You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
To be fair Gengis Khan did embrace diversity so you don't really need to be to his left to disapprove of Suella Braverman.
left to fend for themselves somewhere in the community
We're all fending for ourselves somewhere in the community. It's called life.
Genghis Khan was sometimes a very naughty boy but he did have some redeeming qualities of which the diversity ernie mentions is just one.
By contrast braverman has no redeeming features - not one.
Khan successfully united multiple warring Mongolian tribes; the empire he established was meritocratic; his army was flexible, organised and disciplined; he established principles of eurasian trade - thanks Wiki.
Looking at those achievements, today's party leaders could learn a lot.
This is where the fruitloop section of the Tory party and Braverman, their de facto leader, are now
They seriously want their manifesto for the next election to contain a pledge to join those bastions of freedom, Russia and Belarus, in leaving the ECHR, describing it as ‘a threat to our democracy’. No, the threat to our democracy is you, you mad bastards! They are absolutely insane, the lot of them!
https://twitter.com/marinapurkiss/status/1689653062665953280?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
I suspect quite a few of those who want to send the refugees to Rwanda will look at those two examples and think its even more of a reason to get rid of the ECHR.
This did amuse me, from todays Observer:
We risk being seen as the ‘nasty party’ again, warn senior Conservatives
What, really? Do you reckon?
I think that ship sailed quite some time ago
They seriously want their manifesto for the next election to contain a pledge to join those bastions of freedom, Russia and Belarus, in leaving the ECHR, describing it as ‘a threat to our democracy’.
I wonder how many of the hard-right actually support the Russian invasion in private? Wouldn't be surprised if it's a sizeable proportion.
Actually putting it in their manifesto for the next general election which they are certain to lose isn't a bad strategy at all, there's nothing mad about it imo.
Firstly because they won't win the next general election they won't have to worry about implementing it.
Secondly the debate that it will undoubtedly trigger during the general election campaign will be a very useful distraction from their all failings.
And thirdly it will appeal to their core voters, which they need to motivate to vote on election day if they are to avoid electoral Armageddon.
Given a choice of whether or not to include leaving the ECHR in their election manifesto including it is probably the wisest choice for the Tories.
Much is made of how necessary it is for Labour politicians to adopt policies which they don't necessarily support because allegedly they need to satisfy voters, there is no reason why it should be different for the Tories.
Welcome to conviction/principle-free UK politics 2023
I wonder how many of the hard-right actually support the Russian invasion in private? Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a sizeable proportion.
The spectacle of extreme nationalists making common cause across national boundaries should be an amusing contradiction in terms.
But it also points to the fact that being a nasty piece of work transcends nationality.
Everyone to the left of Ghengis Khan thinks she’s inhumane and totally incompetent and now everyone to the right of Ghengis Khan (the Tory party MPs and membership) thinks she’s not inhumane enough, but still totally incompetent
I think she's been very competent.
She's managed to funnel £1.6bn to another Tory donor for a non-functional product. She's managed to completely dehumanise asylum seekers for the Daily Wail brigade.
I'm sure that "fixing" the non-functional product will involve many more millions gifted to more Tories/Tory donors who miraculously have such solutions available at the right price.
She's probably got herself a couple of nicely paid "consultancy" roles lined up as a result of all that profligate spending.
That's the very definition of "competent" in Tory speak.
They seriously want their manifesto for the next election to contain a pledge to join those bastions of freedom, Russia and Belarus, in leaving the ECHR, describing it as ‘a threat to our democracy’. No, the threat to our democracy is you, you mad bastards! They are absolutely insane, the lot of them!
Which should be Starmers response at every opportunity, every single time.
The spectacle of extreme nationalists making common cause across national boundaries should be an amusing contradiction in terms.
You might want to read up on the 1930s and see where it left us.....
You might want to read up on the 1930s and see where it left us…..
Well, obviously. I was being obtuse for comic effect.
And FWIW in the 1930s British fascists gave it a good go, but thankfully the average Brit ridiculed Moseley and his preening, posturing nitwits. 90 years on, it would appear that we have gone backwards in some regards.
binners
Full MemberThis did amuse me, from todays Observer:
We risk being seen as the ‘nasty party’ again, warn senior Conservatives
"We've invested a lot of effort in being seen as the "evil lunatics party", but we risk being seen as merely nasty", I guess?
Well, obviously. I was being obtuse for comic effect.
Apologies, my error.
Brit ridiculed Moseley and his preening, posturing nitwits. 90 years on, it would appear that we have gone backwards in some regards.
That's debatable imo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_a_Nation
You’re replying to a comment on the 1930s, and the British mostly working class resistance and rejection of fascism, with reference to the later mostly ignored post war rantings of Moseley and his attempts to relaunch his political career by jumping on any fresh movement that might work for him. Why?
Never mind Gengis Khan, here's someone who can make Suella Braverman appear almost liberal, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki :
He doesn't want Poland to become like Western Europe.
She’s managed to funnel £1.6bn to another Tory donor for a non-functional product.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/barge-australia-asylum-contract-travel-b2354578.html
“The contract was awarded directly to CTM without competition”
He doesn’t want Poland to become like Western Europe.
His party has been stoking up anti-immigrant anti-EU sentiment for its own ends for a while now. A referendum is the obvious next step.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/target-tory-lefty-lawyer-dossier-frightened-walk-home/
"[Labour leader Keir] Starmer has been keen to distance himself from previous remarks and convince voters that he can be trusted on immigration.
“But his decision to hire lefty lawyer Jacqueline McKenzie is further proof that ‘Sir Softie’ can’t be trusted.”
Has anyone actually seen or heard from Cruella recently?
She’s not been sighted for months. She only does photo ops in Rwanda, interviews with the Torygraph and speeches to headbanging right wing thinktanks
She always sends her minions out to answer questions, particularly if it’s Yvette Cooper who’s going to be tearing her a new one. You’d think ‘Honest Bob’ Jenrick would be sick of being her human shield by now, but he’s clearly a man with lots of ambition and no self-respect
Has anyone actually seen or heard from Cruella recently?
I haven't seen her personally but I did see this tweet:
My thoughts and prayers are with those affected by the tragic loss of life in the Channel today.
That was 3 days ago.
She’s all heart
Nothing expresses concern more than thoughts and prayers, as any gun-toting American Republic can tell you
Turning up for your day job and actually doing something to try and stop people actually dying? Not so much, clearly
Let’s just stick with the thoughts and prayers eh?
The latest Home Office figures are in and the backlog for dealing with asylum seekers claims has doubled in the last 12 months and now stands at 175,000
I wonder if Cruella will have anything to say about that? Maybe she'll pop up and propose firing them all into the sun?
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1694645670550864016?s=20
The increase in the backlog is now double the amount of people coming over on small boats, if I read it correctly.
Still, focus on those boats!
Still, focus on those boats!
They feel they have to, it's what Farage was doing... can't risk losing Tory supporters to his latest grift... they have few to spare.
Another potential triumph for Braverman's Home Office...
https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1694009058452181494
It’s worse, remove your ECHR rights and make sure the security services can spy on you at all times.
Got rid of your right to protest so may as well go the whole hog.
‘2024’ without the eurythmics soundtrack.
She's the very definition of a "Useful Idiot" isn't she?
Promoted because Dominic Cummings needed someone who was legally qualified, but still dim enough to break the law, to become attorney general.
She’s one of those dangerous people who’s so spectacularly dim, she can’t see how dim she actually is.
She has the vaguest inkling of it, which is why she always swerves Parliament and sends her little minion ‘Honest Bob’ instead.
She knows that not only is Yvette Cooper about a hundred times cleverer than her, Yvette Coopers shoes are probably more intelligent than her too
On the rare occasions she does show up, she sits there with a fixed scowl as she’s absolutely eviscerated by her opposition number, yet doesn’t seem to register that this is happening because maybe she’s a bit thick?
It's just staggering that a group of supposedly intelligent people could come up with a proposed regulation without thinking of the impact on the technology sector/market and UK consumers.
Imagine believing that a global firm would be prepared to seek approval from Home Office bureaucrats to patch an urgent security vulnerability, or even worse, would be prepared/able to leave it unpatched for UK consumers only.
Obviously Suella will just sign whatever is put in front of her, because she's a bit dim.
I know three people who've worked directly with cabinet level ministers in this government. Privately my acquaintances all say that the ministers they've worked with are all a bit dim, but believe their own hype.
Imagine believing that a global firm would be prepared to seek approval from Home Office bureaucrats to patch an urgent security vulnerability, or even worse, would be prepared/able to leave it unpatched for UK consumers only.
The thing is that they’ve been proposing this for a while and all the big tech firms have told them absolutely unequivocally, in small words any imbecile could understand, that they won’t be playing ball with that, and yet they’re still going ahead with it anyway
It seems like the re-emergence of the ‘they need us more than we need them’ philosophy so beloved of this gang of half-wits, with much the same result this time too
It's the ultimate expression of the delusion that our 'exceptionalism' means the rest of the world can somehow be bent to our will. Unfortunately it just ends up with a choice between complete insularity or admitting that you made a mistake, which this government is fundamentally unable to do.
'Taking back control' of global communications technology is proper King Canute thinking.
I think that the unpatched vulnerabilities thing is laying a trap for Labour.
Labour comes in, reverses it for perfectly good reasons, there's an attack, Suella and all the Tory press are crowing about how Labour let them do it.
I really don't think she has the capacity for that level of forward planning.
This is more like the security services (who don't want the inconvenience of having their backdoors patched) telling the Home Office to jump, and the Home Office enquiring 'how high?'
It’s just more pie-in-the-sky nonsense from people who’ve never had a proper job in their lives and have no concept of how the real world functions
And like all their ridiculous proposals it won’t survive first contact with reality
How do they think you can operate an economy when the platforms on which all business is done decide that dealing with you is more trouble than it’s worth?
This will go the same way as the new ‘British Standard’ for products. Millions spent on it, then quietly shelved
This is more like the security services (who don’t want the inconvenience of having their backdoors patched) telling the Home Office to jump, and the Home Office enquiring ‘how high?’
I remember an interview with Ken Clarke when he was saying that when he was Home Secretary any time anything happened, the police and security services would turn up at his door demanding additional, draconian new powers.
He’d listen to their daft proposals, nod in all the right places, tell them he’d look into it, then ignore them until next time they came back to repeat the exercise
Clearly Cruella hasn’t got the brains for that
It would destroy british businesses, some of our contracts have monthly patching schedules server side, Urgent patches are deployed on an ASAP basis, maybe in with less than 48hrs notice.. The whole thing is a smooth, well oiled BAU process, it has to be due to the frequency of these acivities.
Imagine trying to get the home office to sign off all that? What would be the process and acceptance ctitereia for that?
It's almost as if they have no idea what they are talking about.
More on the prison hulk. FBU have started legal processes as has the local mayor
He’d listen to their daft proposals, nod in all the right places, tell them he’d look into it, then ignore them until next time they came back to repeat the exercise
It's like the current lot have never even watched 'Yes, Minister'.
They’ve clearly never watched The Thick Of It either, as we appear to have been living in a 13 year long episode of it
Cruella has just been on the news with her exciting new initiative to get the police investigating ‘low level’ crimes
The example she gave was that if there is a smell of cannabis then the police should be investigating
I don’t know what it’s like where you are, but Greater Manchester Police won’t have time for anything else 😂
We are living in one long episode of The Thick Of It, aren’t we?
Quick stone cold contempt of court for our resident 'How the Hell did she become a KC?'.
https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1705854919171768585
dozens of armed officers handed in their weapons following the decision to charge one of their colleagues with murder....
Well that's a relief..... if they believe that police officers should be permitted to kill people with impunity then they are the last people that should be allowed to carry guns.
I hope that the "dozens" involved are never allowed access to firearms again.
Nothing to see here.
Quick stone cold contempt of court for our resident ‘How the Hell did she become a KC?’.
she automatically became KC when appointed attorney general by Boris, not for her legal competence.
Well that’s a relief….. if they believe that police officers should be permitted to kill people with impunity then they are the last people that should be allowed to carry guns.
I hope that the “dozens” involved are never allowed access to firearms again.
My feelings too.
Well that’s a relief….. if they believe that police officers should be permitted to kill people with impunity then they are the last people that should be allowed to carry guns.
I hope that the “dozens” involved are never allowed access to firearms again.
Nice - you've judged some people you know nothing about with no evidence to back up your POV on their reaction to an incident you know the square root of SFA about. Quality.
no evidence to back up your POV
Well unless the news reporting is false they have "handed in their weapons following the decision to charge one of their colleagues with murder".
There is my evidence for my point of view.
You are absolutely right that I know nothing about the incident in question but I do know that there is apparently sufficient evidence for a murder charge.
Are you suggesting that police officers should have no confidence in the legal process?
There is my evidence for my point of view.
That's not evidence - not even close.
You are absolutely right that I know nothing about the incident in question but I do know that there is apparently sufficient evidence for a murder charge.
Yes you do - but that's all you know. But it's not enough to judge anyone's guilt on or the competence of others.
(apologies for the edit. I needed to read again what you said - misunderstood it initially.)
But it’s not enough to judge anyone’s guilt on or the competence of others.
No it isn't, the courts will decide that.
So what is the problem.....why are they handing in their weapons?
There has to be sufficient evidence for a conviction. If the evidence isn't there he won't be convicted.
Edit: What genuinely surprises me is that he hasn't been charged with manslaughter. Presumably it is felt that there is sufficient evidence to suggest deliberate action? Whatever the evidence I expect the courts to decide.
..why are they handing in their weapons?
Maybe it’s a reality check to a lot of them that the possible consequences of carrying a firearm in stressful dynamic situations aren’t worth the minimal extra money. Who knows there’s little in depth reporting from the practitioner p.o.v
How is it a reality check? Has it not always been the case that killing someone has to justified for it to be lawful?
How is it a reality check?
Because CPS believe something has gone very wrong on a fairly routine deployment and that is going to reinforce to armed officers the risks involved in taking part in such deployments - the thin margins between safety and fubar’ed, I.e a reality check. Really wasn’t that hard to work that one out unless one’s being deliberately obtuse.
Really wasn’t that hard to work that one out unless one’s being deliberately obtuse.
And we're off...
What genuinely surprises me is that he hasn’t been charged with manslaughter. Presumably it is felt that there is sufficient evidence to suggest deliberate action? Whatever the evidence I expect the courts to decide.
Indeed. This is probably why the strong reaction - murder requires intent & there is, I believe, a case to be made for the lawful killing of someone if they present an imminent & serious threat to the officer or their colleagues or the general public (don't quote me on it!). There's so much going on here that to draw any conclusion is rather futile at this stage. Remember it's taken over a year to get to this point & I, like you, hope for the correct outcome. If this officer has committed murder then justice must be done.
This is worth a read for previous judgements on lawful killings.
... I think the point of the original post was about how the Home Secretary shouldn't be commenting on a live criminal prosecution as it is likely to prejudice the case and as a minimum make it more difficult for the case to proceed. The discussion above is already indication of how sensitive an issue this is going to be without the Home Secretary wading in. In particular her second tweet in the thread is problematic, and announcing a review before the trial is just plain wrong
It’s just meaningless noise from Suella, she can’t change the criminal justice system, the burden of proof, or introduce waivers for armed officers (although they seemed to manage to introduce back-dated ones in the north of Ireland) and everyone in law enforcement knows she can’t - more so as they seem to be in the last phase of their rule. Headlines for the mail and telegraph readers.
Quite right to call out the Home Secretary for jumping into an ongoing case - knee jerk reactions rarely produce good results.
Whether (s)he's convicted or not, impartial justice needs to be done. Something very unusual has happened for this to be a murder charge. No one has any knowledge of the circumstances at this time.
We expect armed officers to keep us safe by making split second judgements, and if we as a society want them to carry on doing that, we have to find an appropriate way of dealing with a situation when they make a genuine but fatal error.
If we can't find a way to do that, we have to be prepared for a Police officer to be unable to stop someone killing us, or our family or friends because they don’t want that responsibility.
The chances of that are incredibly small, but it is the ultimate whataboutery test of what we want to happen.
murder requires intent & there is, I believe, a case to be made for the lawful killing of someone if they present an imminent & serious threat to the officer or their colleagues or the general public
This unfortunately is the get out of jail free card. It is very easy to claim they believed so and so was about to do such and such and they don't need to be able to prove or show that.
.
In a situation for example of someone breaking into your house late and night and you stab them to death with a big butchers knife, you are probably and more likely going to jail. And the 'I believed' defence is going to be no defence at all.
We expect armed officers to keep us safe by making split second judgements,
Absolutely. But define split second in this case. He was shot through a windscreen. How(Speaking rhetorically) are you expected to see exactly what is going on inside a car through the windscreen. The glass itself is reflective, so you arent getting a clear picture.
I think this officer brought the gun to bear, and accidentally popped off a round. As there was no warning as you would expect and the law would demand.
So its one of two scenarios. Accidentally, or deliberate. He brought his gun up and I would hope accidentally pulled the trigger, as I don't want to believe the armed response team as akin to the death squads of South American dictatorships.
This unfortunately is the get out of jail free card. It is very easy to claim they believed so and so was about to do such and such and they don’t need to be able to prove or show that.
.
In a situation for example of someone breaking into your house late and night and you stab them to death with a big butchers knife, you are probably and more likely going to jail. And the ‘I believed’ defence is going to be no defence at all.
that’s not how the law works for either police officers or people in their own homes using force to defend themselves or others. There is a burden of proof, to show it was reasonable in the circumstances - that burden is lower than that required for the prosecution (who must show their facts beyond reasonable doubt). It will be for a jury to decide having heard all the evidence.
In a situation for example of someone breaking into your house late and night and you stab them to death with a big butchers knife, you are probably and more likely going to jail.
Absolutely wrong - quite a notorious case a few years back where a pensioner stabbed a burglar and wasn’t charged. Tony Martin was only charged and convicted because the burglars were running away when he killed one.
You have the right to defend yourself if you, at that time, had reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger, and you use a level of force that you, at that moment, believed was reasonable, even if it was fatal. It's the self defence defence.
Anyway, the people who get the best details of the actual facts of the case to make a judgement are the jury, and those in court throughout the trial. All the rest of us are second guessing and wasting time
Well that’s a relief….. if they believe that police officers should be permitted to kill people with impunity then they are the last people that should be allowed to carry guns.
I hope that the “dozens” involved are never allowed access to firearms again.
Nice – you’ve judged some people you know nothing about with no evidence to back up your POV on their reaction to an incident you know the square root of SFA about. Quality.
Armed police officers literally have the ability to take a life lawfully. Throwing a fit of the vapours because there is sufficient evidence for a murder charge and acting in a precipitative manner is not something that engenders confidence in their "split second" decision making abilities. Due process still has to be undertaken and at that point a decision on whether to continue as armed response would have been more reasonable.
Carte blanche is not offered to armed officers though this is what those that have acted hastily seem to believe they should have. Some officers don't realise that they can be wrong on some issues and how they resolve their interactions with the rest of us citizens. Some humility and introspection would be a good idea.
Then let us hope it actually goes to court where a jury can decide.
To be fair there are apparently over 6 thousand firearms authorized officers in England and Wales, it is claimed that about a 100 have handed in their weapons, so they are only a small minority.
And imo they have done the right thing if they have issues with accountability and the heavy responsibility which comes with the authority to use deadly weapons.
I think we just need to wait to see the exact circumstances..
The vehicle was allegedly involved in a firearms offence, so was presumably stopped and the occupant(s) refused to get out...you'd struggle to headshot someone in a moving vehicle with only one round, and it wouldn't be a crazy leap to assume the occupant or occupants are armed and dangerous.
EDIT,
From the other side of the coin, for a murder charge...rather than manslaughter or something 'else', it does suggest there is strong evidence of some big wrong doing, refusal to follow protocol etc...
Time will tell I guess, presumably all armed oficers have body cams and there will be radio evidence etc.
Not just appealing to right wing nutjobs in the UK, now she's gone international!
Post-Brexit she must have really have had to think to come up with a way to make this country even more of an international pariah.
She's managed it well though
As there was no warning as you would expect and the law would demand.
"Unless to do so would further endanger life".
There are even exceptions to your 'rule'. Please stop with your Google Fu.
And you do not know if another officer had already identified themselves or had issued verbal commands.
I'm sure it will all come out in time. But as so many are fixed in their opinion the whataboutery will no doubt be staggering as is the STW way.
to come up with a way to make this country even more of an international pariah.
Really? I would have thought that Braverman's claims that what constitutes a refugee should be redefined will chime extremely well with many current European governments.
I actually expect her to get quite a bit of international support for her stance. I can see countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Italy, cheering her on.
She's expanding her remit then?
Previously, with her proposal to pull out of the ECHR, we were only aligning ourselves with Russia and Belarus, so its nice to see we're now including other nutjob regimes
They truly are the party of aspiration
Whilst I hate this woman with every bone in my body, I console myself with the fact she’ll soon be out of government and spouting her hate on GB news to an audience of about 50 irrelevant old coffin dodgers..
Its worth reminding ourselves, because its easy with her deluge of increasingly extreme nonsense to forget, that by her own proposed rules her parents would have been classed as economic migrants and sent to Rwanda after 2 years sat on a barge waiting for their claims to be processed.
It always amazes me that journalists don't remind her of this at every possible opportunity
her own proposed rules her parents would have been classed as economic migrants and sent to Rwanda
There are no plans to send economic migrants to Rwanda. Braverman is attempting to send refugees who successfully qualify as asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The right-wing press likes to maintain that that asylum seekers are mostly economic migrants but only to undermine their status and increase public hostility towards them.
But Cruella's parents were economic migrants, not refugees. So whichever way she wants to slice it, by her own rules, they'd have been booted out of the country long before she arrived
They're just having a 'debate' on Five Live about it. Lots of people phoning in and starting their statements with "I'm not a racist, but....."
You can guess the rest
These people are exactly who this is designed to appeal to and unfortunately there are a depressingly large amount of them