I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
What is your solution? How would you put the chemical weapons genie back in its bottle?
If you want disarmament in the future, that will be done via treaties which all signatories can believe in. We have precious few such treaties, and the chemical and biological weapons ones have worked quite well, with a few obvious exceptions. They should act a model for the future.
If someone breaks such a treaty, then there should be repercussions - both morally and practically. Otherwise they're pointless.
As I said the other day, the 1350 years or so between the birth of Muhammed and that of the Queen probably equates to about 45 generations, which would imply over 35 trillion 43-greats grandparents.
Even allowing for royal intermarriage, there's got to be a pretty good chance of a direct line given:
1. The number of children Muhammed fathered, and that his descendents fathered; 2. The exceptional period of movement of peoples in the early middle ages; 3. The unusually fluid access into and out of the ruling classes in the early middle ages; 4. The wide range of countries the Queen's relatively immediate ancestors came from, including some - such as Hungary - which not that long ago bordered or came within muslim/Ottoman rule.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Financial and similar sanctions and other steps are something that Britain can use - and reasonably effectively and in a targeted way, without causing collateral damage ie death to innocents in Syria) - and it would be in Britain’s interests, IMO, not to be seen as the financial haven of choice for various world scumbags.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I'd recommend Rinkagate by Simon Freeman and Barrie Penrose, and the The Last Word, by Auberon Waugh.
I was 12 at the time of the trial. As I recall, the general view was that no one really cared whether or not Thorpe was guilty. Scott was seen as a spiteful blackmailer, and Thorpe would have been acquitted if he'd shot him in front of a dozen witnesses.
The people of North Devon (?) appeared to care at the election.
I exaggerated, although it's notable that Thorpe still retained 82% of his vote from October 1974.
Auberon Waugh stood as a Dog Lover in the election.
Indeed - I thought he went down to a heavier defeat than he did. Having checked out the figures, I hadn't realised how marginal the seat had been earlier in his career, including his first election as leader, in 1970, when he won by only 369 votes.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Is there much evidence of a deterrent effect? Will dropping a few bombs do much to deter Assad or any other dictator?
Arguably the logic of your position is that we should pursue regime change against someone who used chemical weapons. I can see the logic of that - but since Iraq I'm not sure any British leader could propose such an action.
Giving people free use of the buses according to their age is neither means tested nor a universal benefit and fails any potential justification. So you might say transport is a public good that not everyone can afford so we make the means available to those on lower incomes. Or you decide on a policy of public transport being made freely or cheaply available to everyone so it gets used instead of less desirable forms of transport and so a comprehensive network is maintained.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Financial and similar sanctions and other steps are something that Britain can use - and reasonably effectively and in a targeted way, without causing collateral damage ie death to innocents in Syria) - and it would be in Britain’s interests, IMO, not to be seen as the financial haven of choice for various world scumbags.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
Absolutely. Seizing assets if you can prove they are linked to Assad seems reasonable. But stripping people of citizenship on the basis of what relatives have done seems very dubious to me.
“I’m not one of those people that goes on about the liberal elite in London, but I don’t think he understands what makes the working classes tick outside of London and that is just hardcore industries. We’ve operated at our optimum as people when jobs give us meaning, and in the post-industrial hinterlands, he doesn’t understand that. I remember somebody at a meeting down in south Wales, an old guy, ex-miner, wanted his son to have a proper, real, blue-collar job, and he was saying: ‘What do you expect us to do, Mr Corbyn, make fucking love spoons out of hemp?’ I don’t think Jezza gets it, I don’t think he connects with people on that level, which is part of the reason we’re having political problems in Wales.”
You may not like it, or understand his appeal, but Jezza outperformed all of his predecessors. It was more than ageneric Labour swing.
That wasn't my point. To understand the 'Corbyn effect' you need to explain why some seats swung by more than others.
(It should also be mentioned that if you measure Corbyn's success by his increased share, then the same applies to May, who would - on that basis, having added 5.5% to the Tory share - have achieved more than any Tory leader since 1951, bar Thatcher in 1979.)
As I said the other day, the 1350 years or so between the birth of Muhammed and that of the Queen probably equates to about 45 generations, which would imply over 35 trillion 43-greats grandparents.
Even allowing for royal intermarriage, there's got to be a pretty good chance of a direct line given:
1. The number of children Muhammed fathered, and that his descendents fathered; 2. The exceptional period of movement of peoples in the early middle ages; 3. The unusually fluid access into and out of the ruling classes in the early middle ages; 4. The wide range of countries the Queen's relatively immediate ancestors came from, including some - such as Hungary - which not that long ago bordered or came within muslim/Ottoman rule.
And as we discussed earlier, the Queen includes Odin, Abraham, and King David among her ancestors, so why not Mohammed as well?
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Financial and similar sanctions and other steps are something that Britain can use - and reasonably effectively and in a targeted way, without causing collateral damage ie death to innocents in Syria) - and it would be in Britain’s interests, IMO, not to be seen as the financial haven of choice for various world scumbags.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I feel very nervous about visiting the crimes of a father upon the children. Maybe, like Saddam's sons, they are evil little sh*ts. Or perhaps they are not. But the starting point should be that they are not.
Now, I'd have little problem of using something akin to the proceeds of crime act against them wrt monies they may have received from their parents (and perhaps to give the money raised to Syrian refugee groups). But there has to be a fair process, and not an assumption of personal guilt.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
You may not like it, or understand his appeal, but Jezza outperformed all of his predecessors. It was more than ageneric Labour swing.
Whilst I am sure a lot of voters 'came home' to a true socialist manifesto from non voters, lib dems, greens and various left wing people's front of Judea off-shoots, there was also a large number of unthinking labour voters.
What I mean is that Corbyn was not expected to win so he had a range of helpful factors in a two party system Remainers finding a home with the best option for government Conservatives stated aim of large majority to push through Brexit. Obviously anyone with a modicum of sense would worry what this would allow in a five year term Corbyn's past associations not receiving critical attention outside of the right wing media, and who is going to vote for Corbyn and read daily mail. Costings for policies in manifesto not receiving critical assessment as no one thought they would be implemented Theresa May being very poor in the media on a daily basis, and chickening out of the debates Conservative manifesto and remain vote suppressing reasons to go and vote.
These are not going to be salient to the same degree at the next election. Brexit will have happened, people will not have been forced out to vote by a prime minister seeking a mandate (probably), Corbyn's past associations will have crystallised for voters (Syria, Skripal and anti-semitism all have recently). Labour will receive much more critical analysis at next election even if they are not close in the polls because they were able to move so much last time, and surely the conservatives will not include anything as contentious as the social care proposals.
Corbyn vs May. I would be surprised if Labour get anywhere near their vote from last time.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Is there much evidence of a deterrent effect? Will dropping a few bombs do much to deter Assad or any other dictator?
Arguably the logic of your position is that we should pursue regime change against someone who used chemical weapons. I can see the logic of that - but since Iraq I'm not sure any British leader could propose such an action.
Exactly. Either we support regime change, which I think there is neither support for in the West nor importantly in Syria (at least not to a Salafist regime worse than the extant one), or we accept that Assad will win and pressure his supporters to behave more civilisedly.
Regime change means direct conflict with Russia. Not sensible in my book. Lesser military action merely prolongs the war.
Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
What is your solution? How would you put the chemical weapons genie back in its bottle?
If you want disarmament in the future, that will be done via treaties which all signatories can believe in. We have precious few such treaties, and the chemical and biological weapons ones have worked quite well, with a few obvious exceptions. They should act a model for the future.
If someone breaks such a treaty, then there should be repercussions - both morally and practically. Otherwise they're pointless.
So, what would you do?
Surely you have to first demonstrate that your action would help?
To my mind, the only effective deterrent message that could be sent is if we decide we want to overthrow Assad. But that brings its own horrendous problems.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Financial and similar sanctions and other steps are something that Britain can use - and reasonably effectively and in a targeted way, without causing collateral damage ie death to innocents in Syria) - and it would be in Britain’s interests, IMO, not to be seen as the financial haven of choice for various world scumbags.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I feel very nervous about visiting the crimes of a father upon the children. Maybe, like Saddam's sons, they are evil little sh*ts. Or perhaps they are not. But the starting point should be that they are not.
Now, I'd have little problem of using something akin to the proceeds of crime act against them wrt monies they may have received from their parents (and perhaps to give the money raised to Syrian refugee groups). But there has to be a fair process, and not an assumption of personal guilt.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
That wasn't my point. To understand the 'Corbyn effect' you need to explain why some seats swung by more than others.
(It should also be mentioned that if you measure Corbyn's success by his increased share, then the same applies to May, who would - on that basis, having added 5.5% to the Tory share - have achieved more than any Tory leader since 1951, bar Thatcher in 1979.)
I think the biggest factors were that Corbyn was the biggest recruitment tool for the Tories as well, and that Theresa May stated that she wanted a large majority to force through Brexit thus coalescing remainers and anyone who doesn't want a Tory majority into voting labour.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Is there much evidence of a deterrent effect? Will dropping a few bombs do much to deter Assad or any other dictator?
Arguably the logic of your position is that we should pursue regime change against someone who used chemical weapons. I can see the logic of that - but since Iraq I'm not sure any British leader could propose such an action.
Exactly. Either we support regime change, which I think there is neither support for in the West nor importantly in Syria (at least not to a Salafist regime worse than the extant one), or we accept that Assad will win and pressure his supporters to behave more civilisedly.
Regime change means direct conflict with Russia. Not sensible in my book. Lesser military action merely prolongs the war.
Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal.
The world community has decided that chemical weapons are uniquely appalling and has banned them in a 1925 convention.
As I said the other day, the 1350 years or so between the birth of Muhammed and that of the Queen probably equates to about 45 generations, which would imply over 35 trillion 43-greats grandparents.
Even allowing for royal intermarriage, there's got to be a pretty good chance of a direct line given:
1. The number of children Muhammed fathered, and that his descendents fathered; 2. The exceptional period of movement of peoples in the early middle ages; 3. The unusually fluid access into and out of the ruling classes in the early middle ages; 4. The wide range of countries the Queen's relatively immediate ancestors came from, including some - such as Hungary - which not that long ago bordered or came within muslim/Ottoman rule.
And as we discussed earlier, the Queen includes Odin, Abraham, and King David among her ancestors, so why not Mohammed as well?
The Danny Dyer episode of who do you think you are demonstrated this. I think almost everyone in the country can demonstrate relation to a Royal if you can go that far back, therefore we are probably all related to Mohammed, and any other ancient person.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
What is your solution? How would you put the chemical weapons genie back in its bottle?
If you want disarmament in the future, that will be done via treaties which all signatories can believe in. We have precious few such treaties, and the chemical and biological weapons ones have worked quite well, with a few obvious exceptions. They should act a model for the future.
If someone breaks such a treaty, then there should be repercussions - both morally and practically. Otherwise they're pointless.
So, what would you do?
Surely you have to first demonstrate that your action would help?
To my mind, the only effective deterrent message that could be sent is if we decide we want to overthrow Assad. But that brings its own horrendous problems.
Not really. Unlike Saddam, Assad is not mad. He uses chemical weapons because it is an effective military weapon for him: it clears areas for his troops and spreads terror amongst his enemies. If you make the military cost of using them greater than the advantage he gains from using them, then he won't.
The biggest issue I have with that is the fact that Assad's army is massively reduced, and he is relying on Hezbollah and the Iranians (and to a lesser extent Russia). Denuding Assad's military is now difficult - which is perhaps why the non-Russian Syrian airfields were attacked.
Exactly. Either we support regime change, which I think there is neither support for in the West nor importantly in Syria (at least not to a Salafist regime worse than the extant one), or we accept that Assad will win and pressure his supporters to behave more civilisedly.
Regime change means direct conflict with Russia. Not sensible in my book. Lesser military action merely prolongs the war.
Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal.
False dichotomy.
Of course the West, and indeed all civilised countries, can and should support the principle of regime change, by military means if necessary, against any scumbag who uses chemical weapons. That doesn't mean that in any particular case of applying that principle we shouldn't consider whether it is practical to use military force, and whether it might have unacceptably disagreeable implications. You do what you can.
As for your last paragraph, it's whataboutery. Sure there are other nasty things, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol has been a spectacular success in almost eliminating one particular very nasty thing for nearly a century, including during some vicious wars and the total war of 1939-1945; there have been just a handful of serious violations in nearly a century. That is a very, very precious success, and one which no responsible government could simply shrug its shoulders over.
Sadly, this precious success took a big hit when we didn't respond to Assad's previous atrocities, when it could have been done without too much risk of Russian complications. Ed Miliband has a hell of a lot to answer for.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Financial and similar sanctions and other steps are something that Britain can use - and reasonably effectively and in a targeted way, without causing collateral damage ie death to innocents in Syria) - and it would be in Britain’s interests, IMO, not to be seen as the financial haven of choice for various world scumbags.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I am not pushing for criminal penalties by executive order. Sanctions and removal of citizenship and freezing of assets are already powers the government has and uses. I am querying why it is we don’t use the existing powers we have to target the Assad regime which is a family regime. Mrs Assad was quite active a few years back giving interviews to Vanity Fair about why hubby was really a good misunderstood man etc. (You may recall the fuss made about the magazine allowing itself to be used for propaganda.)
Whether we should have such powers is another debate.
But you are also missing the point: Britain’s financial centre is used by dictators to hide their assets and is often done through third parties such as family members. We need to find a way - for the sake of our reputation - to stop that happening.
I take your point about Corbyn and Milne, one reason why I think May should get Parliamentary approval for any action rather than using prerogative powers.
I'm sure she's wrong. Surely we'd have heard if the buses were being repeatedly hit by trams? The old Elf 'n Safety mob would have been on the case...
The Nottingham trams are fab. But again they are a good idea poorly managed. Part of the cost of running the trams is raised by a car parking charge on companies and businesses within Nottingham. In the case of Boots the nearest tram stop is a 20 minute walk from the nearest entrance to the factory complex and the trams really only run into and out of Nottingham city centre. This means that for the vast majority of the 7500 employees they are of no use at all. And yet they are now paying an extra £200 each a year for their car parking spaces as the company cannot afford to cover the £1.3 million levy it has to pay each year.
And of course a if you do want to use the tram is still £500 a year for each person buying a season ticket.
Effectively all that has happened is they have increased the cost of going to work substantially for everyone who works at Boots.
Really. I mean, really?
Do you want to read that back?
Wouldn't it make sense for Boots to move their HQ if they're lumbered with subsidising something that confers no benefit to them?
That wasn't my point. To understand the 'Corbyn effect' you need to explain why some seats swung by more than others.
(It should also be mentioned that if you measure Corbyn's success by his increased share, then the same applies to May, who would - on that basis, having added 5.5% to the Tory share - have achieved more than any Tory leader since 1951, bar Thatcher in 1979.)
I think the biggest factors were that Corbyn was the biggest recruitment tool for the Tories as well, and that Theresa May stated that she wanted a large majority to force through Brexit thus coalescing remainers and anyone who doesn't want a Tory majority into voting labour.
That changed over the 6 week campaign? Colour me unconvinced.
While certainly there was anti-Tory sentiment in the 57% voting for other parties, there were other options and without doubt there was pro-Corbyn appeal to many, as obvious to anyone watching the news at that time.
It may well be as foolish and incomprehensible as the pro-Trump enthusiasm in America a year earlier, but undeniably Corbyn developed an evangelistic following across the country not seen in years.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Is there much evidence of a deterrent effect? Will dropping a few bombs do much to deter Assad or any other dictator?
Arguably the logic of your position is that we should pursue regime change against someone who used chemical weapons. I can see the logic of that - but since Iraq I'm not sure any British leader could propose such an action.
As I have said already it very much depends upon whom the bombs are dropped. Aim for Assad and even if you miss him other dictators will take notice.
I am not pushing for criminal penalties by executive order. Sanctions and removal of citizenship and freezing of assets are already powers the government has and uses. I am querying why it is we don’t use the existing powers we have to target the Assad regime which is a family regime. Mrs Assad was quite active a few years back giving interviews to Vanity Fair about why hubby was really a good misunderstood man etc. (You may recall the fuss made about the magazine allowing itself to be used for propaganda.)
Whether we should have such powers is another debate.
But you are also missing the point: Britain’s financial centre is used by dictators to hide their assets and is often done through third parties such as family members. We need to find a way - for the sake of our reputation - to stop that happening.
I take your point about Corbyn and Milne, one reason why I think May should get Parliamentary approval for any action rather than using prerogative powers.
"But you are also missing the point: Britain’s financial centre is used by dictators to hide their assets and is often done through third parties such as family members. We need to find a way - for the sake of our reputation - to stop that happening."
Then do that - and to Putin-linked Russians as well. But that's different from what you're contemplating. Hit them where it hurts them most - their pockets (and this requires international collaboration as their money will be all over the place).
I'm very nervous about making people stateless, but I can just about tolerate it with reservations when it comes to fighters who went over to fight for ISIS. But these men did not do that.
How can they prove this - really? I thought there was some doubt about whether Queen Victoria was even her father’s daughter and that somewhere aound the time of the Richard Gaunt there was doubt about the paternity of one of the Plantagenet kings (can’t remember which) let alone going back to Mohammed, where details of his life - let alone of his descendants - are in reality pretty sketchy.
Do you mean John of Gaunt? He was accused of being the son of a Dutch butcher.
Or Edward IV? He was accused of being the son of an archer.
Or Edmund Tudor? He was accused of being the son of Edmund Beaufort.
Or the Beauforts themselves? It was said that they were really descended from John of Gaunt's butler.
Whenever there are controversial or inconvenient heirs, you will get allegations like that. Who could forget the claim that James II's son wasn't really his son but was smuggled into the palace in a warming pan as part of a Papist (their word) plot to Make England Catholic Again?
They all have in common that there is very little actual evidence for them (the 'evidence' in Britain's real monarch doesn't stand up to scrutiny for a number of reasons). In the case of Edward IV the evidence was so tenuous that Richard was obliged to drop the claim and come up with a new pretext for usurping the crown.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I feel very nervous about visiting the crimes of a father upon the children. Maybe, like Saddam's sons, they are evil little sh*ts. Or perhaps they are not. But the starting point should be that they are not.
Now, I'd have little problem of using something akin to the proceeds of crime act against them wrt monies they may have received from their parents (and perhaps to give the money raised to Syrian refugee groups). But there has to be a fair process, and not an assumption of personal guilt.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Exactly. Either we support regime change, which I think there is neither support for in the West nor importantly in Syria (at least not to a Salafist regime worse than the extant one), or we accept that Assad will win and pressure his supporters to behave more civilisedly.
Regime change means direct conflict with Russia. Not sensible in my book. Lesser military action merely prolongs the war.
Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal.
False dichotomy.
Of course the West, and indeed all civilised countries, can and should support the principle of regime change, by military means if necessary, against any scumbag who uses chemical weapons. That doesn't mean that in any particular case of applying that principle we shouldn't consider whether it is practical to use military force, and whether it might have unacceptably disagreeable implications. You do what you can.
As for your last paragraph, it's whataboutery. Sure there are other nasty things, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol has been a spectacular success in almost eliminating one particular very nasty thing for nearly a century, including during some vicious wars and the total war of 1939-1945; there have been just a handful of serious violations in nearly a century. That is a very, very precious success, and one which no responsible government could simply shrug its shoulders over.
Sadly, this precious success took a big hit when we didn't respond to Assad's previous atrocities, when it could have been done without too much risk of Russian complications. Ed Miliband has a hell of a lot to answer for.
Could I remind you that the Great British Public does not agree:
Is from a couple of years ago, makes me so sad Jean-Claude Juncker will no longer represent the UK.
He calls Viktor Orban a dictator to his face. TO HIS FACE.
Don't you think however that there is a certain irony in Juncker accusing anyone else of being a Nazi dictator given he was forced to resign after it emerged the Luxembourgish security services were conducting a campaign of harassment, intimidation and surveillance on his political opponents?
Juncker of course knew nothing about this. Oh no, of course not, he was far too busy working with the EU at the time to bother about boring shit like cowing his opponents.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Financial and similar sanctions and other steps are something that Britain can use - and reasonably effectively and in a targeted way, without causing collateral damage ie death to innocents in Syria) - and it would be in Britain’s interests, IMO, not to be seen as the financial haven of choice for various world scumbags.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
Absolutely. Seizing assets if you can prove they are linked to Assad seems reasonable. But stripping people of citizenship on the basis of what relatives have done seems very dubious to me.
As we are seriously thinking of missile strikes, and as Assad's palace - her house, in other words - is (quite reasonably) being mooted as a target, removing her citizenship looks like pretty small beer in the context.
Exactly. Either we support regime change, which I think there is neither support for in the West nor importantly in Syria (at least not to a Salafist regime worse than the extant one), or we accept that Assad will win and pressure his supporters to behave more civilisedly.
Regime change means direct conflict with Russia. Not sensible in my book. Lesser military action merely prolongs the war.
Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Is there much evidence of a deterrent effect? Will dropping a few bombs do much to deter Assad or any other dictator?
Arguably the logic of your position is that we should pursue regime change against someone who used chemical weapons. I can see the logic of that - but since Iraq I'm not sure any British leader could propose such an action.
As I have said already it very much depends upon whom the bombs are dropped. Aim for Assad and even if you miss him other dictators will take notice.
But say we hit Assad... what would that mean? I mean no one outside his family is going to weep many tears for the man but doesn't it risk further destabilising the situation and prolonging civil war?
I am not pushing for criminal penalties by executive order. Sanctions and removal of citizenship and freezing of assets are already powers the government has and uses. I am querying why it is we don’t use the existing powers we have to target the Assad regime which is a family regime. Mrs Assad was quite active a few years back giving interviews to Vanity Fair about why hubby was really a good misunderstood man etc. (You may recall the fuss made about the magazine allowing itself to be used for propaganda.)
Whether we should have such powers is another debate.
But you are also missing the point: Britain’s financial centre is used by dictators to hide their assets and is often done through third parties such as family members. We need to find a way - for the sake of our reputation - to stop that happening.
I take your point about Corbyn and Milne, one reason why I think May should get Parliamentary approval for any action rather than using prerogative powers.
"But you are also missing the point: Britain’s financial centre is used by dictators to hide their assets and is often done through third parties such as family members. We need to find a way - for the sake of our reputation - to stop that happening."
Then do that - and to Putin-linked Russians as well. But that's different from what you're contemplating. Hit them where it hurts them most - their pockets (and this requires international collaboration as their money will be all over the place).
I'm very nervous about making people stateless, but I can just about tolerate it with reservations when it comes to fighters who went over to fight for ISIS. But these men did not do that.
I am all in favour of financial sanctions against the Assads. It is others who are arguing against them on the grounds, apparently, that they have not been convicted of a crime in a court of law. And if this is the test we may as well tear up the entire regime of sanctions.
Mrs Assad would not be stateless if her British citizenship was removed. I imagine she is a Syrian citizen - or could get it in an instant.
If we have such powers and are using them, the question I am asking is why we are not using them against the Assads. To say that she hasn’t been convicted is not an answer because none of the other people who have had their citizenship removed have been convicted either.
Is from a couple of years ago, makes me so sad Jean-Claude Juncker will no longer represent the UK.
He calls Viktor Orban a dictator to his face. TO HIS FACE.
Don't you think however that there is a certain irony in Juncker accusing anyone else of being a Nazi dictator given he was forced to resign after it emerged the Luxembourgish security services were conducting a campaign of harassment, intimidation and surveillance on his political opponents?
Juncker of course knew nothing about this. Oh no, of course not, he was far too busy working with the EU at the time to bother about boring shit like cowing his opponents.
Euro-Nixon. Without the redeeming qualities of going to China and founding the EPA.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Is there much evidence of a deterrent effect? Will dropping a few bombs do much to deter Assad or any other dictator?
Arguably the logic of your position is that we should pursue regime change against someone who used chemical weapons. I can see the logic of that - but since Iraq I'm not sure any British leader could propose such an action.
As I have said already it very much depends upon whom the bombs are dropped. Aim for Assad and even if you miss him other dictators will take notice.
But say we hit Assad... what would that mean? I mean no one outside his family is going to weep many tears for the man but doesn't it risk further destabilising the situation and prolonging civil war?
It means that dictators would get the message: using chemical weapons is injurious to your own personal health. That is a message worth sending. In Syria I am sure that there are plenty of other brutes who can take his place. The Civil War is all but over.
How can they prove this - really? I thought there was some doubt about whether Queen Victoria was even her father’s daughter and that somewhere aound the time of the Richard Gaunt there was doubt about the paternity of one of the Plantagenet kings (can’t remember which) let alone going back to Mohammed, where details of his life - let alone of his descendants - are in reality pretty sketchy.
Do you mean John of Gaunt? He was accused of being the son of a Dutch butcher.
Or Edward IV? He was accused of being the son of an archer.
Or Edmund Tudor? He was accused of being the son of Edmund Beaufort.
Or the Beauforts themselves? It was said that they were really descended from John of Gaunt's butler.
Whenever there are controversial or inconvenient heirs, you will get allegations like that. Who could forget the claim that James II's son wasn't really his son but was smuggled into the palace in a warming pan as part of a Papist (their word) plot to Make England Catholic Again?
They all have in common that there is very little actual evidence for them (the 'evidence' in Britain's real monarch doesn't stand up to scrutiny for a number of reasons). In the case of Edward IV the evidence was so tenuous that Richard was obliged to drop the claim and come up with a new pretext for usurping the crown.
Yes - John of Gaunt. Thanks. Just making the point that I don’t know how anyone can say with certainty that HMQ is related to someone in the 7th century.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Financial and similar sanctions and other steps are something that Britain can use - and reasonably effectively and in a targeted way, without causing collateral damage ie death to innocents in Syria) - and it would be in Britain’s interests, IMO, not to be seen as the financial haven of choice for various world scumbags.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I feel very nervous about visiting the crimes of a father upon the children. Maybe, like Saddam's sons, they are evil little sh*ts. Or perhaps they are not. But the starting point should be that they are not.
Now, I'd have little problem of using something akin to the proceeds of crime act against them wrt monies they may have received from their parents (and perhaps to give the money raised to Syrian refugee groups). But there has to be a fair process, and not an assumption of personal guilt.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
Corbyn and his clique, if they do succeed in winning power, will use all the powers of the State to pursue their political opponents.
How can they prove this - really? I thought there was some doubt about whether Queen Victoria was even her father’s daughter and that somewhere aound the time of the Richard Gaunt there was doubt about the paternity of one of the Plantagenet kings (can’t remember which) let alone going back to Mohammed, where details of his life - let alone of his descendants - are in reality pretty sketchy.
Do you mean John of Gaunt? He was accused of being the son of a Dutch butcher.
Or Edward IV? He was accused of being the son of an archer.
Or Edmund Tudor? He was accused of being the son of Edmund Beaufort.
Or the Beauforts themselves? It was said that they were really descended from John of Gaunt's butler.
Whenever there are controversial or inconvenient heirs, you will get allegations like that. Who could forget the claim that James II's son wasn't really his son but was smuggled into the palace in a warming pan as part of a Papist (their word) plot to Make England Catholic Again?
They all have in common that there is very little actual evidence for them (the 'evidence' in Britain's real monarch doesn't stand up to scrutiny for a number of reasons). In the case of Edward IV the evidence was so tenuous that Richard was obliged to drop the claim and come up with a new pretext for usurping the crown.
Yes - John of Gaunt. Thanks. Just making the point that I don’t know how anyone can say with certainty that HMQ is related to someone in the 7th century.
I would say the odds of female line descent are pretty high as well, TBH, given how inbred the royal family is.
To lift the mood slightly, I've just been forced to watch 'Paddington 2' for the fourth time this week (damn the weather gods for sending rain during the Easter holiday!).
What a glorious film it is, and Hugh Grant is absolutely brilliant in it. Especially in the closing credits.
Is from a couple of years ago, makes me so sad Jean-Claude Juncker will no longer represent the UK.
He calls Viktor Orban a dictator to his face. TO HIS FACE.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hl83Jpd_OI
That isn't the best video involving a Prime Minister of Hungary:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHXDDpQGHqw
Oh Lordy.
Nice story behind it though..
Hungarian PM emulates Hugh Grant
It may have been a stretch for some to see Hugh Grant playing the British prime minister, as he does in the movie Love Actually. Hungarians may be finding it a greater stretch to see their prime minister playing Hugh Grant. In a wedding video gift to a spokesman, PM Ferenc Gyurcsany does a star turn as Grant, jigging around his room to Jump (For My Love) by the Pointer Sisters. "The scene surprised us," said the government spokesman, Andras Batiz. New Year tradition The clip starts with a scene from the film in which Hugh Grant, as the British prime minister, rises from his bed and walks, back turned, to his window. Cut, with no great effort at continuity, to a rear shot of another man, whose shoulders then start to wiggle to the Pointer Sisters' tune. Turning to the camera, Mr Gyurcsany then performs a short windmilling jig. "The scene even surprised us who meet the prime minister daily and obviously know him in a way most people don't," Mr Batiz wrote on his website. Mr Gyurcsany says in a blog diary on a youth website the video was made as a wedding gift to Mr Batiz. "It has been a habit for quite a few years with my friends that we watch a Hugh Grant movie on New Year's Eve, more precisely at dawn on New Year's Day, either Notting Hill or Love Actually," Mr Gyurcsany says. Mr Gyurcsany, 44, became prime minister in September 2004. He is gearing up for a general election on 9 April. Mr Batiz told the BBC News website that the video was "just a private matter - a present for a close colleague". He said some of his friends wanted to surprise him with the video on his wedding day because he and his wife were big fans of Love Actually. The clip was shot in three minutes in Mr Gyurcsany's office.
The Head of the Syrian Chemical Weapons programme and good friend of the Assads is a Mr Amr Armanazi (how apt) who has two sons living and working in Britain with British citizenship. I suspect that quite a lot of the assets of the Assads and their coterie are in financial centres where action could be taken.
See my post yesterday about possible scandals in the wealth management sector.
For sure most will be handled by the laundry capital of the world.
To lift the mood slightly, I've just been forced to watch 'Paddington 2' for the fourth time this week (damn the weather gods for sending rain during the Easter holiday!).
What a glorious film it is, and Hugh Grant is absolutely brilliant in it. Especially in the closing credits.
It's fabulous. And it is Grant's best performance. Quite disappointed that it did not succeed at the Oscars. Perhaps too British.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
I will play devil’s advocate. Why not remove citizenship on the basis that no-one in the Assad regime, regardless of their personal culpability, should be able to enjoy the benefits of citizenship of a civilised country when that regime has breached - twice, at least - a Treaty designed to stop countries behaving like uncivilised barbarians?
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
We are not at war with gangsters and terrorists, and different rules apply to war and to crime.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
Anyone in any position of authority, or related to anyone in any position of authority, in Syria should have all financial assets frozen.
Irrespective of whether Mrs Assad is personally responsible for any of the regime's crimes (including klepto-crimes and handling stolen property), she is quite obviously a potential conduit for bashir Assad to remove assets from the country if sanctions do not apply to her.
"It seems unlikely, to me at least, that strong and stable mainstream politics is back for the longer-term. Too many Leavers will feel disappointed by the outcome of the transition deal and likely ‘end state’. This will open the door either to an even harder rightward turn for the Conservative Party or, instead, the emergence of a new populist movement that can articulate this sense of betrayal."
To lift the mood slightly, I've just been forced to watch 'Paddington 2' for the fourth time this week (damn the weather gods for sending rain during the Easter holiday!).
What a glorious film it is, and Hugh Grant is absolutely brilliant in it. Especially in the closing credits.
It's fabulous. And it is Grant's best performance. Quite disappointed that it did not succeed at the Oscars. Perhaps too British.
It was too late in its US release to qualify for this years Oscars, eligible for 2019.
How can they prove this - really? I thought there was some doubt about whether Queen Victoria was even her father’s daughter and that somewhere aound the time of the Richard Gaunt there was doubt about the paternity of one of the Plantagenet kings (can’t remember which) let alone going back to Mohammed, where details of his life - let alone of his descendants - are in reality pretty sketchy.
Do you mean John of Gaunt? He was accused of being the son of a Dutch butcher.
Or Edward IV? He was accused of being the son of an archer.
Or Edmund Tudor? He was accused of being the son of Edmund Beaufort.
Or the Beauforts themselves? It was said that they were really descended from John of Gaunt's butler.
Whenever there are controversial or inconvenient heirs, you will get allegations like that. Who could forget the claim that James II's son wasn't really his son but was smuggled into the palace in a warming pan as part of a Papist (their word) plot to Make England Catholic Again?
They all have in common that there is very little actual evidence for them (the 'evidence' in Britain's real monarch doesn't stand up to scrutiny for a number of reasons). In the case of Edward IV the evidence was so tenuous that Richard was obliged to drop the claim and come up with a new pretext for usurping the crown.
Yes - John of Gaunt. Thanks. Just making the point that I don’t know how anyone can say with certainty that HMQ is related to someone in the 7th century.
I would say the odds of female line descent are pretty high as well, TBH, given how inbred the royal family is.
Surely inbreeding reduces rather than increases the chance of any given path of ancestry?
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions of t Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Financial and similar sanctions and other steps are something that Britain can use - and reasonably effectively and in a targeted way, without causing collateral damage ie death to innocents in Syria) - and it would be in Britain’s interests, IMO, not to be seen as the financial haven of choice for various world scumbags.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I feel very nervous about visiting the crimes of a father upon the children. Maybe, like Saddam's sons, they are evil little sh*ts. Or perhaps they are not. But the starting point should be that they are not.
Now, I'd have little problem of using something akin to the proceeds of crime act against them wrt monies they may have received from their parents (and perhaps to give the money raised to Syrian refugee groups). But there has to be a fair process, and not an assumption of personal guilt.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
Corbyn and his clique, if they do succeed in winning power, will use all the powers of the State to pursue their political opponents.
Indeed +25, if there was such a tag.
Look out for "surprise" announcement of the removal of House of Lords on day one of the Corbyn/McD government.
To lift the mood slightly, I've just been forced to watch 'Paddington 2' for the fourth time this week (damn the weather gods for sending rain during the Easter holiday!).
What a glorious film it is, and Hugh Grant is absolutely brilliant in it. Especially in the closing credits.
It's fabulous. And it is Grant's best performance. Quite disappointed that it did not succeed at the Oscars. Perhaps too British.
It was too late in its US release to qualify for this years Oscars, eligible for 2019.
Hugh Grant was brilliant indeed!
Agree. A great performance and the closing credits are a hoot!
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
We are not at war with gangsters and terrorists, and different rules apply to war and to crime.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Is there much evidence of a deterrent effect? Will dropping a few bombs do much to deter Assad or any other dictator?
Arguably the logic of your position is that we should pursue regime change against someone who used chemical weapons. I can see the logic of that - but since Iraq I'm not sure any British leader could propose such an action.
As I have said already it very much depends upon whom the bombs are dropped. Aim for Assad and even if you miss him other dictators will take notice.
But say we hit Assad... what would that mean? I mean no one outside his family is going to weep many tears for the man but doesn't it risk further destabilising the situation and prolonging civil war?
It means that dictators would get the message: using chemical weapons is injurious to your own personal health. That is a message worth sending. In Syria I am sure that there are plenty of other brutes who can take his place. The Civil War is all but over.
I wouldn't be at all shocked if trump acts in very public asset freezing as much if not instead of missiles. He will try to do things that personally belittle Assad (and Putin??) as that is what he perceives as the ultimate humiliation.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
I will play devil’s advocate. Why not remove citizenship on the basis that no-one in the Assad regime, regardless of their personal culpability, should be able to enjoy the benefits of citizenship of a civilised country when that regime has breached - twice, at least - a Treaty designed to stop countries behaving like uncivilised barbarians?
If Mrs. Assad is responsible for committing war crimes, then I would consider it reasonable to remove her citizenship. But, not otherwise.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
We are not at war with gangsters and terrorists, and different rules apply to war and to crime.
We aren't at war with Syria.
And if we bomb them, what are we doing? Delivering Xmas cards?
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Realpolitik means recognising the uncomfortable reality that Assad is now just doing the endgame mopping up. It means pragmatism, not idealism.
What happens next? Is Syria to be cemented into a Russian Middle East Protectorate, with a side order of Iranian influence?
While we line up with the child bombing salafists of Saudi?
Non-sequitur. Firstly, what on earth has an opinion poll got to do with a question of principle or the realpolitik of arms control? And secondly, you don't seem to have noticed that there's no contradiction whatsoever between the principle that military action against regimes that use chemical weapons may be justified, and deciding that in this particular case military action is not practical. I specifically made that distinction, didn't I?
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
We are not at war with gangsters and terrorists, and different rules apply to war and to crime.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Is there much evidence of a deterrent effect? Will dropping a few bombs do much to deter Assad or any other dictator?
Arguably the logic of your position is that we should pursue regime change against someone who used chemical weapons. I can see the logic of that - but since Iraq I'm not sure any British leader could propose such an action.
Yes - although other targeted responses can be useful (eg financial). Infrastructure degradation has little purpose in the case of NBC warfare.
The International Court is Justice has been a net negative for humanity in my view
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
We are not at war with gangsters and terrorists, and different rules apply to war and to crime.
We aren't at war with Syria.
We are proposing to carry out acts of war against them.
I'm sure she's wrong. Surely we'd have heard if the buses were being repeatedly hit by trams? The old Elf 'n Safety mob would have been on the case...
The Nottingham trams are fab. But again they are a good idea poorly managed. Part of the cost of running the trams is raised by a car parking charge on companies and businesses within Nottingham. In the case of Boots the nearest tram stop is a 20 minute walk from the nearest entrance to the factory complex and the trams really only run into and out of Nottingham city centre. This means that for the vast majority of the 7500 employees they are of no use at all. And yet they are now paying an extra £200 each a year for their car parking spaces as the company cannot afford to cover the £1.3 million levy it has to pay each year.
And of course a if you do want to use the tram is still £500 a year for each person buying a season ticket.
Effectively all that has happened is they have increased the cost of going to work substantially for everyone who works at Boots.
Really. I mean, really?
Do you want to read that back?
I think you might be confusing Boots the US company (Very large profits) with BCM who are now French owned and made a £23 million operating loss in 2015.
Non-sequitur. Firstly, what on earth has an opinion poll got to do with a question of principle or the realpolitik of arms control? And secondly, you don't seem to have noticed that there's no contradiction whatsoever between the principle and deciding that in this particular case military action is not practical. I specifically made that distinction, didn't I?
I think missile strikes on Syria are impractical, as well as domestically unpopular.
Indeed it looks like just the filip to reinvigorate Corbynism.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Virtue Signalling is absolutely accurate for this if there is no other reason than to send a message.
I'm sure she's wrong. Surely we'd have heard if the buses were being repeatedly hit by trams? The old Elf 'n Safety mob would have been on the case...
The Nottingham trams are fab. But again they are a good idea poorly managed. Part of the cost of running the trams is raised by a car parking charge on companies and businesses within Nottingham. In the case of Boots the nearest tram stop is a 20 minute walk from the nearest entrance to the factory complex and the trams really only run into and out of Nottingham city centre. This means that for the vast majority of the 7500 employees they are of no use at all. And yet they are now paying an extra £200 each a year for their car parking spaces as the company cannot afford to cover the £1.3 million levy it has to pay each year.
And of course a if you do want to use the tram is still £500 a year for each person buying a season ticket.
Effectively all that has happened is they have increased the cost of going to work substantially for everyone who works at Boots.
Really. I mean, really?
Do you want to read that back?
Wouldn't it make sense for Boots to move their HQ if they're lumbered with subsidising something that confers no benefit to them?
Stefano’s been good to Nottingham and £1.3m won’t change that.
Non-sequitur. Firstly, what on earth has an opinion poll got to do with a question of principle or the realpolitik of arms control? And secondly, you don't seem to have noticed that there's no contradiction whatsoever between the principle and deciding that in this particular case military action is not practical. I specifically made that distinction, didn't I?
I think missile strikes on Syria are impractical, as well as domestically unpopular.
Indeed it looks like just the filip to reinvigorate Corbynism.
Reinvigorate it until we get attacked with chemical weapons, again.
Although since many Corbynites cannot even admit that happened, perhaps they'll handnwave away the deaths or even blame the UK government.
Non-sequitur. Firstly, what on earth has an opinion poll got to do with a question of principle or the realpolitik of arms control? And secondly, you don't seem to have noticed that there's no contradiction whatsoever between the principle and deciding that in this particular case military action is not practical. I specifically made that distinction, didn't I?
I think missile strikes on Syria are impractical, as well as domestically unpopular.
Indeed it looks like just the filip to reinvigorate Corbynism.
That Yougov poll broadly matches the anecdotal Daily Mail comments. This is seen as yet more potential middle east adventurism, whereas the Novichok happened on our soil.
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
I will play devil’s advocate. Why not remove citizenship on the basis that no-one in the Assad regime, regardless of their personal culpability, should be able to enjoy the benefits of citizenship of a civilised country when that regime has breached - twice, at least - a Treaty designed to stop countries behaving like uncivilised barbarians?
If Mrs. Assad is responsible for committing war crimes, then I would consider it reasonable to remove her citizenship. But, not otherwise.
2 questions: (1) How do you determine such responsibility? (2) Do you think those who have gone to join ISIS and have had British citizenship removed, including women,should have it restored? And if not, what distinguishes their case from that of Mrs Assad?
How can they prove this - really? I thought there was some doubt about whether Queen Victoria was even her father’s daughter and that somewhere aound the time of the Richard Gaunt there was doubt about the paternity of one of the Plantagenet kings (can’t remember which) let alone going back to Mohammed, where details of his life - let alone of his descendants - are in reality pretty sketchy.
Do you mean John of Gaunt? He was accused of being the son of a Dutch butcher.
Or Edward IV? He was accused of being the son of an archer.
Or Edmund Tudor? He was accused of being the son of Edmund Beaufort.
Or the Beauforts themselves? It was said that they were really descended from John of Gaunt's butler.
Whenever there are controversial or inconvenient heirs, you will get allegations like that. Who could forget the claim that James II's son wasn't really his son but was smuggled into the palace in a warming pan as part of a Papist (their word) plot to Make England Catholic Again?
They all have in common that there is very little actual evidence for them (the 'evidence' in Britain's real monarch doesn't stand up to scrutiny for a number of reasons). In the case of Edward IV the evidence was so tenuous that Richard was obliged to drop the claim and come up with a new pretext for usurping the crown.
Yes - John of Gaunt. Thanks. Just making the point that I don’t know how anyone can say with certainty that HMQ is related to someone in the 7th century.
I would say the odds of female line descent are pretty high as well, TBH, given how inbred the royal family is.
Surely inbreeding reduces rather than increases the chance of any given path of ancestry?
What I meant was that she will be descended from key royalty on both sides. Victoria's mother was a distant cousin of her father, for example.
And indeed in the SW, Scotland, Midlands, and even getting 30% in Harborough and In Huntingdon.
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
People seem to confuse the gains made by the parties in 2017 with their absolute support. It's probably true that Corbyn probably made greater gains with middle-class voters in 2017, and the Tories with working-class voters, but nonetheless, Labour still swept the board with the most economically downscale constituencies in 2017 (outside of Scotland anyway).
I suspect some just like the idea that the Tories are on the side of the poor and the working class and so believe it to be true.
While Labour is still the party of the poor and working class as a percentage UKIP got more of its voters from that demographic while the LDs now get a higher percentage of their vote from the rich and upper middle class than the Tories do
As discussed, there are marginal changes but as @Danny565 rightly said, the absolute picture remains very much wealth aligned. That is clear to see simply by plotting the richest and poorest seats against their vote.
That all said, as you argued the toss the other day that West London "was largely Tory" when simply googling a parliamentary map of West London shows this to be utter tripe, I expect you will continue to argue the toss under everyone else is bored of arguing with you. I have work to do!
First paragraph is largely correct, the poshest voters are now LD Remainers and the most working in West London
No, your original contention was that West London was "largely Tory". It isn't. It's largely Labour.
Non-sequitur. Firstly, what on earth has an opinion poll got to do with a question of principle or the realpolitik of arms control? And secondly, you don't seem to have noticed that there's no contradiction whatsoever between the principle and deciding that in this particular case military action is not practical. I specifically made that distinction, didn't I?
I think missile strikes on Syria are impractical, as well as domestically unpopular.
Indeed it looks like just the filip to reinvigorate Corbynism.
Indeed. I really hope May does not overplay her hand here. If Macrom wants to play Trump’s little helper, let him. No reason for us to jump too - unless there is some clear advantage to us to doing so, Parliament authorizes and the public is on side.
I'm sure she's wrong. Surely we'd have heard if the buses were being repeatedly hit by trams? The old Elf 'n Safety mob would have been on the case...
The Nottingham trams are fab. But again they are a good idea poorly managed. Part of the cost of running the trams is raised by a car parking charge on companies and businesses within Nottingham. In the case of Boots the nearest tram stop is a 20 minute walk from the nearest entrance to the factory complex and the trams really only run into and out of Nottingham city centre. This means that for the vast majority of the 7500 employees they are of no use at all. And yet they are now paying an extra £200 each a year for their car parking spaces as the company cannot afford to cover the £1.3 million levy it has to pay each year.
And of course a if you do want to use the tram is still £500 a year for each person buying a season ticket.
Effectively all that has happened is they have increased the cost of going to work substantially for everyone who works at Boots.
Really. I mean, really?
Do you want to read that back?
Wouldn't it make sense for Boots to move their HQ if they're lumbered with subsidising something that confers no benefit to them?
What they were actually planning on doing was rearranging their car park so that it was outside the boundary of the city council (they sit right on the boundary) but for whatever reason they decided against that.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Virtue Signalling is absolutely accurate for this if there is no other reason than to send a message.
Better to signal your virtue than to have no virtue to signal.
Non-sequitur. Firstly, what on earth has an opinion poll got to do with a question of principle or the realpolitik of arms control? And secondly, you don't seem to have noticed that there's no contradiction whatsoever between the principle and deciding that in this particular case military action is not practical. I specifically made that distinction, didn't I?
I think missile strikes on Syria are impractical, as well as domestically unpopular.
Indeed it looks like just the filip to reinvigorate Corbynism.
You are going round in irrational circles. Previously you said " Either we support regime change, which I think there is neither support for in the West nor importantly in Syria (at least not to a Salafist regime worse than the extant one), or we accept that Assad will win and pressure his supporters to behave more civilisedly. " . That's a nonsensical false dichotomy. You also said "Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal." That's nonsensical whataboutery.
If you are arguing that military action is impractical in this particular case, then you don't need to invent reasons why it would never be justifiable, or argue that the 1925 Geneva Protocol is nothing special, or say we should never go for regime change to enforce it.
With such woolly thinking, no wonder you're a Corbyn supporter!
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
Hmm, not sure I go with that. Would you want, say, a government run by John McDonneell and Seumas Milne to be able to withdraw your UK citizenship without even a trial in a proper court of law?
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
I will play devil’s advocate. Why not remove citizenship on the basis that no-one in the Assad regime, regardless of their personal culpability, should be able to enjoy the benefits of citizenship of a civilised country when that regime has breached - twice, at least - a Treaty designed to stop countries behaving like uncivilised barbarians?
If Mrs. Assad is responsible for committing war crimes, then I would consider it reasonable to remove her citizenship. But, not otherwise.
Normal rules don’t apply to wives of dictators. She had the chance to leave some years ago. And made a positive choice to stay
2 questions: (1) How do you determine such responsibility? (2) Do you think those who have gone to join ISIS and have had British citizenship removed, including women,should have it restored? And if not, what distinguishes their case from that of Mrs Assad?
She's not gone to join a proscribed terrorist organisation has she?
One is taking action against someone for their own actions, the other for the actions of their spouse.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Realpolitik means recognising the uncomfortable reality that Assad is now just doing the endgame mopping up. It means pragmatism, not idealism.
What happens next? Is Syria to be cemented into a Russian Middle East Protectorate, with a side order of Iranian influence?
While we line up with the child bombing salafists of Saudi?
Yes. But it is pragmatic to punish the use of NBC weapons. That is separate to the future of Syria
I'm sure she's wrong. Surely we'd have heard if the buses were being repeatedly hit by trams? The old Elf 'n Safety mob would have been on the case...
The Nottingham trams are fab. But again they are a good idea poorly managed. Part of the cost of running the trams is raised by a car parking charge on companies and businesses within Nottingham. In the case of Boots the nearest tram stop is a 20 minute walk from the nearest entrance to the factory complex and the trams really only run into and out of Nottingham city centre. This means that for the vast majority of the 7500 employees they are of no use at all. And yet they are now paying an extra £200 each a year for their car parking spaces as the company cannot afford to cover the £1.3 million levy it has to pay each year.
And of course a if you do want to use the tram is still £500 a year for each person buying a season ticket.
Effectively all that has happened is they have increased the cost of going to work substantially for everyone who works at Boots.
Really. I mean, really?
Do you want to read that back?
I think you might be confusing Boots the US company (Very large profits) with BCM who are now French owned and made a £23 million operating loss in 2015.
Well you called it “Boots” in your original post - which is part of WBA. (It’s not a normal American company by the way. Stefano rules it with a charming rod of iron and he is training up Jacapo to take over from him)
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Realpolitik means recognising the uncomfortable reality that Assad is now just doing the endgame mopping up. It means pragmatism, not idealism.
What happens next? Is Syria to be cemented into a Russian Middle East Protectorate, with a side order of Iranian influence?
While we line up with the child bombing salafists of Saudi?
The use of chemical weapons against civilians is "mopping up"?
Exactly. Either we support regime change, which I think there is neither support for in the West nor importantly in Syria (at least not to a Salafist regime worse than the extant one), or we accept that Assad will win and pressure his supporters to behave more civilisedly.
Regime change means direct conflict with Russia. Not sensible in my book. Lesser military action merely prolongs the war.
Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal.
False dichotomy.
Of course the West, and indeed all civilised countries, can and should support the principle of regime change, by military means if necessary, against any scumbag who uses chemical weapons. That doesn't mean that in any particular case of applying that principle we shouldn't consider whether it is practical to use military force, and whether it might have unacceptably disagreeable implications. You do what you can.
As for your last paragraph, it's whataboutery. Sure there are other nasty things, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol has been a spectacular success in almost eliminating one particular very nasty thing for nearly a century, including during some vicious wars and the total war of 1939-1945; there have been just a handful of serious violations in nearly a century. That is a very, very precious success, and one which no responsible government could simply shrug its shoulders over.
Sadly, this precious success took a big hit when we didn't respond to Assad's previous atrocities, when it could have been done without too much risk of Russian complications. Ed Miliband has a hell of a lot to answer for.
Could I remind you that the Great British Public does not agree:
A Sky Data poll this week had 36% backing British military action in response to Assad's chemical weapons attack with 37% opposed, just a 1% difference
Non-sequitur. Firstly, what on earth has an opinion poll got to do with a question of principle or the realpolitik of arms control? And secondly, you don't seem to have noticed that there's no contradiction whatsoever between the principle and deciding that in this particular case military action is not practical. I specifically made that distinction, didn't I?
I think missile strikes on Syria are impractical, as well as domestically unpopular.
Indeed it looks like just the filip to reinvigorate Corbynism.
Nah I think missile strikes on Syria will have next to no impact on British public opinion. Boots on the ground in significant numbers would have an impact - could be positive or negative depending on how it went.
Non-sequitur. Firstly, what on earth has an opinion poll got to do with a question of principle or the realpolitik of arms control? And secondly, you don't seem to have noticed that there's no contradiction whatsoever between the principle and deciding that in this particular case military action is not practical. I specifically made that distinction, didn't I?
I think missile strikes on Syria are impractical, as well as domestically unpopular.
Indeed it looks like just the filip to reinvigorate Corbynism.
That Yougov poll broadly matches the anecdotal Daily Mail comments. This is seen as yet more potential middle east adventurism, whereas the Novichok happened on our soil.
Amazing that the people most at ease with "letting the Syrians sort out their own mess" are also the ones frothing that *something must be done* about the Jews *cough* Israel and Palestine*.
* Any criticism means you are a zionist stooge, natch.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Realpolitik means recognising the uncomfortable reality that Assad is now just doing the endgame mopping up. It means pragmatism, not idealism.
What happens next? Is Syria to be cemented into a Russian Middle East Protectorate, with a side order of Iranian influence?
While we line up with the child bombing salafists of Saudi?
The use of chemical weapons against civilians is "mopping up"?
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
Virtue signalling is overused.
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Realpolitik means recognising the uncomfortable reality that Assad is now just doing the endgame mopping up. It means pragmatism, not idealism.
What happens next? Is Syria to be cemented into a Russian Middle East Protectorate, with a side order of Iranian influence?
While we line up with the child bombing salafists of Saudi?
The use of chemical weapons against civilians is "mopping up"?
That's another point: those who think Assad's already 'won' are wrong, and the use of chemical weapons is an indication of the stress he is under. Large portions of his country are still under 'enemy' control, and the many years of fighting have denuded his forces. He doesn't have the manpower to wage enough conventional war.
He's going to win, but the victory is not yet his. The question is how he keeps the peace afterwards, given he's destroyed large parts of his own country. He can only rely on Hezbollah and the Iranians so much.
His prison camps and the use of chemical weapons against civilians gives a very clear signal as to his post-victory thinking.
Nah I think missile strikes on Syria will have next to no impact on British public opinion. Boots on the ground in significant numbers would have an impact - could be positive or negative depending on how it went.
A string of chemists with loyalty cards is deffo what Syria needs...
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
I agree. I don't see how we could have any right to punish Mrs. Assad, unless there is evidence that she is a party to her husband's crimes.
You do not need to have committed a crime to have your assets frozen or to face sanctions or, indeed, to lose your citizenship.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
Confiscating assets that are the proceeds of crime is legitimate.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
I will play devil’s advocate. Why not remove citizenship on the basis that no-one in the Assad regime, regardless of their personal culpability, should be able to enjoy the benefits of citizenship of a civilised country when that regime has breached - twice, at least - a Treaty designed to stop countries behaving like uncivilised barbarians?
If Mrs. Assad is responsible for committing war crimes, then I would consider it reasonable to remove her citizenship. But, not otherwise.
2 questions: (1) How do you determine such responsibility? (2) Do you think those who have gone to join ISIS and have had British citizenship removed, including women,should have it restored? And if not, what distinguishes their case from that of Mrs Assad?
The correct analogy is a British woman who is married to a member of ISIS. I don't think she should have her citizenship revoked, unless she is a party to the crimes of ISIS.
As to responsibility, if she has either carried out the murder/torture of Syrian civilians in person, or been in charge of people who have done such things and made no effort to restrain them, then I would deem her guilty.
Nah I think missile strikes on Syria will have next to no impact on British public opinion. Boots on the ground in significant numbers would have an impact - could be positive or negative depending on how it went.
A string of chemists with loyalty cards is deffo what Syria needs...
Well, he was an optician. I daresay the local Boots Opticians branch would interview him ...
"So, Mr Assad, what is your experience with patients?" "I'm very good with them. I've created hundreds of thousands."
Nah I think missile strikes on Syria will have next to no impact on British public opinion. Boots on the ground in significant numbers would have an impact - could be positive or negative depending on how it went.
A string of chemists with loyalty cards is deffo what Syria needs...
Well, he was an optician. I daresay the local Boots Opticians branch would interview him ...
"So, Mr Assad, what is your experience with patients?" "I'm very good with them. I've created hundreds of thousands."
Nah I think missile strikes on Syria will have next to no impact on British public opinion. Boots on the ground in significant numbers would have an impact - could be positive or negative depending on how it went.
A string of chemists with loyalty cards is deffo what Syria needs...
Well, he was an optician. I daresay the local Boots Opticians branch would interview him ...
"So, Mr Assad, what is your experience with patients?" "I'm very good with them. I've created hundreds of thousands."
Nah I think missile strikes on Syria will have next to no impact on British public opinion. Boots on the ground in significant numbers would have an impact - could be positive or negative depending on how it went.
A string of chemists with loyalty cards is deffo what Syria needs...
Well, he was an optician. I daresay the local Boots Opticians branch would interview him ...
"So, Mr Assad, what is your experience with patients?" "I'm very good with them. I've created hundreds of thousands."
He was a consultant ophthalmologist, wasn’t he?
I worked as a software engineer and people would say I worked in I.T, a very different field. If that's the case, then I can call a 'consultant ophthalmologist' an 'optician'.
Mike categorising himself as among the less well off rather than the affluent - and over 60!
Without a bus pass myself, good to see I am subsidising poor pensioners.
Apparently it is possible to cross the country for free on a bus pass, making local connections all the way - but it takes a long time (Note: bus passes don't apply on National routes)
Comments
If you want disarmament in the future, that will be done via treaties which all signatories can believe in. We have precious few such treaties, and the chemical and biological weapons ones have worked quite well, with a few obvious exceptions. They should act a model for the future.
If someone breaks such a treaty, then there should be repercussions - both morally and practically. Otherwise they're pointless.
So, what would you do?
Even allowing for royal intermarriage, there's got to be a pretty good chance of a direct line given:
1. The number of children Muhammed fathered, and that his descendents fathered;
2. The exceptional period of movement of peoples in the early middle ages;
3. The unusually fluid access into and out of the ruling classes in the early middle ages;
4. The wide range of countries the Queen's relatively immediate ancestors came from, including some - such as Hungary - which not that long ago bordered or came within muslim/Ottoman rule.
As for the particular case of Mrs Assad, we don't really know very much. She may have no part whatsoever in the atrocities, and who knows whether she's a free agent. You seem to be pushing very far down a very slippery slope of guilt by association and criminal penalties by executive order.
Will dropping a few bombs do much to deter Assad or any other dictator?
Arguably the logic of your position is that we should pursue regime change against someone who used chemical weapons. I can see the logic of that - but since Iraq I'm not sure any British leader could propose such an action.
But stripping people of citizenship on the basis of what relatives have done seems very dubious to me.
(It should also be mentioned that if you measure Corbyn's success by his increased share, then the same applies to May, who would - on that basis, having added 5.5% to the Tory share - have achieved more than any Tory leader since 1951, bar Thatcher in 1979.)
Is from a couple of years ago, makes me so sad Jean-Claude Juncker will no longer represent the UK.
He calls Viktor Orban a dictator to his face. TO HIS FACE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hl83Jpd_OI
Now, I'd have little problem of using something akin to the proceeds of crime act against them wrt monies they may have received from their parents (and perhaps to give the money raised to Syrian refugee groups). But there has to be a fair process, and not an assumption of personal guilt.
I can imagine people have been looking deeply into their affairs for some time. If they have committed crimes they should be prosecuted accordingly.
What I mean is that Corbyn was not expected to win so he had a range of helpful factors in a two party system
Remainers finding a home with the best option for government
Conservatives stated aim of large majority to push through Brexit. Obviously anyone with a modicum of sense would worry what this would allow in a five year term
Corbyn's past associations not receiving critical attention outside of the right wing media, and who is going to vote for Corbyn and read daily mail.
Costings for policies in manifesto not receiving critical assessment as no one thought they would be implemented
Theresa May being very poor in the media on a daily basis, and chickening out of the debates
Conservative manifesto and remain vote suppressing reasons to go and vote.
These are not going to be salient to the same degree at the next election. Brexit will have happened, people will not have been forced out to vote by a prime minister seeking a mandate (probably), Corbyn's past associations will have crystallised for voters (Syria, Skripal and anti-semitism all have recently). Labour will receive much more critical analysis at next election even if they are not close in the polls because they were able to move so much last time, and surely the conservatives will not include anything as contentious as the social care proposals.
Corbyn vs May. I would be surprised if Labour get anywhere near their vote from last time.
Regime change means direct conflict with Russia. Not sensible in my book. Lesser military action merely prolongs the war.
Chemical weapons are appalling, but not in my mind worse than being burnt alive, crushed in demolished buildings or starved to death. As Civil wars go on they tend to become more brutal.
To my mind, the only effective deterrent message that could be sent is if we decide we want to overthrow Assad. But that brings its own horrendous problems.
"Show us your votes Jean-Claude" was Orban' reply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHXDDpQGHqw
The biggest issue I have with that is the fact that Assad's army is massively reduced, and he is relying on Hezbollah and the Iranians (and to a lesser extent Russia). Denuding Assad's military is now difficult - which is perhaps why the non-Russian Syrian airfields were attacked.
Of course the West, and indeed all civilised countries, can and should support the principle of regime change, by military means if necessary, against any scumbag who uses chemical weapons. That doesn't mean that in any particular case of applying that principle we shouldn't consider whether it is practical to use military force, and whether it might have unacceptably disagreeable implications. You do what you can.
As for your last paragraph, it's whataboutery. Sure there are other nasty things, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol has been a spectacular success in almost eliminating one particular very nasty thing for nearly a century, including during some vicious wars and the total war of 1939-1945; there have been just a handful of serious violations in nearly a century. That is a very, very precious success, and one which no responsible government could simply shrug its shoulders over.
Sadly, this precious success took a big hit when we didn't respond to Assad's previous atrocities, when it could have been done without too much risk of Russian complications. Ed Miliband has a hell of a lot to answer for.
Whether we should have such powers is another debate.
But you are also missing the point: Britain’s financial centre is used by dictators to hide their assets and is often done through third parties such as family members. We need to find a way - for the sake of our reputation - to stop that happening.
I take your point about Corbyn and Milne, one reason why I think May should get Parliamentary approval for any action rather than using prerogative powers.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/stalin-erased-his-enemies-history-literally
While certainly there was anti-Tory sentiment in the 57% voting for other parties, there were other options and without doubt there was pro-Corbyn appeal to many, as obvious to anyone watching the news at that time.
It may well be as foolish and incomprehensible as the pro-Trump enthusiasm in America a year earlier, but undeniably Corbyn developed an evangelistic following across the country not seen in years.
Then do that - and to Putin-linked Russians as well. But that's different from what you're contemplating. Hit them where it hurts them most - their pockets (and this requires international collaboration as their money will be all over the place).
I'm very nervous about making people stateless, but I can just about tolerate it with reservations when it comes to fighters who went over to fight for ISIS. But these men did not do that.
Or Edward IV? He was accused of being the son of an archer.
Or Edmund Tudor? He was accused of being the son of Edmund Beaufort.
Or the Beauforts themselves? It was said that they were really descended from John of Gaunt's butler.
Whenever there are controversial or inconvenient heirs, you will get allegations like that. Who could forget the claim that James II's son wasn't really his son but was smuggled into the palace in a warming pan as part of a Papist (their word) plot to Make England Catholic Again?
They all have in common that there is very little actual evidence for them (the 'evidence' in Britain's real monarch doesn't stand up to scrutiny for a number of reasons). In the case of Edward IV the evidence was so tenuous that Richard was obliged to drop the claim and come up with a new pretext for usurping the crown.
Does Mrs Assad have a job? Or is it the reality that her assets come from her husband’s position. That however personally innocent she may be they are the proceeds of crime - his crimes. Ergo do we really want her assets to be sheltered in London?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/984353294700171264?s=19
Juncker of course knew nothing about this. Oh no, of course not, he was far too busy working with the EU at the time to bother about boring shit like cowing his opponents.
I mean no one outside his family is going to weep many tears for the man but doesn't it risk further destabilising the situation and prolonging civil war?
Mrs Assad would not be stateless if her British citizenship was removed. I imagine she is a Syrian citizen - or could get it in an instant.
If we have such powers and are using them, the question I am asking is why we are not using them against the Assads. To say that she hasn’t been convicted is not an answer because none of the other people who have had their citizenship removed have been convicted either.
Removing citizenship, on the ground that she is married to a complete bastard, is not. We don't remove citizenship from the wives of gangsters or terrorists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43737714
I must be getting older. He was the same age as me.
To lift the mood slightly, I've just been forced to watch 'Paddington 2' for the fourth time this week (damn the weather gods for sending rain during the Easter holiday!).
What a glorious film it is, and Hugh Grant is absolutely brilliant in it. Especially in the closing credits.
Hungarian PM emulates Hugh Grant
It may have been a stretch for some to see Hugh Grant playing the British prime minister, as he does in the movie Love Actually.
Hungarians may be finding it a greater stretch to see their prime minister playing Hugh Grant.
In a wedding video gift to a spokesman, PM Ferenc Gyurcsany does a star turn as Grant, jigging around his room to Jump (For My Love) by the Pointer Sisters.
"The scene surprised us," said the government spokesman, Andras Batiz.
New Year tradition
The clip starts with a scene from the film in which Hugh Grant, as the British prime minister, rises from his bed and walks, back turned, to his window.
Cut, with no great effort at continuity, to a rear shot of another man, whose shoulders then start to wiggle to the Pointer Sisters' tune.
Turning to the camera, Mr Gyurcsany then performs a short windmilling jig.
"The scene even surprised us who meet the prime minister daily and obviously know him in a way most people don't," Mr Batiz wrote on his website.
Mr Gyurcsany says in a blog diary on a youth website the video was made as a wedding gift to Mr Batiz.
"It has been a habit for quite a few years with my friends that we watch a Hugh Grant movie on New Year's Eve, more precisely at dawn on New Year's Day, either Notting Hill or Love Actually," Mr Gyurcsany says.
Mr Gyurcsany, 44, became prime minister in September 2004. He is gearing up for a general election on 9 April.
Mr Batiz told the BBC News website that the video was "just a private matter - a present for a close colleague".
He said some of his friends wanted to surprise him with the video on his wedding day because he and his wife were big fans of Love Actually. The clip was shot in three minutes in Mr Gyurcsany's office.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4708504.stm
So says Russia Today.
Irrespective of whether Mrs Assad is personally responsible for any of the regime's crimes (including klepto-crimes and handling stolen property), she is quite obviously a potential conduit for bashir Assad to remove assets from the country if sanctions do not apply to her.
https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/will-the-brits-feel-betrayed-by-the-brexit-deal--16593
Hugh Grant was brilliant indeed!
This is realpolitik.
We are standing up to Putin and he doesn’t like it. In Syria there needs to be a response.
Chemical warfare was one of Obama’s worst mistakes
Indeed +25, if there was such a tag.
Look out for "surprise" announcement of the removal of House of Lords on day one of the Corbyn/McD government.
What happens next? Is Syria to be cemented into a Russian Middle East Protectorate, with a side order of Iranian influence?
While we line up with the child bombing salafists of Saudi?
The International Court is Justice has been a net negative for humanity in my view
Indeed it looks like just the filip to reinvigorate Corbynism.
Although since many Corbynites cannot even admit that happened, perhaps they'll handnwave away the deaths or even blame the UK government.
The sh*ts.
Of London Assembly constituency Seats with the title 'West' in them both London West Central and London South West are held by the Tories
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Assembly
If you are arguing that military action is impractical in this particular case, then you don't need to invent reasons why it would never be justifiable, or argue that the 1925 Geneva Protocol is nothing special, or say we should never go for regime change to enforce it.
With such woolly thinking, no wonder you're a Corbyn supporter!
One is taking action against someone for their own actions, the other for the actions of their spouse.
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/984150100896288769
Boots on the ground in significant numbers would have an impact - could be positive or negative depending on how it went.
* Any criticism means you are a zionist stooge, natch.
(Too soon?)
He's going to win, but the victory is not yet his. The question is how he keeps the peace afterwards, given he's destroyed large parts of his own country. He can only rely on Hezbollah and the Iranians so much.
His prison camps and the use of chemical weapons against civilians gives a very clear signal as to his post-victory thinking.
"So, Mr Assad, what is your experience with patients?"
"I'm very good with them. I've created hundreds of thousands."
If that's the case, then I can call a 'consultant ophthalmologist' an 'optician'.
Without a bus pass myself, good to see I am subsidising poor pensioners.
Apparently it is possible to cross the country for free on a bus pass, making local connections all the way - but it takes a long time (Note: bus passes don't apply on National routes)