Feudal
We should always remind ourselves that the power of a nation state to decide who we are and where we should be is just a hangover from the feudal rights of Lords over serfs. Never let them assume that it's 'normal'.
1172 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
>The potential impact on the people documented in those papers was surely very obvious. It was the wrong choice and it was clear to anyone that it was the wrong choice but they did it anyway.
Quite apart from the damage to those involved, this was also a crime against history. The loss of these historic documents will be mourned for centuries.
>Surely it would have just led to the earlier expulsion of lots of people?
Quite so. The issue with the Windrush victims was that they couldn't prove their elegibility, because (like the rest of us) they'd never had to do so before (and because the HO trashed the docs that might have done the job).
With an ID scheme, they'd have failed the test and been dragged off to detention.
>Email-gate would have been over in 3 seconds if she would have just stood up and said, "Yeah, that was a bad decision by me."
No it wouldn't. Whitewater, Benghazi, 'But Her Emails' proved that the right wing wanted her scalp, and didn't care what institutions they trashed in the process. They wanted her scalp, long before she was even a candidate.
There's no question that Hilary would have made a better Pres than Trump. Anyone would have been better. Hillary actually had policies. She was (is) a policy wonk. And those policies were (are) mainstream. Present them, one by one, to the American people and they'd say 'Sure. That's obviously right'.
Of course, the USA ought to be able to come up with a better choice than Trump/Clinton - but, if it can't, then Clinton was a better choice.
>Way to utterly miss my point.
If only you had a point.
If you get nicked for speeding, the fine goes into general funds. It doesn't get split up between all the pedestrians you frightened, as you whizzed passed.
If a corp gets fines for monopoly offences, the fine goes into general funds, just the same.
> Remainers effectively voted pro-Globalisation and the abuse of minimum-wage labour at home and abroad - who would have thought?
Remainers voted to stay within an organisation with the clout to resist the worst effects of globalisation, and one that avoided the tendency to shift employment to the cheapest location.
>They were destroyed by the unions
Bollocks. They were ousted by the electorate, as the incompetents they were.
To quote the Private Eye cover of the time:
Ted Heath: Who governs Britain?
Electorate: Not you, matey!
>things got even worse
More bollocks. Healey took the hit for Barber's incompetence, and the Tory press clearly did a good job bamboozling you, but there's no way that Labour made things worse.
>I really hope they can't be arsed to get started up again if "no deal" brings a return to a hard border and a breach to the agreement.
We can hope. But the GFA didn't remove all the arseholes from the territory. And isolated customs posts are such a juicy target...
>Because we know the the alternative of Labour would let the unions destroy the economy like they did in the early 70s?
A fine attempt at historical comment. Except that the Tories were in power in the early 70s (Ted Heath & Tony Barber - he of the inflation-fuelling 'Barber Boom').
>They don't just google to find some revisionist's version of history, but remember it because they lived it.
Yes - I remember the basket case that was the UK in the 70s. I remember the first referendum (I voted 'No'). I remember how our pols fought tooth and nail to broaden the EU's vision, to include the service we had come to rely on. I remember every time some grandstanding pol blamed the EU for his own party's failings. I remember how the ECHR & ECJ gave us rights and protections our own parliament and courts wouldn't.
And, yes, I will remember the treachery of those who lied their way into a narrow 'Leave' vote (which did not contain any comments on CU, SM, EEA or EFTA).
Yes. We remember.
>1/ Hard Brexit: Civil unrest as food and gas become scarce
>You really haven't a clue how world trade and WTO rules work, do you? Why on earth should any of that happen?
You really haven't a clue how trade works, do you? Given a 'No deal' exit, there would no trading terms available - for anything. No mechanism for resolving disputes, no customs-clearing offices, no nothing.
The WTO isn't going to deliver any of that - not for months, maybe years (and it will be our self-destructive government which has to do that work).
No society is further than three meals away from revolution. Assuming that everything will just work itself out is one of the most dangerous responses possible.
>once that becomes self aware its only a matter of security barriers , firewalls , passwords , etc etc to stop it Launching the missiles.
Without an inadequate penis, it won't have any reason to launch anything. Unless we actually program male stupidity into it, we're probably safer with AI than with humans.
>the grey-generation
I resemble that remark.
I have a memory of a phone call, from my brother in Australia (circa 1960) with the UK family huddled round a single, bakelite phone (we had an extension, but using it lowered the volume too much). Conversation was difficult, since the delay was immense and there was lots of noisy interference.
And it cost a bloody fortune.
>Make heroin available on prescription and you'll kill off the illegal trade for a start, plus the addicts will have a clean supply (vital if injecting..... blergh) plus be known and will have access to councelling/treatment to get them off the stuff in the first place.
What many have forgotten (if they ever knew) - this was the case in the UK, prior to 1968(-ish). The 'British Method' gave free heroin to registered addicts. It worked. We don't know exactly how many registered addicts there were, but it was in the hundreds (as opposed to the tens of thousands existing today). There was very little drug-related crime (occasionally, a pad of prescriptions was stolen - that's about all). There were very few drug-related deaths - since most current deaths come from overdoses - the illegal doses being unreliable.
The British Method was revived in an 'experiment' in Lancashire, run by a Dr. Knox. Again, crime rates fell during this (11 year) experiment) and none of Knox's patients died - until the experiment was stopped. Two of his patients died during the subsequent year.
Over the decades, the drug laws have killed a lot more people than the drugs have.
>Hillary Clinton was I the limelight for decades, you can bet that countless hours of research went into finding any possible dirt on her in the run-up to the elections
Not just in the run-up to the elections. Kenneth Starr spent $40M and lots of time and energy, investigating HC's involvement in Whitewater - and found absolutely nothing (the blue dress was an accidental bonus. The GOP had it in for Hillary, far more than for Bill.)
>So everyone else is to blame except those who wrote those e-mails, used the public channels for it and were basically caught off guard.
It's really very simple. If an American politician conspired with a foreign power to subvert an election, that is treason (or some variety thereof). Blaming the victim is never a defence.
>Oh. And don't forget PFI.
First implemented under the Major govt.
I'll warrant you have a hospital/school/clinic/pool/community centre, within easy reach of your gaff - which wouldn't exist but for PFI. Some PFI deals were badly negotiated, by inexperienced managers. That doesn't make PFI a bad idea.
>Then it cannot possibly survive.
What can? The NHS is the cheapest possible health system. Any other would cost more - just in administration. And that's before you start treating people.
Those who attack the NHS must imagine that they will always be able to afford any health costs that might hit them, as they begin to fall apart, with age.
>are actually AGREEING with the current spending plans of the shower of piss that pass for a government,
I despise Theresa May and all her works, but, yes, I would rather she made these decisions than you.
Our Foreign Aid amounts to 0.7% of our GDP. For a rich country like ours, that's just decent behaviour.
I'm not a fan of HS2 (I'd rather it was significantly faster), but rail capacity is sorely needed.
I'm not a fan of Heathrow's interminable blackmail - but that's not govt money (Heathrow will soak the passengers, not govt).
F35? Well, can't argue with you on that.
>The ball is in their court no matter how much we may want to get on with actual negotiation.
When will Brexiteers cotton on? The UK is leaving EU - not the other way round. This ballsup is entirely in our court. Lies about "The EU have said they wont negotiate" won't convince anyone.
> I can guarantee they will go through every part of it
You can't guarantee any such thing. Defence solicitors are on tight budgets. They can't invest much time or money in any one case - just on the off-chance there'll be something useful.
The Crown is bringing the prosecution. The Crown wants to lock someone up. It is the Crown's responsibility to investigate both sides of the case.