Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:Sunak speaks for a grand total of 84 seconds and then scuttles away to get his orders.

Crackpot.

mountain man wrote:Shamina Begum citizanship bid rejected again.

Good. She made her bed she can lie in it.

Call me old fashioned but I believe foreign criminals should be deported back to where they came from.

Samo wrote:

mountain man wrote:Shamina Begum citizanship bid rejected again.

Good. She made her bed she can lie in it.

Call me old fashioned but I believe foreign criminals should be deported back to where they came from.

Not quite clear on this. Do you mean Syria should deport her back to the U.K.? Or are you saying we should deport her somewhere?

Tend to agree w/ MM - she made her bed etc. Complicated though. Are we saying that a 15-year old girl can't have been induced to do what she did, and therefore she's entirely to blame and that, in addition, she's forever beyond the pale? We say anyone of 15 years of age isn't old/mature/responsible enough to do anything of significance, legally, don't we? Can't buy booze, marry, join the military etc. No redemption in this case? In her position as it now stands, why not go full terrorist? What's she got to lose?

Also, can't help feeling that Javid was, at least a little, playing to the anti-immigrant sentiment at the time the decision was originally made.

The fact she was only 15 at time of going is a mitigating factor but it seems pretty obvious she only wants to come back to UK as it all went pear shaped over there.
If ISIS had won, by whatever definition that may be, I suspect she'd be there happily married to her terrorist fighter husband(think he was killed but anyway). Even though only 15, what did she and her friends really think would happen to girls who went?

I have zero sympathy.

She was born in Britain, she grew up in Britain, she was educated in Britain and she was groomed in Britain. I think she should have been brought back to face trial in Britain.

I also think revoking her citizenship and leaving her stateless sets a very dangerous precedent, especially when we next want to deport someone. Whats to stop the country we want to deport someone to revoking their citizenship and leaving us stuck with them?

I also find it very interesting that the Tommy Ten-Names and Britain First types constantly bang on about muslims grooming young girls but seem awfully fine with the idea of them grooming a young muslim girl.

I think we should bring her back then prosecute to the fullest extent possible. Don't think we really need to pretend she could've been ignorant of what she was joining, but equally can't get behind effectively just washing our hands of her because it's convenient.

People being radicalised here is on some level a failure we need to understand also imo

Samo wrote:She was born in Britain, she grew up in Britain, she was educated in Britain and she was groomed in Britain. I think she should have been brought back to face trial in Britain.

I also think revoking her citizenship and leaving her stateless sets a very dangerous precedent, especially when we next want to deport someone. Whats to stop the country we want to deport someone to revoking their citizenship and leaving us stuck with them?

I also find it very interesting that the Tommy Ten-Names and Britain First types constantly bang on about muslims grooming young girls but seem awfully fine with the idea of them grooming a young muslim girl.

I originally mis-understood and thought she was Bangladeshi by birth and only acquired British citizenship on immigration, in which case I can see an argument for revoking citizenship. However, her possible Bangladeshi dual nationality (which the Bangladeshi authorities deny she actually has) is only derived from her parents. As such, she's British and it should not be possible to revoke her British citizenship.

Of course, the further part of this is that she gave aid to an enemy and should be prosecuted under whichever Terrorist and/or Treason charges are appropriate (IANAL, and don't know exactly what laws she's broken). Obviously, snetencing has to take into account that she was a minor at the time of committing the offences, and under the influence of others, but she still must take responsibility for her actions.

SNP leadership race seems to be clearly breaking down to:
Yousaf for team Sturgeon
Forbes for team not-Sturgeon
Regan for team so not-Sturgeon they left the SNP

The more and more revelations we get from Matt Hancocks Whatsapp messages the more and more convinced I am he should be jailed.

So your opinion of him has improved

Samo wrote:The more and more revelations we get from Matt Hancocks Whatsapp messages the more and more convinced I am he should be jailed.

Why's that, then? Wait until the inquiry. Stop being triggered by selective publication of private messages. No wonder politics in the UK is a **** hole - MPs probably spend most of their time firefighting some leak/revelation that a journalist has facilitated by offering someone money and who then uses that info to pillory the politicians.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:The more and more revelations we get from Matt Hancocks Whatsapp messages the more and more convinced I am he should be jailed.

Why's that, then? Wait until the inquiry. Stop being triggered by selective publication of private messages. No wonder politics in the UK is a **** hole - MPs probably spend most of their time firefighting some leak/revelation that a journalist has facilitated by offering someone money and who then uses that info to pillory the politicians.

He voluntarily sent private WhatsApp messages containing all of these "revelations" to a dodgy journalist so that she could use them to write his book and make him money.

The "inquiry" is also running pathetically (and some may say deliberately) slowly. The people want answers and they have no faith that the inquiry will bring them any soon.

From the little I've read of the Hancock messages, what I find most disappointing is the lvel of schoolboy banter between those who are supposed to be running outr country - the exchange between Hancock and Williamson about teachers just wanting the time off for an easy life for example shows what a bad attitude existed in Government to those on the outside.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:The more and more revelations we get from Matt Hancocks Whatsapp messages the more and more convinced I am he should be jailed.

Why's that, then? Wait until the inquiry. Stop being triggered by selective publication of private messages. No wonder politics in the UK is a **** hole - MPs probably spend most of their time firefighting some leak/revelation that a journalist has facilitated by offering someone money and who then uses that info to pillory the politicians.

He voluntarily sent private WhatsApp messages containing all of these "revelations" to a dodgy journalist so that she could use them to write his book and make him money.

The "inquiry" is also running pathetically (and some may say deliberately) slowly. The people want answers and they have no faith that the inquiry will bring them any soon.

Quick! Arrest that man! Honestly...

The 'people' will just have to have faith in the inquiry, until such faith is proven to be misplaced. I guess they'd rather a rushed, incomplete, rubbish inquiry then? Can you imagine just how much documentation etc there is that has to be collated, annotated and read for this?? Jesus. Just wait. Not everything is about them or is going to reasonably happen to fit those with the attention span of a fruit fly.

dummy_half wrote:From the little I've read of the Hancock messages, what I find most disappointing is the lvel of schoolboy banter between those who are supposed to be running outr country - the exchange between Hancock and Williamson about teachers just wanting the time off for an easy life for example shows what a bad attitude existed in Government to those on the outside.

I know what you mean, but the typical holier than thou attitude of so many (as if they, themselves, don't joke about and say things that're less appropriate off mic) is laughable. Hypocrisy at its finest. I do it. You do it. Labour do it. The nurses do it. The teachers do it. Everyone does it. Why are we surprised that supposed private conversations have these sorts of elements to them? It's not even appropriate, necessarily, to extrapolate anything much from a lot of this into what either of the two you mention would actually do. Surely, it's actions and policies that matter?

Going to miss the next GE out.....The Govt is awful and Labour have no ideas with this vacuous..disingenuous Blair rip off leading it....

So screw the lot of them..

There are many indicators now that conflict between US-UK-allies and China is drawing near and some have said that it has already started with the US allegedly funding terrorist groups and anti-China groups along China's Belt and Road Initiative (One Belt One Road).  Separate to that the US have already begun sanctioning China with threats of more sanctions.   It has been said that the first casualty in any conflict is the truth and this might explain the more or less media silence / limited reporting of a very recent breakthrough peace agreement - which just happened to be brokered by China.   Sunak has been reported as saying "China represents a challenge to the world order which the UK must take seriously".   China's foreign minister said conflict was inevitable if Biden doesn't change course. Japan and Australia are busy militarizing with US and UK support.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64943445
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-22/pakistan-quetta-bombing-chinese-ambassador-ttp-taliban/100086906
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pakistan-investigates-whether-attack-targeted-chinas-ambassador-11619120462
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonytellez/2023/02/08/here-are-all-the-us-sanctions-against-china/
https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/japan-unveils-record-budget-boost-military-capacity-2022-12-23/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/australia-the-uk-and-us-are-joining-forces-in-the-pacific-but-will-nuclear-subs-arrive-quick-enough-to-counter-china/ar-AA18BqdS
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-s-foreign-minister-warns-of-conflict-unless-u-s-changes-course/ar-AA18lyN1
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/14/world/meanwhile-in-america-june-15-intl/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/30/china-is-a-growing-threat-to-national-security-us-companies-and-american-workers-us-commerce-secretary-raimondo-says.html

navyblueshorts wrote:

dummy_half wrote:From the little I've read of the Hancock messages, what I find most disappointing is the lvel of schoolboy banter between those who are supposed to be running outr country - the exchange between Hancock and Williamson about teachers just wanting the time off for an easy life for example shows what a bad attitude existed in Government to those on the outside.

I know what you mean, but the typical holier than thou attitude of so many (as if they, themselves, don't joke about and say things that're less appropriate off mic) is laughable. Hypocrisy at its finest. I do it. You do it. Labour do it. The nurses do it. The teachers do it. Everyone does it. Why are we surprised that supposed private conversations have these sorts of elements to them? It's not even appropriate, necessarily, to extrapolate anything much from a lot of this into what either of the two you mention would actually do. Surely, it's actions and policies that matter?

But shouldn't we be holding our politicians to a higher standard? What we might say over a pint in the pub is different to what I would say in a professional setting. Also, if you start with that mindset, your actions and policies are going to be in formed by this.
BTW, I happen to think that Government (of either colour for the last 20 years at least have been awful on education, by trying to micromanage, and make it far too much 'teaching to exams' rather than actually improving teaching practices.

This privileges committee is excrutiating. Johnsons cards are on the table and he’s playing like he’s got a full house, when all he’s actually got is a 2 of diamonds, a green 5 from Uno, a fake shiny Charizard and an expired train ticket.

He’s toast.

Looks like they're going to find that he recklessly misled parliament.

Thats probably his best case scenario.

I'm preparing myself for the possibility that the committee finds that he recklessly misled parliament, but the only punishment they recommend is that he has to apologise to the house. I hope the fact that he wasn't any old minister but prime minister when he said what he said will mean that they go further than that, but I do worry!

Worst that will happen is a by-election, but I'd be very surprised to see that occur. Most likely he'll just get a stern telling off.

Sunak was starting to hit a very minor uptick in the polls, but all this palaver, plus the rise in inflation, is jeopardising that.

Samo wrote:This privileges committee is excrutiating. Johnsons cards are on the table and he’s playing like he’s got a full house, when all he’s actually got is a 2 of diamonds, a green 5 from Uno, a fake shiny Charizard and an expired train ticket.

He’s toast.

He is a bit like that, isn't he?

The thing that makes me boil, is the apparent assumption that because no-one told him explicitly (whether anyone believes that or not is another thing) whether a party was actually a party, or not, and within the rules, or not, at that point in time, how was he meant to know? Seriously? ****ing seriously?
We had the same rubbish excuses with the expenses scandal (remember the duck houses etc?) - it was all "How were we meant to know that such-and-such a purchase was dodgy?". If MPs need that level of hand-holding re. what is 'right' and 'wrong', or lack any sort of moral compass (it appears that many have no idea what one is) God help us because they're complete Poopie.

I hope they throw whatever book they have at him, but I won't hold my breath...

Oh, and another thing. The fact that he still (still!) doesn't really accept that he's done anything wrong deserves as much derision as can be piled on him.

Agree with you on that, Navy. The only two scenarios that I see here are that we knowingly and deliberately misled parliament, or he's an incompetent moron.

Pr4wn wrote:Agree with you on that, Navy. The only two scenarios that I see here are that he knowingly and deliberately misled parliament, or he's an incompetent moron.

I'm not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Also, I know several people who are very highly qualified and intellectual but who are also quite capable of being moronic outside of their area of expertise.

I will throw a third option in, which is the Donald Trump option - BoJo is so detacched from the concept of the truth that he actually doesn't know or care if what he says is true or not, as long as it benefits him at the time. By this, I mean he didn't bother to understand the rules or whether they apply to him. As such, he didn't deliberately mislead parliament, more had a reckless disregard for the truth.

He's a classic narcissist. Given his history and conduct theres no doubt in my mind he knowingly and deliberately lied about what happened, but we cant prove that.

I really hope I'm wrong but I can't get rid of this nagging feeling he'll get away with a slap on the wrist.

Key thing for me is that Johnson threw everybody else under a bus (including 'accidentally on purpose' naming a couple of people who were supposed to stay anonymous).

His survival depends on the Tories rallying behind him, and I am not sure enough of them give a 'poopie' any more

Big fan of Dorries and JRM openly showing contempt of Parliament - Dorries on her ridiculous TalkTV show and Mogg on Twitter. Both of them need the book flung at them aswell.