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.
