***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
==============================================================
Continuing Discussion
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 20 Feb 18 at 10:17
|
Labour leader discussed with Seamas Milne finding a ‘form of words’ to ‘shut down’ the furore sparked by his rambling performance on nuclear weapons in the TV Election debate on Friday.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnPJzYhpFbk
Corbyn's spin doctor Seumas Milne (formerly of the Guardian) on phone to Corbyn:
Milne: That went well, I mean I think you got through it OK.
Corbyn (inaudible)
Milne: ‘Yeah, the whole discussion is completely surreal, no one has used nuclear weapons for 72 years and they are not independent at all. The idea Britain would independently retaliate for some nuclear attack is all completely off the wall… [inaudible comment from Corbyn] completely bonkers. That’s why I’m always saying we should just say we will do whatever is necessary and effective to protect our people.
Corbyn (inaudible)
Milne: Yeah… he (TV debate host David Dimbleby) pushed nuclear a lot... the truth is nobody would… it’s a complete emperor’s new clothes. If there has been a first strike, what is the point of the second strike?
Corbyn (inaudible)
Milne: (laughs)... yeah, it would have already failed and there would be no point. It is bonkers. Social media are saying ‘Corbyn had the better run on domestic policy and his problems were in defence’.
Corbyn (inaudible)
Milne: We need, without looking defensive, to seal down the Trident thing so it doesn’t keep intruding in the next few days. We just need a form of words... to shut down the nuclear question.
(From the FT: Seumas Milne
www.ft.com/content/30e48096-b9ec-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb
Seumas Milne called for solidarity with Cuba, Greece, Venezuela and Palestine. “Resistance and the unity of the working class is what will progress our movement,†he told a crowd in Glasgow. )
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 23:08
|
|
Doesn't seem anything surprising in that, not to me anyway. Seems like a normal routine conversation for a politician, just change the topic.
|
>> Doesn't seem anything surprising in that, not to me anyway. Seems like a normal routine
>> conversation for a politician, just change the topic.
The idea that our independent deterrent is not independent is hardly off the wall:
www.channel4.com/news/by/alex-thomson/blogs/trident-nuclear-deterrent-independent
And that article predates even the idea of Trump as President.
|
The idea that our independent deterrent is not independent is hardly off the wall:
>>
>> www.channel4.com/news/by/alex-thomson/blogs/trident-nuclear-deterrent-independent
>>
>> And that article predates even the idea of Trump as President.
>>
Not sure why you quoted my message, but no matter. As to the link, that chap is obviously well balanced with a chip on both shoulders.
|
>> Not sure why you quoted my message, but no matter.
I set out, at least in part, to respond in broad agreement with you then changed tack while typing.
|
|
Any views on his Land Value Tax? I gather it would affect over 10 million properties. My plot is two-and-a-half times as large as the national average of 200 square feet but I can't do one of the things the tax is expected to do and make better use of it, since I am hemmed in by neighbours and the only access to the garden is via a passage too narrow for vehicles.
|
|
Got a link to that policy, Ambo ?
|
|
No, it floated by on the flood of recent news.
|
"We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.â€
Sounds like a lets go after the rich because they have houses & gardens, the poor have flats approach to council tax. Also hits towns & villages more than cities I guess.
|
>> "We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new
>> options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for
>> the long term.â€
>>
From which the Daily Mail has extrapolated a four or five fold rise in 'rates'. It's fiction.
There is an argument that land held by developers should either be used or sold.
Our wee bothy is on about 1/3 acre so not big, but probably 3 or 4 times the area occupied by an average four bed estate house. I do not expect my rates to quadruple.
On the other hand, local property taxes are in need of reform, as is LA funding and responsibilities. For some time, LA income and what they can spend it on has been largely dictated by central government.
|
My house backs on to playing fields once part of the sports grounds of a local company, taken over by another. The land was sold to a development company with a head office in Jersey. Theycompany obtained planning permission after promising all sorts of benefits to the council. The sports club and grounds, once the finest in Norfolk have been left to decay for eight years. The historic building that formed the club house was burned down by vandals and there is still no sign of any intention to start building. Meanwhile the land, bought cheaply after the financial crisis grows in value each year.
Landowners should be compelled to start building with two years of planning permission being granted.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 7 Jun 17 at 11:30
|
The Labour Manifesto commits to:
A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year.
We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.
Council Tax is still based on values in the nineties with top band set at £320k. Governments of both stripes have disgracefully ducked issue of a revaluation. If Wales is anything to go by that would give more bands and a more equitable, less regressive, charge.
I suspect what Ambo refers to is Tory speculation, Phil Hammond reported in today's Telegraph, as to what that reform might mean.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 5 Jun 17 at 15:21
|
Another link to "somewhere official" where it is mentioned is John McDonnell's webpage.
Under the "What John stands for" section, amongst many other things, it is mentioned in passing:
"John campaigns for a fair tax system in which wealthy individuals and big business pay their fair share, a clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion, a land value tax, a Tobin tax on speculators and the payment of a living wage"
www.john-mcdonnell.net/about_john_mcdonnell
It doesn't say what a "Tobin tax" is, so perhaps the expectation is that anyone reading that page will already know without looking it up.
|
. If Wales is
>> anything to go by that would give more bands and a more equitable, less regressive,
>> charge.
Might not be a bad thing, the top and bottom bands do seem a little close together.
|
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4575382/How-Labour-garden-tax-hit-YOU.html
Similar to yesterday's Telegraph. The Mail admits it's based on Tory party 'analysis' aka scaremongering.
A review of local government finance, which is what's promised, is long overdue; it's forty years since the last one, under Sir Frank Layfield.
|
In amongst a lot of harsh-but-true comments on social media and Gudo today there is some speculation that Diane Abbott may be genuinely unwell following an absolute car crash interview on Sky yesterday on Terrorism, and withdrawal from today's Woman's Hour.
The terrorism interview is a thing to behold... order-order.com/2017/06/05/diane-abbott-car-crash-clueless-about-terror-report/ . She clearly doesn't bother too much with a bit of prepration!
|
If that link doesn't work then it's here www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ2l8Cs-Lc4
Not sure who is least suitable for their prospective jobs out of Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott.
I guess Corbyn because amongst other things he chose the other two ...
|
I must admit the best to do for Diana to keep out of the limelight.She comes across as incoherent and jibberish.Problaby a nice lady maybe it got to much for her.
I was listening to Boris Johnson this morning and he sounds similar.He speaks faster and faster to overshout the journalist.It was manic talk maybe he needs help.
|
>> I guess Corbyn because amongst other things he chose the other two ...
No No NOOOO
You are wrong. Corbyn is going to lead the UK to the economic sunny uplands where the magic money tree flowers forever, where all new immigrants are welcomed in their millions, where terrorism is solved by talking to terrorists, where we don't need a nuclear weapons system but will spend the money on it so it can rot never to be used, and so on.
Corbyn is very suitable as the Leader of as Party whose definition of Austerity is spending more money year on year...
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 6 Jun 17 at 10:03
|
>> If that link doesn't work then it's here www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ2l8Cs-Lc4
That was cringeworthy, not a clue just lots of generic answers which seemed to involve repeating the question. The set up using the question about the report was an obvious set up and she feel right into it. On her performance in the last couple of days, i would genuinely worry about her in the government.*
*Before anyone says what about x,y or z other incompetent politicians from other parties are available.
|
>>
>> some speculation that Diane Abbott may be genuinely unwell
>>
BBC Woman's Hour this morning:
twitter.com/BBCWomansHour/status/871995797629435908
"BBC Woman's Hour†Verified account
@BBCWomansHour
A change in the #WHdebate line-up this morning: @HackneyAbbott taken ill. @UKLabour say finding a replacement. Tune in at 9am."
But seen quite well
twitter.com/nickastaire/status/872004330580307972
"Nick Astaireâ€
@nickastaire
@BBCWomansHour this is a picture of Dianne Abbot in Oxford Circus tube station at 8.40am this morning - not seeming very unwell at all."
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Tue 6 Jun 17 at 10:51
|
Apparently she was also taken ill before the Brexit article 50 vote
order-order.com/2017/02/01/diane-abbott-ill-vote/
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/762587/Andrew-Neil-Diane-Abbott-Brexit
"Teasing the Labour politician on This Week, Neil said the nation’s “heart sank†on hearing Ms Abbott had been "taken ill".
He said: “I can tell you Diane Abbott is on her way to full recovery, hashtag #prayfordiane. The nation’s heart sank when it learned that she’d been struck down by a dose of Brexit flu last night."
|
|
As Brian says, today's photo of Abbot was apparently taken at Oxford Circus tube station (near the Beeb building) 20 minutes before Woman's Hour was due to start, fuelling speculation that she may have been pulled at the last minute... If true that's a bit ominous for a wannabe home Secretary
|
|
Perhaps she is ill but you can't see what it is?
|
|
Yes that has been suggested too. If so maybe she ought consider giving up the shadow Home Secretary role. I doubt her behaviour, whatever the cause, is assisting their election efforts.
|
Stress I would guess.
I was never a fan of Yvette Cooper but Corbyn would be far better off with her now.
|
>> Stress I would guess.
>>
>> I was never a fan of Yvette Cooper but Corbyn would be far better off
>> with her now.
>>
No strength in depth in the current Labour team, in fact no strength at all these days ...
|
>> Perhaps she is ill but you can't see what it is?
>>
I have thought that for a few weeks.
At first I thought she had some new dentures :-)
She seems to have a speech problem or the ability to produce the words.
I think there is something quite seriously wrong with her.
Time will tell but to me it does not good to me.
|
|
Theresa May never looks particularly well to me. Developing a bit of a stoop and looks very weary at times. The effects of her diabetes I suppose.
|
>>
>> >>
>> I have thought that for a few weeks.
>> At first I thought she had some new dentures :-)
>> She seems to have a speech problem or the ability to produce the words.
>> I think there is something quite seriously wrong with her.
>> Time will tell but to me it does not good to me.
>>
She isn't sick, just incompetent. Going from a back bench rent-a-quote to a shadow minister who has to master basic facts and figures to back up her arguments has proven way beyond her. There are a lot of people in the Labour movement who genuinely sick - sick to death of her embarrassing performances during this campaign.
|
>> Going from a back bench rent-a-quote to a shadow minister who has to master basic facts and figures to back up her arguments has proven way beyond her.
Largely Corbyn has faced the same challenges, with only slightly more success.
|
A few more voices saying DA has a long term illness.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40184826
|
>The terrorism interview is a thing to behold... order-order.com/2017/06/05/diane-abbott-car-crash-clueless-about-terror-report/ . She clearly doesn't bother too much with a bit of prepration!
Oh that's awful. Why on earth had she not read at least a briefing on the report?
|
|
Painful to watch. If that's really the best the party has to offer then we are stuffed
|
"Painful to watch."
She must be very bad .......... Brompt hasn't been on yet to defend her ;-)
|
>> She must be very bad .......... Brompt hasn't been on yet to defend her ;-)
I've been no great fan of Corbyn because, for all I agree on policy, he's not got a Leader's persona. He has though had a good campaign. If we'd seen more of 'that' Jeremy sooner May would have though a lot harder about a snap election.
Diane Abbott OTOH is somebody I've never had time for; she's almost inseparable from the parody of herself on BBC impression show Dead Ringers. He appearances have done nothing to change that view.
|
>> for all I agree on policy,
So you think we should re-nationalise rail, utilities, etc? And fund it by borrowing? I'm a little surprised if you agree with that.
|
>> So you think we should re-nationalise rail, utilities, etc? And fund it by borrowing?
In the case of rail it's simply a question of waiting for the franchises to expire at which point the Train Operating Companies revert to the state; no cost.
With exception of water, where there's no competition/a monopoly on something truly essential, I suspect there are other/better ways of making utilities work for the consumer.
But whether or not we have state gas/electric isn't a showstopper compared with policies on housing, NHS/social care, education etc etc.
|
With exception of water, where there's no competition/a monopoly on something truly essential.
I seem to remember Scotland having a nationalised water board?
|
>> >> So you think we should re-nationalise rail, utilities, etc? And fund it by borrowing?
>>
>> In the case of rail it's simply a question of waiting for the franchises to
>> expire at which point the Train Operating Companies revert to the state; no cost.
>>
The franchises dont end during the next term of the government, then there is the train leasing companies to deal with who own the rolling stock, there is the loss of the franchise fee and payback, the increased staff costs by pandering to the rail unions, the promised fare freezes, loss of corporation tax from the TOCs
Don't you DARE try and promote the labour lie that Rail Nationalisation is free.
|
>> Don't you DARE try and promote the labour lie that Rail Nationalisation is free.
Don't you DARE to lie and misrepresent Labour's proposal in their manifesto which is:
Bring private rail companies back into public ownership as their franchises expire.
Those franchises which extend beyond 2022 would 'fall in' during term of next government - unless the operator hands in the keys in style of GNER.
The funding of franchises and whether they pay premiums to the Treasury or are subsidised is utterly lacking in consistency. A mess.
No commitment to nationalise the leasing companies (and rolling stock arrangements are another mess).
The current franchisees haven't exactly covered themselves in glory over dealings with unions. Not just the current actions in various places. London Midland were forced to offer 'deals' during 2012/13 to customers as recompense for cancellations due to their failing to recruit sufficient drivers.
|
The government would in effect award itself the franchises as they roll over, and
- it could continue to lease the rolling stock, or
- it could purchase the rolling stock and substitute much cheaper debt for the leasing commitments which would probably make financial sense, or
- it could take ownership of the leasing companies, which could raise the necessary compo by issuing bonds to be serviced/redeemed from the future leasing income
for example.
The financial structure is easily solved for. The big question is how to make sure it is no less well run,in which case the profits that would have gone to Branson et al, and the cost savings from substituting public guarantees for commercial debt would benefit the taxpayer.
On the other hand, if the publicly owned TOCs and network find themselves in thrall to the unions 1970s-style then it might not be so good. That's the bit they need to find a way through.
|
>> She must be very bad .
Link to NewsThump, used tiny url 'cos original link includes a 'banned' word:
tinyurl.com/y9b6mdp9
|
Diane Abbott has been "temporarily relieved" of her role as Shadow Home Secretary. Mr Corbyn claims she has been attacked unfairly by the media.
Whenever politicians don't like what the media are saying, they attack the media for being unfair, biased or for peddling fake news.
Truth is, Abbot has made a pig's ear out of situations she should by now be prepared for and should know how to exploit. Corbyn's attempts to shore her up do him no credit either.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Wed 7 Jun 17 at 10:06
|
|
Corbyn has said she's ill. Some trickery by some smartass email hoaxer has been reported on order-order and elsewhere doesn't really prove or disprove that for me. She has apparently been temporarily replaced as shadow Home Sec by Lyn Brown.
|
While I acknowledge that "illness" can take many forms, after pulling out of the Woman's Hour panel on the BBC yesterday Abbott was apparently spotted shortly afterwards, seemingly fit and well, on her mobile at a London tube station.
But really, this is all irrelevant. Either she's up to the job or not. If ill-health is the explanation not only of her non-appearance but of the interview cock-ups, she shouldn't be Shadow Home Secretary - simple as that. She has done the Labour Party a lot of harm and the thought that she could be in government on Friday morning is alarming.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Wed 7 Jun 17 at 10:52
|
I read that yesterday's pic of her on the phone was supposedly 20 minutes before Woman's Hour starts, at Oxford Circus (near Beeb HQ) and one suggestion is the call was telling her to not go.
|
>> I read that yesterday's pic of her on the phone was supposedly 20 minutes before
>> Woman's Hour starts, at Oxford Circus (near Beeb HQ) and one suggestion is the call
>> was telling her to not go.
>>
>>
Yep, she would have got a phone signal as she exited the station ...
|
Perhaps we should also consider that the call may have been made by her saying she felt too ill to attend.........or wouldn't that fit?
Pat
|
Or maybe she isn't really ill. We don't know*. You can read it however you want. I was only reporting what I'd read.
She has been a lame duck for (at least) a number of weeks and, whatever the cause, has brought further embarrassment to the Labour party. She should probably have been relieved of her role much sooner. It's quite an important role, after all, even when an election campaign isn't under way.
* I imagine they won't backtrack and say she was not ill, so a "doctor's note" will be forthcoming. However in her response to the email hoaxer yesterday, where he suggested they should "add more colour" to the illness issue, she apparently wrote "I am worried about telling untruths about my health which are easily disproved". I do recognise that this may mean she has something but doesn't realise it... just a bit whiffy though isn't it?
|
>> Corbyn's attempts to shore her up do him no credit either.
>>
I haven't trusted Corbyn's basic honesty since the traingate episode last year and there have been several more examples since.
I always had a large amount of respect for people like Tony Benn or Michael Foot even when I disagreed with their political views they at least came across as fairly straight. Tony Blair always struck me as slimy and not trustable, but some of this most recent crop of Labour politicians do not come across, to me anyway as basically honest.
Whether the other lot are currently any better is an open question of course.
|
>> I haven't trusted Corbyn's basic honesty since the traingate episode last year and there have
>> been several more examples since.
Emerging evidence suggests the dishonesty was on part of Virgin Trains:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41036937
|
|
No, emerging evidence suggests that both sides were less than economical with the truth.
|
|
The train was busier than Virgin Trains suggested, though it is clear that Corbyn walked past empty seats and then complained he had to sit on the floor.
|
The "emerging new evidence" confirms that Corbyn walked past available seats and then went and sat on the floor.
It says that the train was busier than Virgin admitted, but Corbyn's behaviour remains as it was previously.
|
>> It says that the train was busier than Virgin admitted, but Corbyn's behaviour remains as
>> it was previously.
Sitting in the vestibule as did large numbers of other passengers unable to find seats.
|
But he intentionally walked past empty seats so that he could pretend for the cameras.
And "large" numbers Bromp? Where did you get that from?
I know Corbyn is left wing and so you are desperate to prove him angelic, but even Corbyn's crew declined to comment on this new report, so perhaps you might want to follow their lead and let it go?
|
|
I think you're right, both parties flexed the truth to make a point. He's a politician, I wouldn't say it was a stunt but he saw an opportunity to make a point about something important and took it and it worked.
|
No!
Virgin Trains stretched the truth.
Corbyn lied.
It didn't work as he was found out to have lied.
|
|
I suppose it's a matter of perspective, he got his name in the papers just when he needed it and brought up an issue he wanted to bring up.
|
>> But he intentionally walked past empty seats so that he could pretend for the cameras.
He walked past seats where there was insufficient space for him and his wife never mind the rest of his party.
>> And "large" numbers Bromp? Where did you get that from?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=47fqjA8CwGE
>> I know Corbyn is left wing and so you are desperate to prove him angelic,
As I've said repeatedly my own views are more centrist then Jezza and from his election in 2015 onwards I despaired of his public persona and leadership qualities. But then he played a blinder in the 2017 election by being what he should have been from the beginning; a straight speaking populist who refused to get involved in the politics of personality.
|
>>> And "large" numbers Bromp? Where did you get that from?
>>
>>www.youtube.com/watch?v=47fqjA8CwGE
I counted 5. Clearly we have a different understanding of the word "large".
>>He walked past seats where there was insufficient space for him and his wife never mind the rest of his party.
So why wasn't she sat on the floor with him, because she wasn't. So if he was going to sit on his own anyway, why the floor?
Do dead horses tremble when you arrive, fearful of yet more flogging?
|
>> He walked past seats where there was insufficient space for him and his wife never
>> mind the rest of his party.
How many b***** seats side by side did he want. He passed empty seats, he could have sat down, he didn't and complained about it.
Which is why they quickly gave up on that particular sideshow
|
|
JC didn't say that there weren't 17 seats together, or even two seats together, he said that there were no seats, which was untrue.
|
>> Truth is, Abbot has made a pig's ear out of situations she should by now
>> be prepared for and should know how to exploit.
Exactly - which is why I would say she is 'ill' be it something physical, extreme stress or whatever.
I'm not a fan and would never have wanted her as Home Sec, but she has always been passable if low grade waffler until the last few weeks when she has been completely at sea.
|
>> I'm not a fan and would never have wanted her as Home Sec, but she
>> has always been passable if low grade waffler until the last few weeks when she
>> has been completely at sea.
A clear case of someone who has been promoted above their ability level. Ironically her promotion was due to positive discrimination.
|
>> A clear case of someone who has been promoted above their ability level.
Agree with that. There's a lot of it about.
I'm not sure her opposite number is up to it either, but she is a first class waffler I'll give her that. The public school trained duds take a bit more finding out.
|
"but she has always been passable if low grade waffler "
Beneath her low-grade waffle, there is a layer of racism.
|
Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and now Starmer.
I had some respect for Keir Starmer though as a respected lawyer he should not be defending the indefensible.
tinyurl.com/y9r884ta
The last paragraph in that article - Susanna Reid talking to Keir Starmer: Ms Reid then said: “It's not massively encouraging is it? The one thing you cited as evidence of Jeremy Corbyn actually promoting anything which might toughen terror laws was actually a thing he couldn’t be bothered to turn up and vote for.â€
Hmm ...
|
I heard that interview and I was very happy with Starmer's comments.
Here is what the Telegraph reports:
"Labour has refused to back Theresa May’s plans to tear up human rights laws if they get in the way of tackling terror.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary and former Director of Public Prosecutions, said human rights legislation is not a barrier in the fight against extremism.
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn said terrorism would not be beaten by "ripping up our basic rights and our democracy".
Mrs May said she would toughen anti-terrorism measures and not let human rights laws stand in her way in the fight against terror as she put security at the heart of her election campaign on Tuesday evening."
Quote from May, which the Telegraph did not use:
“... I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.â€
That is exactly not the point of the Human Rights laws. May's comments were to me unbelievable. As if she has no idea why those laws exist, and why they are pointless if they can be torn up at will by executive order.
We have a problem with some people who wish to deny us our human rights, so she wants to remove those rights where it suits her.
Previous anti-terror measures have already been widely misused in the policing of protests.
Only a fool would give May or any other PM carte blanche on this.
|
>> "I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court."
>>
I'm happy with that. I'm not a terrorist so have nothing to fear from that.
>> Only a fool would give May or any other PM carte blanche on this.
>>
Who said anything about carte blanche ...
|
|
Though the point is Corbyn, he simply does not have the credentials in any area and Starmer's attempted defence of him highlights his deficiencies in law and order.
|
>> Who said anything about carte blanche ...
I don't know how else to interpret what she said - “And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.â€
With respect, the nothing-to-fear argument is naive. I am law-abiding too but I, or one of my family, might need our rights if a spiteful neighbour dobs us in for something we didn't do, or we get caught up in a crowd at the wrong time and place.
The chances of that happening to me are slim but the chances of it happening to somebody are very high. Higher than the chances of getting caught up in a terrorist attack I should think. It is a certainty that such powers would be abused, and it would be a significant win for Daesh.
Principle aside, it will be a major shot in the foot for relationships with law abiding Muslims. It is predominantly they who will be lifted or have their doors kicked in.
TM is acting like a tinpot dictator. The Kippers will be lapping it up.
|
>> I am law-abiding too but I, or one
>> of my family, might need our rights if a spiteful neighbour dobs us in for
>> something we didn't do, or we get caught up in a crowd at the wrong
>> time and place.
>>
But TM's approach would help you/them is that situation in that the police or whoever could access the neighbour's or whoever's CCTV, SMS, social media etc which would help prove your and/or their innocence.
It's not just about proving guilt, it's also about proving innocence ...
|
>> "I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court."
>>
>I'm happy with that. I'm not a terrorist so have nothing to fear from that.
Well I'm b***** not.
Insufficient evidence to prove their guilt, but enough to *know* they present a threat? That's called suspicion. Strong suspicion perhaps, but nonetheless suspicion.
What the hell happened to innocent until *proven* guilty???
God forbid they ever suspect you of something? Because under that regime being innocent would not be sufficient protection. Even if you could prove you were innocent, they could still suspect you.
We tried "sus law" once before. As I recall it didn't go well.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 7 Jun 17 at 14:48
|
It's not just a case of whether you or I would be affected by "relaxing" human rights principles. If we jail or worse, shoot, someone who turns out not to have been involved we have lost as a society. And we have presented the murderers with a propaganda tool into the bargain.
They break the rules, murder innocents and ignore basic human decency, we must not.
It didn't work with the IRA and it won't work with IS.
|
>> They break the rules, murder innocents and ignore basic human decency, we must not.
>>>>
That's an argument against capital punishments and in that context I agree.
The point is it's much better to hold a suspected terrorist on remand so they cannot terrorise than for them to terrorise.
It's a fine judgement and sometimes we might get it wrong, and we have to rely on our legal system, if they are held then they will either be released or charged and if charged they will be released if not found guilty.
Though if the SOs and MIs have strong evidence that a person is likely to terrorise I think that person should be able to be remanded allowing further investigations into their network, plot, associates etc before they are either released or charged.
|
>>and we have to rely on our legal system
But you won't be able to. Because if the law prevents them doing what they want, they will change it. Isn't that the message?
|
>> It's not just about proving guilt, it's also about proving innocence ...
I must have missed where she said that. And the last I heard, it was guilt that needed to be proved, not innocence.
I may as well add that
- innocence would almost certainly be impossible to prove if one was accused of guilty association or spouting radicalising bilge, and that
- the police do not in any case waste their time looking for evidence of innocence. If they find accusations credible, they put their resources into looking for evidence of guilt.
Meanwhile the innocent could presumably be held without trial, spied on, have their assets frozen, be subjected to curfew, or whatever TM decides is necessary.
|
>>
>> >> It's not just about proving guilt, it's also about proving innocence ...
>>
>> I must have missed where she said that. And the last I heard, it was
>> guilt that needed to be proved, not innocence.
>>
As you know well she didn't, it's the principal, law enforcement access to data etc could help get you off the hook for something you were wrongly accused of, much more so than help to wrongly convict you.
It's another lefty fallacy like increasing tax rates increases the tax take - in a democratic state giving law enforcers powers to view personal data under specific limited circumstances can enhance civil liberties and reduce miscarriages of justice.
|
>> It's another lefty fallacy like increasing tax rates increases the tax take - in a
>> democratic state giving law enforcers powers to view personal data under specific limited circumstances can
>> enhance civil liberties and reduce miscarriages of justice.
Far more likely to reduce civil liberties and create miscarriages of justice
|
>>
>> Far more likely to reduce civil liberties and create miscarriages of justice
>>
Totally disagree for the reasons given.
|
You are just thrashing about now.
The anti-terror police are not going to go to all the trouble of finding suspects and then searching for evidence that they have got it wrong, are they? It's a ludicrous proposition.
The premise in the first place is that they can suspend the rights of people that they have strong reason to think might do bad things (formerly called suspects, who had rights) but whom they have insufficient evidence to prosecute. They will try to find evidence of guilt as soon as possible.
If there exists any proof of innocence (unlikely or impossible in some cases), it will be up to the accused and his defence to find and present it. Meanwhile, the harder it is to find evidence of guilt, the longer the suspect's rights will be suspended until the police finally give up and release him.
It's outrageous. Exceptions to normal suspect's rights, if they are really necessary, should be at the discretion and frequent review of a court case by case.
|
>> You are just thrashing about now.
>>
>> The anti-terror police are not going to go to all the trouble of finding suspects
>> and then searching for evidence that they have got it wrong, are they? It's a
>> ludicrous proposition.
>>
Me thrashing about? That is not what I mean as I suspect you realise. I mean that if the law enforcers have evidence that an individual is plotting hideous crimes then there are three possibilities:
1/ They are able to ask the courts for powers to remand that person for a period of time while they investigate his comms, SMS, email, social media, his pals, his vehicles, property, previous movements etc as they might possibly uncover a more serious plot. Of course if they don't find enough evidence he/she would be released.
2/ They are unable to ask the courts for powers to remand that person and nothing happens.
3/ They are unable to ask the courts for powers to remand that person and hideous terror ensues.
Surely 1/ is worth it to rule out the possibility of 3/.
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Wed 7 Jun 17 at 16:08
|
>>Far more likely to reduce civil liberties and create miscarriages of justice
Indeed.
If suspicion is sufficient, where's the drive or need to pursue proof? Of innocence or guilt?
|
|
Overall you cannot [or certainly should not] have a law which relies on the benevolence of the authorities. The law is there to control as well as enable.
|
>> Overall you cannot [or certainly should not] have a law which relies on the benevolence
>> of the authorities. The law is there to control as well as enable.
>>
And it is there equally to prove innocence as it is guilt.
|
Absolutely not. There is no part of our legal system which relies on or requires the proof of innocence.
Quite the contrary.
|
>> Absolutely not. There is no part of our legal system which relies on or requires
>> the proof of innocence.
>>
>> Quite the contrary.
>>
Sorry, that's just rubbish, people are often wrongly accused and the legal system proves their innocence, it's as important aspect of the system as proving guilt, a not guilty verdict is a proof of innocence.
You are taking the civil liberties line though miscarriages of justice are usually when people are found guilty when they should have been proven to be innocent, though it can be the other way around of course.
|
>>people are often wrongly accused and the legal system proves their innocence
I'm not really bothered about winning the argument here, so I'll just say that the verdict in England and Wales is "Not Guilty" rather than "Innocent" and that is not splitting hairs. It means there is reasonable doubt as to guilt.
It is for the defence to contest the prosecution, who will simply not present evidence to the court that is unhelpful in obtaining a conviction although they should make disclosure to the defence.
Anyway, what about Magna Carta?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZosqiJISs
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 7 Jun 17 at 16:40
|
>> >>people are often wrongly accused and the legal system proves their innocence
>>
>> I'm not really bothered about winning the argument here, so I'll just say that the
>> verdict in England and Wales is "Not Guilty" rather than "Innocent" and that is not
>> splitting hairs. It means there is reasonable doubt as to guilt.
>>
Semantics though I take the point.
|
I believe that they may be technically synonymous. Or at least, so I've heard.
8-)
|
>> I believe that they may be technically synonymous. Or at least, so I've heard.
>>
>> 8-)
>>
They are also subjective, you or I might have an opinion on guilt or innocence and we may maintain that view despite a court of law deciding otherwise.
|
|
Just as well the law insists on proof and doesn't accept belief or suspicion as sufficient.
|
>> I believe that they may be technically synonymous. Or at least, so I've heard.
>>
>> 8-)
In context of a jury trial acquitted, cleared, or not guilty all have same meaning; the case against defendant(s) didn't cut the (legal) mustard. In absence of proven lesser charges defendant walks.
If guilty of lesser charges he/she goes down for those.
I don't know why you find this so difficult
|
Bromp, did you not see the smiley? And you know how rarely I use those.
You need to get over yourself a little bit..
|
>> You need to get over yourself a little bit..
Well one of us does 8-)
|
|
Fair enough, so let us agree that we'll both try to be more realistic about your importance.
|
>> in a democratic state giving law enforcers powers to view personal data under specific limited circumstances can enhance civil liberties and reduce miscarriages of justice.
>>
They already have that power.
You have a rather touching faith in the authorities to "Do the decent thing". There are many examples in the past where they haven't and there will be many more in the future.
|
|
Its our Judicial system and Human Rights that differentiates us from IS and its ilk., Ride roughshod over them, and we are just like they are.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 7 Jun 17 at 19:36
|
I have a real distrust of those politicians that want to remove / repeal the Human Rights legislation.
Why would someone want to remove the right to life, protection from torture and inhuman treatment, protection from forced labour or slavery, the right to liberty and freedom unless convicted of a serious crime, the right to fair trail and no punishment without law, respect for privacy and family life and the right to marry, freedom of thought, religion and belief, free speech and peaceful protest, no discrimination, protection of property, the right to an education and the right to free elections?
Theresa May has had a bee in her bonnet about the HRA ever since she was Home Secretary and I do wonder about her true. motives.
Imagine kids being forced to pay for all schooling or only allowing the rich to vote in elections?
|
>>
>> Human Rights l
>>
Which country do you think meets or exceeds your standards?
www.humanrightsatlas.org/
|
|
I don't know, but I've lived in some places which make me admire and be proud of what the UK is.
|
"I've lived in some places which make me admire and be proud of what the UK is."
Nothing to do with HR - it's because we are, in the main, a jolly decent, fair-minded bunch. Of course, many would see us as being as soft as grease.
|
>> Why would someone want to remove the right to life, protection from torture and inhuman
>> treatment, protection from forced labour or slavery, the right to liberty and freedom unless convicted of a serious crime, the right to fair trail and no punishment without law, respect for privacy and family life and the right to marry, freedom of thought, religion and
>> belief, free speech and peaceful protest, no discrimination, protection of property, the right to an education and the right to free elections?
>>
It's not about that, it's about remanding anyone seriously suspecting of plotting terrorism and having access to their comms data to help foil the plot if there is one.
It's about avoiding horrendous loss of life.
|
>>It's not about that, it's about remanding anyone seriously suspecting of plotting terrorism and having access to their comms data to help foil the plot if there is one.
Like stop-and-search but you get to be locked up for 6 months while they look for evidence?
No thanks.
Plenty of scumbags are locked up for trying to develop plots with the rules we currently have.
May is an egotist and a bully, lacking any ability to empathise with the public or her colleagues.
She will be pretty useless as a negotiator when put in a room of equals and is the worst performing prime minister I can remember since the 1980s.
Her latest trip to Scotland saw her having a 'meeting' with party activists in a warehouse and not a regular voter in sight. At last BoJo has the knackers to squeeze palms and take flak appropriate to the level of his position.
The fact that controlling witch wants more power to remove our freedoms makes me absolutely certain she should be denied.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 7 Jun 17 at 22:50
|
>>It's not about that, it's about remanding anyone seriously suspecting of plotting terrorism
>>and having access to their comms data to help foil the plot if there is one.
>>It's about avoiding horrendous loss of life.
Tell that to yourself when the jackboots are knocking down your door!
|
>> It's not about that, it's about remanding anyone seriously suspecting of plotting terrorism...
Yes but what you don't seem to grasp is who is going to do the "serious suspecting" and what recourse will anyone have if the suspicion is ill founded?
And when Islamic fundametalist terrorism becomes a thing of history as eventualy it will what will happen to these new powers? Will the government say "we don't need these powers any more?"
Of course they won't. Governments never like to relinquish powers. They will remain on the statute book "just in case they are needed". And they will inevitably end up being used for reasons quite unintended in the first place.
And should we ever have the misfortune to end up with Government that has leaning to a less democratic system than we have at the moment there sitting on the statute book is just the set of powers they need to lock anyone up they don't like.
If you don't think it could happen look at Trump's America. Do you think you would feel happy if you were American and the Executive had the powers you propose to arrest and detain whoever they seriously supected of wrongdoing?
|
>> Yes but what you don't seem to grasp is who is going to do the "serious suspecting" and what recourse will anyone have if the suspicion is ill founded?
>>
You guys over dramatise, we have very effective, brave etc law enforcers who put their lives on the line, they need all the help they can get. What we are talking about is these same guys being able to apply to a court for a few extra powers around remand and access to data.
An atrocity might be avoided or very occasionally an innocent individual might spend a couple of extra nights in the nick before being released. It's a small price ...
|
It's a small price ...
No it's a very large price. Have you any idea how long it has taken our ancestors to obtain the rights we all take so much for granted today. Chief amongst these is the right not to be hauled off and thrown in jail without recourse to the law and you would have us throw those rights away in an instant.
|
>> It's a small price ...
>>
>>
>> No it's a very large price. Have you any idea how long it has taken
>> our ancestors to obtain the rights we all take so much for granted today. Chief
>> amongst these is the right not to be hauled off and thrown in jail without
>> recourse to the law and you would have us throw those rights away in an
>> instant.
>>
Its always the other persons rights that we don't care about, until its our turn.
Often cited by the Yanks but very true: "They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Benjamin Franklin
|
>> Often cited by the Yanks but very true: "They who can give up essential Liberty
>> to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Benjamin Franklin
>>
Nice quote though it's not giving up essential liberty, it's a minor change to what already happens, a murder suspect is held on remand, a shoplifter is not, both are innocent until proven guilty, and generally we don't protest outside the jail the murder suspect is held in because generally we trust the police and generally our trust is well placed.
|
>> It's a small price ...
>>
>>
>> No it's a very large price. Have you any idea how long it has taken
>> our ancestors to obtain the rights we all take so much for granted today. Chief
>> amongst these is the right not to be hauled off and thrown in jail without
>> recourse to the law and you would have us throw those rights away in an
>> instant.
>>
Perhaps re read what I said so we're on the same planet here.
|
|
Remember the local councils that used anti terrorism surveillance legislation to track debtors? Be carefull what you wish for. We are already the most watched population in the world.
|
>> Remember the local councils that used anti terrorism surveillance legislation to track debtors?
Now that's an odd one. The self same newspapers as are baying at Corbyn's voting record on terror legislation continually carp on about use of a piece of what they style anti terrorism legislation.
The act concerned, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, was not primarily about terrorism It was passed after the Irish cease fires and before serious Islamic terror hit Europe. There is nothing in it's preamble about terror. It's of course possible that Minsters overused word in debates, I haven't time to look up Hansard, but RIPA was primarily about consolidating and codifying how surveillance was done.
Given the advent/advancement of technologies facilitating surveillance inc CCTV, ability to access call records, internet, concealed recording etc such codification was absolutely necessary. The act also created a tribunal to deal with infractions.
What's wrong with using proportionate surveillance to track debtors, litter droppers, benefit fraudsters or people fiddling school admissions?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 8 Jun 17 at 13:05
|
>> What's wrong with using proportionate surveillance to track debtors, litter droppers, benefit fraudsters or people
>> fiddling school admissions?
Because its not proportionate.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 8 Jun 17 at 13:12
|
>> Because its not proportionate.
What's not proportionate?
CCTV?
Directed Surveillance?
|
>> >> Because its not proportionate.
>>
>> What's not proportionate?
>>
>> CCTV?
>>
>> Directed Surveillance?
Yes any of those to track civil offences, like debtors and school quota cheaters. Its a Stazi society if taken down that route.
You'd soon be whining if it was used to prosecute cyclists for silly offences.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 8 Jun 17 at 17:41
|
>> What we are
>> talking about is these same guys being able to apply to a court for a
>> few extra powers around remand and access to data.
>>
There is already power to detain terror suspects for up to 14days (reduced from 28):
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/countering-terrorism/extended-pre-charge-detention
There is already power to check their computers etc
It's difficult to tell which Human Rights laws May wants to repeal as she was posturing in an election campaign rather than making specific policy proposals. I suspect though they go beyond the sort of thing Hard Cheese mentions, perhaps specifically about derportation. She had a long battle over Abu Qatada's removal to Jordan (albeit one she could probably have avoided if she'd not been such a 'b***** difficult woman'.
She's on record as telling lies to support her crusade against the HRA (conference speech about deportation barred 'cos deportee had a cat). I don't trust her one inch on the subject.
|
>>
They will remain on the
>> statute book "just in case they are needed". And they will inevitably end up being
>> used for reasons quite unintended in the first place.
>>
Councils spying on dustbins I seem to recall was a case in point.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Thu 8 Jun 17 at 15:12
|
"Its our Judicial system and Human Rights that differentiates us from IS and its ilk"
Absolutely - if it weren't for 'our judicial system and Human Rights', I'd be running around hacking people's heads off and doing all sorts of unspeakable things.
|
>> "Its our Judicial system and Human Rights that differentiates us from IS and its ilk"
>>
>> Absolutely - if it weren't for 'our judicial system and Human Rights', I'd be running
>> around hacking people's heads off and doing all sorts of unspeakable things.
I'd report you to the security services as a potential, but it seems that would be a waste of time.
|
"I'd report you to the security services as a potential, but it seems that would be a waste of time."
Sure would - I'd be innocent until proven guilty - and I can't be guilty of anything until I've done it - and by then it'll be too late. 'S a divil innit?
|
>> The last paragraph in that article - Susanna Reid talking to Keir Starmer: Ms Reid
>> then said: “It's not massively encouraging is it? The one thing you cited as evidence
>> of Jeremy Corbyn actually promoting anything which might toughen terror laws was actually a thing
>> he couldn’t be bothered to turn up and vote for.â€
Another example of political journalists trying to build their careers on trying to ambush politicians and kebab them over details only an obsessive could retain
The Investigatory Powers Bill/Act is a piece of legislation that granted government powers going far beyond terrorism. If Labour imposed a three line whip then, as a party committed to liberty, they should be ashamed of themselves,
|
>> Labour .... as a party committed to liberty,
>>
RFLMAO
Best joke of the 20th and 21st centuries.
|
"Another example of political journalists trying to build their careers on trying to ambush politicians and kebab them over details only an obsessive could retain "
Yes, but it's good for distinguishing the clever bull sitters from the utterly useless bull sitters (e.g. Ms Abbott).
|
|
I think if you're Susanna Reid you should be forgiven anything. She's gorgeous.
|
>> She's gorgeous.
>>
You and Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid have been interviewing politicians this week. A standard question is "what is the naughtiest thing you've ever done". Today Sussana Reid asked Piers to answer that question.
A smirking Piers replied: 'You really don't want to know. I can't even repeat it on national television!. And yes, you were there.'
|
>> I think if you're Susanna Reid you should be forgiven anything. She's gorgeous.
Hmmmm,
Seen similar about Laura Kuensberg but blondes don't float my boat.
BBD wll be along shortly with MILF comments.....
|
"Seen similar about Laura Kuensberg"
Blimey ....... have you got a reference for that?
|
>> Laura Kuensberg but blondes don't float my boat.
>>
Nor mine - because she talks out of the side of her mouth, figuratively speaking (and as it happens literally too).
|
>> I think if you're Susanna Reid you should be forgiven anything. She's gorgeous.
>>
I concur on that one!
|
|
A bit long in the tooth surely. She's 46
|
>>a bit long in the tooth surely. She's 46
Many a good tune played on an old fiddle!
|
>>
>> Another example of political journalists trying to build their careers on trying to ambush politicians and kebab them over details only an obsessive could retain
>>
Complete rubbish, Starmer was representing Labour in this policy area and even if he had known that JC didn't turn up to vote the fact remains that JC didn't turn up to vote.
|
Another take:
www.facebook.com/JoshuaRozenbergQC/posts/316596332095623
No FB account needed to read.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 8 Jun 17 at 13:22
|
|
Good piece, doesn't mention the issues around access to data and end2end encryption etc tho ...
|
What happened when the UK ignored human rights:
m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/16986618
Sickening!
|
>> Sickening!
>>
Maybe to you in your comfortable life, but the nice guys don't win wars at any level.
|
These people weren't even given to our allies but to a Govt. that authorised one of our allies 747 to be blown up over Lockerbie.
It is beyond comprehension!
|
>> What happened when the UK ignored human rights:
>>
>> m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/16986618
>>
>> Sickening!
>>
Yes, sickening that a lawyer misrepresents what Theresa May actually said.
The author, Cori Crider, says:
"But when Theresa May promises to rip up human rights in the name of keeping Britain safe, a chill runs down my spine. ... As a lawyer at Reprieve, I’ve had a front-row view ... "
But then if you read Bromptonaut's post above at Thu 8 Jun 17 13:20
"Another take:
www.facebook.com/JoshuaRozenbergQC/posts/316596332095623"
you find Joshua Rosenberg QC, someone whose opinions I have always highly respected, says:
"Has Theresa May “declared she is prepared to rip up human rights laws to impose new restrictions on terror suspectsâ€, as the Guardian reports today? Clearly not: the prime minister’s comments are much more measured."
[I have added bold above to Cori Cider's and Joshua Rosenberg's quotes]
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Thu 8 Jun 17 at 18:54
|
Rozenberg hangs his weaselling argument on the word "if" in May's statement, saying there might be no need to amend the yuman rights act so it's OK, which seems desperate to me if I read it correctly. So why did she bother to say it then?
May says, in a way that is anything but measured -
“... I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.â€
Rozenberg says
'Clearly, May’s use of the word “if†in that last sentence is crucial. It is by no means clear that human rights laws do prevent parliament from doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects.
If they did, though, it would still be possible for the Human Rights Act 1998 to be amended without breaching the Conservatives’ commitment not to “repeal or replace†it.'
And although he declares an interest, in lining up with May he is also going along with his wife's sentiments.
Zippy quoted Franklin first. "They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
For what it's worth, I'm slightly, but only slightly, less anxious about some of the stuff under the general heading of privacy that I am about detention without trial.
I know I would feel differently if it was one of my family - we all would. If somebody murdered one of mine I'm certain I would be in favour of prolonged torture and the death penalty. That's why we have laws, made at a remove from personal tragedy.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 8 Jun 17 at 20:32
|
|
Top post from Manatee who, following his commemts on election and on last year's referendum, I'd like to nominate as C4P's political correspondent
|
|
You might be on your own there Bromp:)
|
>> Top post from Manatee who, following his commemts on election and on last year's referendum,
>> I'd like to nominate as C4P's political correspondent
>>
I'll have to to be political editor then I guess ;-)
|
Corbyn gets coaching on his pacifist views - BrianByPass
