You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Odd that Tories are so opposed to paying for public housing in the UK but so keen to pay for it in Rwanda.
Did Suella have time to pop in on PM Kagame and ask him how his militia's war in the Democratic Republic of Congo is going? 800,000 people have fled their homes since last March, but that's probably not relevant to anything else that's happening in the world...
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/mar/14/trail-of-war-crimes-left-by-drc-rebel-group-as-recent-attacks-leave-300000-displaced
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/06/dr-congo-atrocities-rwanda-backed-m23-rebels
Well this is definitely a caption competition…
Am I the only one that thinks she looks like Wallace?
In this picture from the Mirror she looks like a Pygmy Tarsier
Suella looks like a Pygmy Tarsier from Indonesia
https://twitter.com/natgeo/status/1180096587646803968?s=46&t=qvPR6lBfBXtAWZ-6beFWyA
She’s going to regret that pose,
https://twitter.com/thumbsuk/status/1637427965964300288?s=61&t=27Xz8oI3pGlaNEQvowJBcg
I came to post that picture, it's going to run for years that one.
She looks like one of my Trolls.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/SKDX1Tvz/20230319-182933.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/SKDX1Tvz/20230319-182933.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
She’s going to regret that pose
This is my favourite so far
https://twitter.com/mrnathannelson/status/1637421219124224000?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
Too much?
[URL= https://images2.imgbox.com/3d/7c/8jVIWuaN_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://images2.imgbox.com/3d/7c/8jVIWuaN_o.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Too much? Yes IMO.
That pose reminds me of this
She needs a custom belt buckle to really let her personality shine through.
tjagain
Full Member
Too much? Yes IMO.
I'm going to wait and see what Gary Lineker thinks.
She needs a custom belt buckle to really let her personality shine through.
[url= https://i.ibb.co/fHxWBBR/Frka-So-CXw-AEmbbk.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/fHxWBBR/Frka-So-CXw-AEmbbk.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
This is better.
[url= https://i.ibb.co/0nJXykw/skynews-manston-migrants-centre-5957527.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/0nJXykw/skynews-manston-migrants-centre-5957527.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-sue-suella-braverman-asylum-b2303833.html
"After being informed she would be blamed for the overcrowding problem, Ms Patel phoned cabinet secretary Simon Case and said if claims weren’t retracted she would start legal action for defamation, according to the Mail on Sunday."
Oh dear.
Well played
I'm pretty sure she doesn't cast
a shadow you know.
mattyfez & tj - no, not too much.
It starts with the words and then progresses from there.
Maybe and I have said in the past these Tories are veering towards facism but I find it hard to see humour in the holocaust. Its just my opinion. giving her an SS badge fair enough
Humour isn't always about laugh out loud funny. Sometimes it's just the best tool for holding a mirror up to society.
What mattyfez posted didn't get me roflmao. My response was more, "ha, yeah, Erm worrying bit of foreshadowing actually."
Not hilarious but I really useful point to make that hasn't diminished my perception of the horror of the Holocaust or it's perpetrators.
It does serve to highlight just how easily society could be lead down that path again.
Surely the single most offensive thing anyone could do to the memory of those who suffered directly and indirectly is to let it happen again.
I agree. Its just something about using the holocaust in this way seems distasteful to me but the use of other images of human suffering does not? Is the holocaust a special case?
I'm conflicted about it. I guess because of the huge emotional impact actually vising Auschwitz had on me.
It's 9ne of, if not the, most 3xtrem3 events of the last 100 years. I get why there's a mixed bag of responses and why some would rather it remain a personal contemplation issue.
Obviously, I'm in the camp that thinks it should remain in the public consciousness but having said that, I'd hate for it to be over used and normalised.
Its just something about using the holocaust in this way seems distasteful to me but the use of other images of human suffering does not? Is the holocaust a special case?
I'm more worried that a sense of solemnity coupled with notions of politeness stops people drawing such parallels when they present themselves.
Is it 'funny'? Probably not, but is it apt? Unfortunately it is.
There's a visible kernel of fascist ideology in the Tory party, the more it goes unchallenged or ignored the bolder they become and the more they push their narratives...
I'm looking forward to this week's crop of 'Suella laughs at...' memes...
Funny peculiar rather than funny ha-ha.
Humour isn’t always about laugh out loud funny.
So in what non-laughing out loud way is posting a picture of Auschwitz funny?
And if you think the Rwanda policy is comparable to the mass murder of 1.1 million people at Auschwitz how do you explain that it looks possible the European Court of Human Rights might be lifting its ban on the deportation flights?
Mr lynch ,the way I see this playing out is this…
Prisons are expensive, so why not ship our prisoners out to Rwanda? To keep them from being home sick they can earn their keep in farms or factories.
This will be such a success that the cops will be instructed to find as many slaves to keep mr moggs factories profitable. All this far from the view of human rights .
A very slippery slope . The tories are born to hate. That includes you, me and anyone who doesn’t play golf.
The perpetrators of this need to be shown for what they are..fascist scum.
Prisons are expensive, so why not ship our prisoners out to Rwanda?
What are you talking about? If it happens the people that will be sent to Rwanda would not otherwise be in prison.
And the Rwanda policy has absolutely nothing to do with saving money. It is in fact be ridiculously, and unjustifiably, expensive.
You can't just make stuff up to suit your narrative.
Well I guess you can, but it won't help to win people over when it is obviously nonsense.
To keep them from being home sick they can earn their keep in farms or factories.
I've been to Rwanda, spent 3 weeks working on a project on Lake Kivu.
The people are very friendly and it felt quite safe, not like some other African countries.
However it is absolutely poverty stricken, the vast majority have absolutely nothing. They scratch a living out of very poor land.
The idea that refugees would be able to "earn their keep" is ludicrous. Their is no real industry and the farming is mostly subsidence.
What I'm about to ask may sound factitious but it's not meant that way, I don't know the answer and I'm genuinely interested.
Given that the holocaust was avoidable, with the benefit of hindsight, who should have done what, when and in response to what, when and who for the most effective and efficient avoidance of what happened?
I know Hollywood has had an idea or two but if there was a properly researched documentary, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
I read somewhere, some years ago now, that towards the end of WW2 the Allies knew exactly where the camps were and which railways were being used to ship prisoners into them. They considered the situation and made a decision not to bomb the railway lines or the ovens at the camps. I don't know what the basis was for the decision they chose, but it was certainly decided.
Avoidable? I do not see how.. German regime was in full control of the country. Who could have stopped it?
I know Hollywood has had an idea or two but if there was a properly researched documentary, I’d be very interested in seeing it
Ken Burns has done a multi part documentary about America's reaction to the persecution of the Jews of Germany, in the 1930's and it makes for uncomfortable viewing. Essentially he claims that the State Dept. did all they could to reduce and block immigration of Jewish refugees and the case is pretty strong.
They considered the situation and made a decision not to bomb the railway lines or the ovens at the camps. I don’t know what the basis was for the decision they chose, but it was certainly decided.
The railways probably could have been targeted, but there wasn’t the technology to land bombs just on the ovens back then. You’d have to sign up to wiping out a good number of inmates too as you carpet bombed the area
Yeah the allies had no real capability to do "precision bombing" there were plans I think, to both to try to destroy them (heavy bombing) and try to some sort of raid to open them up to allow mass escapes (mosquitos) but both rejected as unworkable. It was thought the best way to liberate them was to concentrate the effort on defeating the Nazis militarily.
The railways probably could have been targeted, but there wasn’t the technology to land bombs just on the ovens back then. You’d have to sign up to wiping out a good number of inmates too as you carpet bombed the area
Yes and no.
The RAF had the capability of precision bombing of a sort, Operation Jericho was successful but still killed a significant number of Frenchmen. However, the French resistance were waiting to help anyone who escaped.
Operation Carthage was successful but the collateral damage was terrible.
What would bombing the ovens achieve?
If they blew the wire where would the prisoners go?
It also a matter of capacity and where you could inflict the most damage to German war economy, which would bring an end to the war sooner and save lives that way.
Avoidable? I do not see how.. German regime was in full control of the country. Who could have stopped it?
It was the culmination of a series of events, it didn't suddenly just happen. My question is, could that chain have been broken at one of the earlier weaker links.
Ultimately, the point being, how much of the current rhetoric and direction do "we" accept before it gathers so much momentum that we can't stop it (or has it already)?
It was the culmination of a series of events, it didn’t suddenly just happen. My question is, could that chain have been broken at one of the earlier weaker links.
In my opinion, it was when Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor, thinking he could control him. If that had not happened then the 1930s could of been very different.
Ultimately, the point being, how much of the current rhetoric and direction do “we” accept before it gathers so much momentum that we can’t stop it (or has it already)?
We are nowhere near where Germany was in the 1930's.
As for stopping it, the next GE should see the end of these fu£!ers for a long time.
Probably the place to break the chain starts in 1918 and the WW1 armistice? It was heavily punitive and lead to all sorts of issues in Germany like the hyperinflation and a sense of grievance which all gave rise to the conditions that allowed hitler to rise
My history knowledge is very poor tho
lol @ the idea that e.g. a ER surgeon escaping repression in Iran for having treated women’s rights protestors for police-inflicted injuries will feel “less homesick” if they’re sent to work on a farm in Rwanda
I'm not talking about refugees I'm drawing a parallel between sending UK prisoners to Australia in the 19th century.
In the U.S the prisoners make combat equipment. I'm sure the Tory billionaires would love some factories with no pesky health and safety and a never ending supply of free labour.
The scum press can easily switch their hatred of refugees to that of UK prisoners living it up in their "5 star cells" .
Curing "homesickness" is the modern equivalent of "work sets you free".
We must watch for slippery slopes everywhere we can.
Probably the place to break the chain starts in 1918 and the WW1 armistice?
If that's the case then surely you would have go back to 1914 and the fact that Franz Ferdinand's driver took a wrong turn?
The reparations didn't help after the war but the biggest problem Germany had, was the huge debt they had built during the War, with the intention of paying it back afterwards by taking resource from their defeated enemies. Best laid plans and all.
The Weimar Republic was doing quite well in the 1920's. boosted by American money, which got things under control. Then the Wall St crash happened.
If that’s the case then surely you would have go back to 1914 and the fact that Franz Ferdinand’s driver took a wrong turn?
Chances are something else would have sparked it off if he hadnt got lost. Although admittedly since he was one of the more sensible members of his family that he was the one who died both gave a cause for war and also removed one of the people more capable of speaking out against it.
Chances are something else would have sparked it off if he hadnt got lost
Probably. The French, Germans and Russians were always going to end up fighting. It was very possible that the British and the Empire may of stayed out of it.
What would bombing the ovens achieve?
The ovens were an integral part of the killing process, speed and efficiency were of utmost importance to achieve the maximum amount of deaths per day.
The ovens in Auschwitz could dispose of 4,400 corpses per day in a safe and sanitary way. If the ovens had been destroyed by allied bombing it would undoubtedly have caused serious problems for the death camp's authorities and their ability to maximize their mass murder.
The ovens were an integral part of the killing process, speed and efficiency were of utmost importance to achieve the maximum amount of deaths per day.
But they would be quite easy to repair/replace.
The other problem with bombing the death camps, is that they were a long, long way away.
But they would be quite easy to repair/replace.
Yes they could have been replaced. In the meantime they would probably have had to stop the trains coming with people that would have been impossible to quickly dispose of.
And yes Auschwitz was a very long way away, but that wasn't the question.
I imagine that it was probably poorly defended too.
The Allied intelligence about Auschwitz was patchy. In 1941 the main information came from 2 polish spies and they didn’t know about the gas chambers and claimed (as was widely believed at the time) that prisoners were being electrocuted. Even by 1944 when they had eye witnesses, they were unsure. Two women reported that prisoners were being “unmittbar getotet” (immediately killed) but the method was still largely unknown.
The first recon overflight wasn’t until April 1944, as part of the mission to bomb the synthetic oil plant (forced Labour camp) at Monowitz. the photo analysts didn’t really know what they were looking at anyway as they knew nothing about Auschwitz.
The first victims of any bombing missions would’ve likely been more Jews. Overall the decision not to bomb them was probably the right one.
And yes Auschwitz was a very long way away, but that wasn’t the question.
The question was why didn't the Allies bomb the camps.
One very good reason was that they didn't have the range.
But they would be quite easy to repair/replace
Well you say that, but have you tried to get parts for a broken domestic appliance, never mind in a war zone?
Anyway… back on topic… it’s starting to get even more bizarre and surreal with Cruella becoming a sort of evil Judith Charmers, promoting Rwanda as a perfect holiday destination or maybe somewhere you could go and study?
https://twitter.com/suellabraverman/status/1637731362403753985?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
https://twitter.com/suellabraverman/status/1637726254030888960?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
https://twitter.com/suellabraverman/status/1637565189682806786?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
The question was why didn’t the Allies bomb the camps.
No, I copied and pasted the question. It was this one:
What would bombing the ovens achieve?
Destroying the ovens would undoubtedly have affected the deaths camps ability to process the maximum amount of deaths per day. Whether it was feasible to do so is a completely different question.
I was answering the question that started the discussion.
I read somewhere, some years ago now, that towards the end of WW2 the Allies knew exactly where the camps were and which railways were being used to ship prisoners into them. They considered the situation and made a decision not to bomb the railway lines or the ovens at the camps. I don’t know what the basis was for the decision they chose, but it was certainly decided.
Ultimately, the point being, how much of the current rhetoric and direction do “we” accept before it gathers so much momentum that we can’t stop it (or has it already)?
I think this could be a great topic for a separate thread - of course the UK is a long way from becoming Nazi Germany,but I defy anyone to watch the BBCs Rise of the Nazis and not see parallels about economic issues, othering, media control, a charismatic leader promising a solution, and not see parallels to the last 10 years.
I have obviously missed the UK's offer of a charismatic leader.
I’m drawing a parallel between sending UK prisoners to Australia in the 19th century.
The exile of prisoners to the colonies was WILDLY expensive. It never made a profit. It turns out that you can't turn a 17 year old Manchester pickpocket into a subsistence farmer just by sending them into the middle of nowhere. The Fatal Shore is a good book on this.
What fresh hell is this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65084430
Apparently there are 40 - 60 Tory MPs who think that the Illegal Migration Bill isn't tough enough! So this lot are right of Braverman.
Apparently there are 40 – 60 Tory MPs who think that the Illegal Migration Bill isn’t tough enough!
And yet the article doesn't appear to name any of them. The only Tory MPs the article names are a couple who think that Braverman's proposals go too far.
Given how utterly shite and incompetent and full of loopholes government legislation has been for the 20 years I've been a civil servant, I'm intrigued that this is the one they've chosen to try and "get right".
And yet the article doesn’t appear to name any of them.
Do we actually have to name them any more? Seriously?
We all know full well who all the deranged headbangers are by now. They're the ERG, and Cruella is their representative on earth
They're the ones advocating withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights so that they can deport people. All while conveniently forgetting that all the legally binding international treaties that the UK is a signatory (such as the Good Friday Agreement) and also all the domestic legislation (like the Scottish and Welsh devolution agreements) are all based on membership of the ECHR. You withdraw and all those things collapse and you become an international pariah.
So given the damage these morons have already done to the UK through their continued Brexit wrecking ball, an extended period of STFU would be in order
They’re the ERG, and Cruella is their representative on earth
Presumably they don't include Suella Braverman. It is hard to believe that she would be involved in a rebellion against her own bill.
And the ERG only averages 21 MPs, not 40 or 60.
^^ The Times are reporting she *is* backing the rebellion against her own bill.
Presumably they don’t include Suella Braverman. It is hard to believe that she would be involved in a rebellion against her own bill.
You may want to refamilierise yourself with the rolling insanity of Tory party politics, post-referendum. Voting against your own bill is just par for the course nowadays.
And the ERG only averages 21 MPs, not 40 or 60.
Well we'll never know that, will we? Allow Suella to explain...
https://twitter.com/grahamlithgow/status/1228034189175349248?s=20
The Times are reporting she *is* backing the rebellion against her own bill.
Well that certainly warrants mentioning! It would have been helpful if the BBC article had pointed out that Braverman was, alledgedly, rebelling against her own bill.
It would be interesting to know what Rishi Sunak thinks about all that. Or is he also rebelling against his own government's bill?
They are a right bunch of machiavellian sh*ts basically.
If Sunak wants to start banning things, he should probably start with the ERG given the damage they continue to do to the UK!
Sometimes no emoji is enough.
Daily Mail parent company invokes Human Rights Act to stop naming of journalists
The judge agreed but is that providing any benefit to the Daily Mail?
The judge said, “Although I do recognise I am preventing the reporting of the journalists’ names at this stage, this is in the interests of fairness and the administration of justice.”
As far as I can see it is only preventing media outlets from reporting the names of the accused, not stopping the case from going ahead.
I can't see how the Daily Mail will benefit from that decision but I might have missed something. Although obviously I can see the perceived irony.
I was up for a mid-senior management job at RBH a year or so back. I'm very glad I didn't get it if this was their culture and way of working.
Something seemed off through the interview process, they were doing a good job of advertising themselves as a forward-thinking organisation whilst not actually delivering it.
this is where poisonous rhetoric gets us
Sadly that link sounded all too familiar to me. And also sadly it predates the poisonous rhetoric of the current Home Secretary.
https://insidecroydon.com/2021/11/10/croydon-at-centre-of-racism-allegations-over-council-homes/
In the programme, “Helen”, a senior housing manager at a London council, told her interviewer, “We had a large number of African residents and we had a big meeting with them because they weren’t happy. And then when they were finished, all the managers were sitting around saying, ‘what are they complaining about, they’ve just come from huts’.
“As soon as you hit the management level, you see racism spoken openly, whether it’s externally with the residents – they’ll make assumptions, they’ll make pre-judgments on people because of their race, their colour, their religion, their surname.
At that time Croydon, like Rochdale, was Labour controlled - you don't necessarily need to vote Tory to witness racism in housing.
I don't know about Rochdale but 52% of Croydon residents are non-white. It comes as no great surprise that Labour lost control of the council in last year's local elections, despite the fact that the Tories are currently deeply unpopular in London.
I don’t know about Rochdale but 52% of Croydon residents are non-white.
Well done on your usual 'yeah, but... LABOUR' derailment Ernie. Do you actually work for a Tory Central Office?
I used to cycle through Rochdale on my commute. It's like a lot of the towns round here (pick any one beginning with B). It has a large non-white population and is as racially segregated as apartheid South Africa. I believe that the term is 'donut rings' where the areas immediately around the centre are entirely BAME, and are absolutely grim, then you get out into the leafy green suburbs that are 100% white.
I do find it ironic that Rochdale Council are now being accused of being racist, whereas with the Rochdale grooming scandal a few years ago, they were accused of not doing anything for fear of being accused of being racist. So what are they supposed to do? Who'd want their job? You can't win. Add in to that their budgets being absolutely decimated since 2010 and its a pretty hopeless position
I did this, only half-joking, when they started housing asylum seekers there in 2015. This is the area discussed in that article. It is absolutely grim, beyond belief. A whole world of greyness, damp concrete and poverty. Depressing.
[img] 
[/img]
Now... shall we get back on topic? The present toxic rhetoric isn't coming from the labour party. Its coming from the Tory party and driven by the children of recent immigrants who are seeking to deny to others, at all costs, the things this country provided for them. Thats what I find more depressing about this whole thing. Pull that ladder up behind yourself. Braverman is an absolutely disgusting human being.
Well done on your usual ‘yeah, but… LABOUR’ derailment Ernie. Do you actually work for a Tory Central Office?
Oh I'm sorry binners, I didn't realise that only institutionalised racism in Tory controlled councils could be discussed and that if it existed in Labour controlled councils that it should be ignored.
I am kidding of course! I will not ignore racism because it might be awkward for Labour. So suck it up buttercup 😁
And I didn't "derail" the thread by bringing up the subject of the behaviour of a housing department of a Labour controlled council on a thread about Suella Braverman.
Just a quick point to make - the housing associations like RBH aren't run by the local council, they were spun off and have contracts with the authorities. So, it actually makes little difference who is in control of the council because the organisations are separate, and the management is independent. There's lots of different models of social housing from fully owned and operated by the local authority, to fully private and for profit. RBH is a trust that owns its own properties and receives funding from Rochdale Council and Greater Manchester but is independently managed.
I'm not sure how that fits with Ernies usual anti-labour rhetoric, but maybe he could take it back to the comfort of the thread where nobody else goes...
[img] 
[/img]
I’m not sure how that fits with Ernies usual anti-labour rhetoric
Says the man who spent a couple of years endlessly ranting about the leader of the Labour Party.
You were of course more than happy with the "centrists" constantly bringing up alleged racism within the Labour Party.
And you haven't of course derailed this thread!
You really do have a Tory-level of hypocrisy binners.