most significant I've ever seen.
It's a very small city with two very large universities. Does anyone know whether similar analysis was carried out for Ceredigion which is the nearest parallel I can think of?
20% in full-time education compared with 24% in Canterbury, according to that link.
The swing from Con to Lab was actually smaller here than the GB average, but it is a very unusual seat, now arguably a four-way marginal, and those two parties are in 4th and 3rd place.
Thanks. So demographically comparable in terms of its student population. I think tuition fees are relevant here as well. Look at the swing from the Liberal Democrats (down 6.9) to Labour (up 10.6) - just enough to tip it to Plaid by a fraction.
Ceredigion is the classic four way marginal seat, very small changes in vote share could lead to a different outcome!
Back in ‘99 when I lived there, Aberystwyth was 12k locals and 8k students. I imagine there’s more students now.
I don't think it's that many more. It peaked in my last year of teaching there (2012) and after that it declined somewhat.
Last year it got itself into major financial difficulty due to falling rolls, but it seems to have stabilised.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
You did say that leavers were thick compared to Remainers, which suggests you are likely to be on the thick side yourself giving how stupid that is.
You seem unable to accept research because it doesn’t tell you what you want to hear . No group exhibits all the same characteristics , research just correlates more likely traits.
For example Leavers in England were more likely to say English identity rather than British when asked but some in the former group still voted Remain.
First, I haven't seen it alleged that any of these women who have been deprived of their British citizenship have done any "fighting for ISIS in Syria."
If you want to have a process for depriving people of their British citizenship, then of course you can suggest ministers - or anyone else you can think of - should be able to initiate that process.
But depriving people of their citizenship - especially citizenship acquired through birth - seems an odd concept to me. Considering it's generally accepted that people shoudn't be made stateless. Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.
Your suggestion is exactly what happens in practice - a minister notices a problem with someone, and a judge is allowed to review if the subject wishes to contest the minister.
Oh dear. No. Obviously the reason we're having this discussion - as has already been explained ad nauseam above - is that that isn't what currently happens.
The point is that as things are now the minister makes the decision, and that decision takes effect immediately. The person no longer has British citizenship from that point. They have to wait - perhaps several years - for the judicial appeal (not review). During that time all kinds of things may happen.
In the context of the present discussion, a family member may not have access to medical treatment as a result of the political decision, and may die.
You appear to be suggesting that after Shamina’s lawyer went on a media offensive a couple of weeks ago, the British government should have moved mountains to get them back ‘home’ before her sick child succumbed to the lack of medicine in a war zone.
As I understand it the judicial review should take weeks rather than years - if the subject isn’t currently in Syria wishing death on the West.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:
The original study was carried out last June . You can find the results if you google privacy foundation Brexit .
Fascinating results there especially on the Dunning Kruger effect especially related to men .
Not sure, some of the smarter people I have met are as much susceptible to confirmation bias and their own righteousness as dim people.
I was getting howled down by some climate change activists the other week for reading out passages from the IPPC report for 2018 on climate change which was not saying what they were saying it said. People who would consider themselves educated, reasoned and intelligent, bare faced refused to accepted that what they thought the report said wasn’t what it actually said.
These days if someone says something about which you don't agree, then you don't argue with them - you block them or attack them personally - there is something rotten about Social Media.
Yes, it's most dispiriting to know that our PM will probably have to go cap in hand to the EU and grovel for crumbs. What a humiliation, especially considering that just a few years ago we practically running the show.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
Indeed. Goebbels had a doctorate from one of Europe's oldest and most prestigious universities, for example.
Limbs in the Loch murderer, William Beggs, has a PhD.
And Jeremy Corbyn, a Remainer, failed a polytechnic course.
Edit - although come to think of it, that is in itself quite an achievement given the nature of North London Poly.
It's frightening that Beggs could be released this year.
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:
The original study was carried out last June . You can find the results if you google privacy foundation Brexit .
Fascinating results there especially on the Dunning Kruger effect especially related to men .
Not sure, some of the smarter people I have met are as much susceptible to confirmation bias and their own righteousness as dim people.
I was getting howled down by some climate change activists the other week for reading out passages from the IPPC report for 2018 on climate change which was not saying what they were saying it said. People who would consider themselves educated, reasoned and intelligent, bare faced refused to accepted that what they thought the report said wasn’t what it actually said.
These days if someone says something about which you don't agree, then you don't argue with them - you block them or attack them personally - there is something rotten about Social Media.
If you’re really upset you organise a mob to attack their employer, demanding they be fired.
Sadly this has worked often enough that the woke mobs keep doing it.
Yes, it's most dispiriting to know that our PM will probably have to go cap in hand to the EU and grovel for crumbs. What a humiliation, especially considering that just a few years ago we practically running the show.
Well, there’s an alternative which is entirely within our control ..........
Something far wrong with the brains of the idiot scientists more like"
Perhaps the results are just indicative of the sort of people who volunteer to be subject to psychological experiments! Maybe some of those tested voted differently on the day?
"Researchers gave 11,225 volunteers psychological tests BEFORE the referendum and asked how they intended to vote......The study was commissioned by Britain’s Online Privacy Foundation and analysed by scientists at Missouri University."
What is the suggestion of the extreme remoaners - do we deny voting rights to people who aren't good at maths and act impulsively? Presumably there are a few remain voters who act rashly and are bad at maths?
Similar nonsense arguments were used to deny women the vote 100 years ago - they acted 'impulsively' and were to 'emotionally unstable'.
Slightly odd its taken 3 years for these results to come out - perhaps the analysts were leave voters who weren't much good with numbers! And who is funding the 'British online privacy foundation' - perhaps Carole Cadwalladr could do an investigation?!!!!!
Yes, it's most dispiriting to know that our PM will probably have to go cap in hand to the EU and grovel for crumbs. What a humiliation, especially considering that just a few years ago we practically running the show.
do we deny voting rights to people who aren't good at maths and act impulsively? Presumably there are a few remain voters who act rashly and are bad at maths?
Well, hold on. That would eliminate Gordon Brown, George Osborne, John Macdonnell, Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Michael Gove, Len McCluskey, Jenny Formby, most of Momentum and the whole of the ERG from politics at a stroke.
Now, this would be admittedly be a very drastic way of achieving it, but you can't deny that the gain to national life would be very considerable.
Oh dear. No. Obviously the reason we're having this discussion - as has already been explained ad nauseam above - is that that isn't what currently happens.
The point is that as things are now the minister makes the decision, and that decision takes effect immediately. The person no longer has British citizenship from that point. They have to wait - perhaps several years - for the judicial appeal (not review). During that time all kinds of things may happen.
In the context of the present discussion, a family member may not have access to medical treatment as a result of the political decision, and may die.
You appear to be suggesting that after Shamina’s lawyer went on a media offensive a couple of weeks ago, the British government should have moved mountains to get them back ‘home’ before her sick child succumbed to the lack of medicine in a war zone.
As I understand it the judicial review should take weeks rather than years - if the subject isn’t currently in Syria wishing death on the West.
No, I didn't say what you're suggesting I said.
Let me explain again. Words of as few syllables as possible.
Situation now: Politician makes order depriving person of British citizenship. Person is no longer a British citizen. Person must wait for outcome of judicial appeal (not review). Until that outcome person does not have any of the rights of a British citizen.
What I'm suggesting: Decision should be taken by a court. Perhaps after a politician has initiated the process, if appropriate. Until court decision person remains a British citizen.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
The previous crash was with Lion air, an Indonesian airline with a generally poor safety record. Ethiopian is probably the best run airline in Africa.
The design issue with the 737 MAX relates to engine placement. Higher bypass engines with big fans are more efficient than the lighter smaller, engines the 737 was designed for in the 1960's. There isn't enough space for them to be placed fully under the wings. So the engine, which is now heavier, has to be placed in front of the wings, which disturbs the centre of gravity. Boeing compensates for this through software. There may be flaws with the software, or it is possible crews aren't properly adapted to the different handling characteristics when moving from the older version of the plane.
It's certain that crews were not properly adapted to the changes in the control laws, because those changes were not present in the difference training when pilots moved to the new type.
*** SPECULATION ALERT ***
Lion Air *might* have culpability for the issues the plane had. From what we know so far, Boeing have ultimate responsibility for the fact that when the pilots were faced with a situation they could get out of, they did not have the information they needed and ended up fighting the plane.
Indeed. Crashes typically have more than one cause which come tragically together on the occasion. Even if Boeing equipment is at fault, there could well be maintenance or piloting issues at play too.
AFAIK the Lion air accident enquiry hasn't completed yet, which will be a problem for Boeing. If the similarities with the first crash hold and as long as they don't have a definitive cause I would expect the entire MAX fleet to be grounded
The LionAir accident was IIRC a badly handled unreliable airspeed in the cruise, and there’s a software update being issued by Boeing to assist another crew if they were to encounter a similar issue in future. Pilots should understand pitch and power for their type though, it’s 90% on the crew and 10% on Boeing.
Today’s accident started as soon as they left the ground, very different. Hopefully the black boxes will quickly give an answer.
I read an interesting industry article about that crash - will see if I can dig it out
Oh dear. No. Obviously the reason we're having this discussion - as has already been explained ad nauseam above - is that that isn't what currently happens.
The point is that as things are now the minister makes the decision, and that decision takes effect immediately. The person no longer has British citizenship from that point. They have to wait - perhaps several years - for the judicial appeal (not review). During that time all kinds of things may happen.
In the context of the present discussion, a family member may not have access to medical treatment as a result of the political decision, and may die.
You appear to be suggesting that after Shamina’s lawyer went on a media offensive a couple of weeks ago, the British government should have moved mountains to get them back ‘home’ before her sick child succumbed to the lack of medicine in a war zone.
As I understand it the judicial review should take weeks rather than years - if the subject isn’t currently in Syria wishing death on the West.
No, I didn't say what you're suggesting I said.
Let me explain again. Words of as few syllables as possible.
Situation now: Politician makes order depriving person of British citizenship. Person is no longer a British citizen. Person must wait for outcome of judicial appeal (not review). Until that outcome person does not have any of the rights of a British citizen.
What I'm suggesting: Decision should be taken by a court. Perhaps after a politician has initiated the process, if appropriate. Until court decision person remains a British citizen.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:
The original study was carried out last June . You can find the results if you google privacy foundation Brexit .
Fascinating results there especially on the Dunning Kruger effect especially related to men .
Not sure, some of the smarter people I have met are as much susceptible to confirmation bias and their own righteousness as dim people.
I was getting howled down by some climate change activists the other week for reading out passages from the IPPC report for 2018 on climate change which was not saying what they were saying it said. People who would consider themselves educated, reasoned and intelligent, bare faced refused to accepted that what they thought the report said wasn’t what it actually said.
LOL - I was accused of spreading fake news by quoting verbatim from a report which allegedly supported the case the other person was trying to make.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:
Oh dear. No. Obviously the reason we're having this discussion - as has already been explained ad nauseam above - is that that isn't what currently happens.
The point is that as things are now the minister makes the decision, and that decision takes effect immediately. The person no longer has British citizenship from that point. They have to wait - perhaps several years - for the judicial appeal (not review). During that time all kinds of things may happen.
In the context of the present discussion, a family member may not have access to medical treatment as a result of the political decision, and may die.
You appear to be suggesting that after Shamina’s lawyer went on a media offensive a couple of weeks ago, the British government should have moved mountains to get them back ‘home’ before her sick child succumbed to the lack of medicine in a war zone.
As I understand it the judicial review should take weeks rather than years - if the subject isn’t currently in Syria wishing death on the West.
No, I didn't say what you're suggesting I said.
Let me explain again. Words of as few syllables as possible.
Situation now: Politician makes order depriving person of British citizenship. Person is no longer a British citizen. Person must wait for outcome of judicial appeal (not review). Until that outcome person does not have any of the rights of a British citizen.
What I'm suggesting: Decision should be taken by a court. Perhaps after a politician has initiated the process, if appropriate. Until court decision person remains a British citizen.
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.
The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.
I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...
So far they're being very guarded in what they say:
Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.
Feck, I’d assumed it was one of the many old aircraft flying around Africa.
The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.
Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.
Yep. Lion Air losing one could be put down to that airline’s woeful safety record, but a second one will have the Boeing suits getting nervous.
A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.
Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.
Particularly as since 1996 Ethiopia Airlines have a very good safety record - just one crash in 2010, partly attributable to bad weather and partly to pilot error. That's a better record than Air France over the same period.
(Edited because I was out by a year.)
I have two rules for flying. Don’t fly with Ryanair, and don’t fly with Air France. AF have killed more of their customers this century than every other EU airline combined.
One of my colleagues refuses to fly Air France for similar reasons.
This is a democracy where there is no morality or intelligence test on voting. Any mendacious fool has a vote that counts as much as the greatest and most saintly in the land.
Or to put it another way: we don't weigh heads, we count them. Rejecting Brexit on grounds of differing intelligence is dangerous: the question was "should" the UK leave, not "would it be smart to Leave": a consent question, not a cost/benefit analysis. There are many reasons to reject Brexit or request a second referendum (mainly revolving around whether the actual outcome is sufficiently different to the predicted outcome), but "Leaver voters are thicky thicksters from Thickville" is not one of them. It's funny and it pisses Leavers off, but it's not a serious argument and (I suspect) is not actually true.
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are
My mother
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!
I never said Remainers were better people . Education is irrelevant as to whether people are good , bad or better or worse .
It doesn't seem to just be education, there are diferences in Leavers Brains:
The original study was carried out last June . You can find the results if you google privacy foundation Brexit .
Fascinating results there especially on the Dunning Kruger effect especially related to men .
Not sure, some of the smarter people I have met are as much susceptible to confirmation bias and their own righteousness as dimid.
LOL - I was accused of spreading fake news by quoting verbatim from a report which allegedly supported the case the other person was trying to make.
We really are in a weird place right now
Yup. I think ironically social media and the internet doesn’t seem to encourage us to read the actual primary evidence, but what someone else thinks of it. In the case of this report it had been jumped on as saying XYZ, when it had actual said 123. And that became inextricably linked with the report. And then through a series of Chinese whispers that XYZ which it didn’t say, but could if you squinted your eyes and read the report through a mirror while holding it upside down became ABC. So now report says ABC. No questioning of this fact.. it becomes respected enough that to question that the report says ABC is to be a denier of the report.
Those people who are convinced the report says ABC will show a google list of people indeed saying that the report says ABC. Not because it did, but because they too read a press release or another journalist/infuencer saying that it indeed say ABC.
But surely more could have been done to stop these three schoolgirls joining ISIS?
One curious aspect of this whole affair is that the security services seemed not to notice or wonder about three unaccompanied minors flying on one-way tickets on a known route to ISIS. Burgess and Maclean could escape to Russia because the MI5 teams following Maclean only worked 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. It seems any lessons learned have been forgotten.
By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.
But then what?
I don't know.
I'm afraid those three words are exactly the point.
No they are not because I am not the government or MI5, whose job it is to have a plan. The point is they did not even notice the schoolgirls leaving despite it being fairly obvious, so the only conclusion is the security services were not even looking.
The point is, what were they expected to do instead? Unless you have a reasonable alternative course of action, your criticism isn't valid. It's ridiculous to say 'they should do something' and then say 'I don't know' when asked 'what, exactly?'
Perhaps they should have spotted them. Perhaps they should have tried to do something. But this is ultimately about a 15-year old. She was old enough to know what she was doing. Unfortunately she made a very bad choice. Just as there is a limit to what can be done about a 15 year old boy who joins a gang, so there is a limit to what can be done here.
You’re a teacher, I believe. In loco parentis.
I can only be thankful my children do not attend your school.
Gang members, are they ?
No, we don’t live in Cannock.
If it's any consolation, your earlier expressed feeling is mutual. And if your children are anything like you, I am especially glad I do not have the misfortune to teach them.
You are ignorant, rude and unpleasant. I can see how you fit right in with Corbyn's party.
At least I’m not unpleasant enough to care not a jot for a vulnerable child who’s been abandoned by her Government.
And what on earth makes you think I belong to the Labour Party?
Comments
We used to run nearly one third of the globe with limited resources - apparently the whole of the Sudan (which covers 5 times the area of Germany) was administered by less than 150 civil servants.
The design issue with the 737 MAX relates to engine placement. Higher bypass engines with big fans are more efficient than the lighter smaller, engines the 737 was designed for in the 1960's. There isn't enough space for them to be placed fully under the wings. So the engine, which is now heavier, has to be placed in front of the wings, which disturbs the centre of gravity. Boeing compensates for this through software. There may be flaws with the software, or it is possible crews aren't properly adapted to the different handling characteristics when moving from the older version of the plane.
Speaking of which, the Chancellor's spring statement is this Wednesday.
I'm not aghast at the idea of judges doing it, though the process would need thinking about, but surely you can understand the view that major decisions should be made by people entrusted with elected office?
The 737 Type Certificate dates from the 1960s, with each new version described as a modified version of the one before. I think the only commonality between the 737-8 Max and the originally certified 737 is the fuselage diameter, there’s not one single component common to both.
Good afternoon everyone. Sunday Lunch at an excellent local resturant with a very pleasant, if slightly light to my taste, English Red. (That's was the wine!)
Seems pretty meaningless when there's so much uncertainty - is there any legal scope to delay that?"
The Spring statement is still on for Wednesday just after PMQs. It will surely go ahead whatever.
https://calendar.parliament.uk/calendar/Commons/All/2019/3/13/Daily
Of course debate on it may be curtailed for obvious reasons if some Brexit votes are planned.
PS removing long quotes on here isn't easy!
Shitting bricks time at Boeing, and any Airliner that's purchased/leasing the planes right now.
A good day to buy their shares if they ‘crash’ though, these things are small blips in a company of that size.
Would be interesting to look at the thread on the pilots’ forum pprune.org but it’s blocked for me at the moment. Reports of seven Brits on board.
(Edited because I was out by a year.)
If you want to have a process for depriving people of their British citizenship, then of course you can suggest ministers - or anyone else you can think of - should be able to initiate that process.
But depriving people of their citizenship - especially citizenship acquired through birth - seems an odd concept to me. Considering it's generally accepted that people shoudn't be made stateless. Difficult to understand why we should expect anyone else to take responsibility for a British-born UK national, if we don't want them.
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1104676048317362177
*** SPECULATION ALERT ***
Lion Air *might* have culpability for the issues the plane had. From what we know so far, Boeing have ultimate responsibility for the fact that when the pilots were faced with a situation they could get out of, they did not have the information they needed and ended up fighting the plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/da4760e4-42b1-11e9-b2a3-e9b8ad72e51b
By the time the Captain got back from his rest and realised what was happening, it was too late to prevent the outcome.
Most other airlines fly such routes with two captains and two first officers, or two and one, just saying...
But it still isn't about being their being expected to take on responsibility, it's a legal question of responsibility, and their not wanting to have that responsibility is irrelevant. If it is right for this country to do it, if it is legal for this country to do it, and if accepting the diplomatic headache that comes with it seem far more relevant questions. Let's say Begun definitely had Bangladeshi citizenship, no question at all, would it be unacceptable to remove her citizenship still because she was British born?
That seems like an argument against ever removing citizenship at all, which is an entirely separate argument.
Sadly I just miss out on qualification for Irish citizenship as a great grandparent was Irish.
Fascinating results there especially on the Dunning Kruger effect especially related to men .
AFAIK the Lion air accident enquiry hasn't completed yet, which will be a problem for Boeing. If the similarities with the first crash hold and as long as they don't have a definitive cause I would expect the entire MAX fleet to be grounded
20% in full-time education compared with 24% in Canterbury, according to that link.
The swing from Con to Lab was actually smaller here than the GB average, but it is a very unusual seat, now arguably a four-way marginal, and those two parties are in 4th and 3rd place.
As many Australian MPs have found to their cost just because you have never visited a country or applied for a passport of that country doesn't mean you aren't legally a citizen of that country. Unless she legally opted to renounce it (I very much doubt a 15 year old girl did that) she is a Bangladeshi citizen if her parents were - and their government can pretend otherwise but their nationality laws are clear.
Whether its right or not to remove her UK citizenship is another matter - Javid just got in first.
I was getting howled down by some climate change activists the other week for reading out passages from the IPPC report for 2018 on climate change which was not saying what they were saying it said. People who would consider themselves educated, reasoned and intelligent, bare faced refused to accepted that what they thought the report said wasn’t what it actually said.
Leavers tended to score higher in being more extraverted and conscientious . But the big takeaway much more authoritarian in their views. This was the biggest difference that separated the groups .
The point is that as things are now the minister makes the decision, and that decision takes effect immediately. The person no longer has British citizenship from that point. They have to wait - perhaps several years - for the judicial appeal (not review). During that time all kinds of things may happen.
In the context of the present discussion, a family member may not have access to medical treatment as a result of the political decision, and may die.
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1104746321506955264
Today’s accident started as soon as they left the ground, very different. Hopefully the black boxes will quickly give an answer.
You are ignorant, rude and unpleasant. I can see how you fit right in with Corbyn's party.
Back in ‘99 when I lived there, Aberystwyth was 12k locals and 8k students. I imagine there’s more students now.
This is a democracy where there is no morality or intelligence test on voting. Any mendacious fool has a vote that counts as much as the greatest and most saintly in the land.
Edit - although come to think of it, that is in itself quite an achievement given the nature of North London Poly.
Last year it got itself into major financial difficulty due to falling rolls, but it seems to have stabilised.
For example Leavers in England were more likely to say English identity rather than British when asked but some in the former group still voted Remain.
As I understand it the judicial review should take weeks rather than years - if the subject isn’t currently in Syria wishing death on the West.
Sadly this has worked often enough that the woke mobs keep doing it.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/da4760e4-42b1-11e9-b2a3-e9b8ad72e51b
Something far wrong with the brains of the idiot scientists more like"
Perhaps the results are just indicative of the sort of people who volunteer to be subject to psychological experiments! Maybe some of those tested voted differently on the day?
"Researchers gave 11,225 volunteers psychological tests BEFORE the referendum and asked how they intended to vote......The study was commissioned by Britain’s Online Privacy Foundation and analysed by scientists at Missouri University."
What is the suggestion of the extreme remoaners - do we deny voting rights to people who aren't good at maths and act impulsively? Presumably there are a few remain voters who act rashly and are bad at maths?
Similar nonsense arguments were used to deny women the vote 100 years ago - they acted 'impulsively' and were to 'emotionally unstable'.
http://womeninhistory.scoilnet.ie/content/unit5/activities.html
Slightly odd its taken 3 years for these results to come out - perhaps the analysts were leave voters who weren't much good with numbers! And who is funding the 'British online privacy foundation' - perhaps Carole Cadwalladr could do an investigation?!!!!!
https://www.onlineprivacyfoundation.org/
Perhaps time to stop the sneering - remain voters aren't all superior beings
- they just voted remain!
Now, this would be admittedly be a very drastic way of achieving it, but you can't deny that the gain to national life would be very considerable.
I have work to do. Have a good afternoon.
Let me explain again. Words of as few syllables as possible.
Situation now: Politician makes order depriving person of British citizenship. Person is no longer a British citizen. Person must wait for outcome of judicial appeal (not review). Until that outcome person does not have any of the rights of a British citizen.
What I'm suggesting: Decision should be taken by a court. Perhaps after a politician has initiated the process, if appropriate. Until court decision person remains a British citizen.
As for how long an appeal is likely to take:
Any challenge is likely to take time and she would probably have to stay in northern Syria for at least two years, a former independent reviewer of UK terrorism laws, Alex Carlile, told the BBC.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/isis-teen-a-bit-shocked-after-uk-revokes-her-citizenship-1.827991
LOL at your link, from my local paper.
We really are in a weird place right now
Apparently.
NEW THREAD
Previously everyone was at least doing lip service to the idea that the children weren't to blame and shouldn't have to suffer.
Those people who are convinced the report says ABC will show a google list of people indeed saying that the report says ABC. Not because it did, but because they too read a press release or another journalist/infuencer saying that it indeed say ABC.
And what on earth makes you think I belong to the Labour Party?