Minor News items - Not worth a thread of their own

[Tinfoil Hat]

1 hour ago, lobster said:

Charlie could sack him and force a generally election,  not that it's likely.  Charlie could just refuse to sign the laws off , but that's not likely either

I was thinking along similar lines. I'd eat humble pie if that vile parasite were to do something constructive to support us minions before he snuffs it. But, alas, it's highly improbable.

[lobster]

39 minutes ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

I was thinking along similar lines. I'd eat humble pie if that vile parasite were to do something constructive to support us minions before he snuffs it. But, alas, it's highly improbable.

The queen or at least her representative sacked the prime minister of Australia in the 1970s, caused quite a stink at the time. So it's not impossible just vanishingly unlikely that Charlie will show any balls,he is just going to money grub his way to the grave

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by lobster

[SimonTV]

12 hours ago, lobster said:

Are you sure ? The nature of the uk constitution is they can do more or less anything they like 

They removed the right to a trial altogether in the second world war and again in northern Ireland in the 1970s

 

Both of those were far more extreme  than the current proposal and they managed it

 

You could argue the human rights act prevents it, but its not clear they actually care about that or cant get round it. 

 

If they are hell bent on it ,only the courts can stop them,  if they agree its necessary we are fucked

Not saying they wouldn't do it and get away with it, just that technically they don't have the power to do it. But as we know the gov is illegitimate already and acts outside of the law which they makes up as they go along. End of day the only reason they get away with it because they will unlawfully lock people up by force.

Edited December 18, 2024 by SimonTV

[lobster]

6 hours ago, SimonTV said:

Not saying they wouldn't do it and get away with it, just that technically they don't have the power to do it. But as we know the gov is illegitimate already and acts outside of the law which they makes up as they go along. End of day the only reason they get away with it because they will unlawfully lock people up by force.

That's what I'm saying, technically they do have the power.

 

The constitution doesn't bind the government to decisions made by a previous government, so in effect they can do anything they want.

 

In practice it's a bit more nuanced than that, contrary to popular belief we do have a constitution,  it just runs to 10s of thousands of pages and is stored all over the shop and nobody knows what is in it

Edited December 18, 2024 by lobster

[RobinJ]

13 minutes ago, lobster said:

That's what I'm saying, technically they do have the power.

 

The constitution doesn't bind the government to decisions made by a previous government, so in effect they can do anything they want.

 

In practice it's a bit more nuanced than that, contrary to popular belief we do have a constitution,  it just runs to 10s of thousands of pages and is stored all over the shop and nobody knows what is in it

Same scam as always- everything compartmentalised so nobody can find the full truth.

[lobster]

2 hours ago, RobinJ said:

Same scam as always- everything compartmentalised so nobody can find the full truth.

There are folk that call themselves constitution experts,  but I agree the rules of government are so vast and unfathomable that ordinary people have no chance of understanding them.

 

This is rather that it took a thousand years to get to were we are now and at no point did they RIP it up and start again as most countries have done, with a relatively simple set of rules, rules that cant be undone, at least not on a whim

 

As such most of the rights and freedoms we think we are legally entitled to can just be taken off us, if they wish 

 

They can scrap the right to vote, they can scrap the right to a jury trial, they can scrap the right to a trial at all, they can scrap freedom of expression,  the lot really 

Edited December 18, 2024 by lobster

[RobinJ]

51 minutes ago, lobster said:

There are folk that call themselves constitution experts,  but I agree the rules of government are so vast and unfathomable that ordinary people have no chance of understanding them.

 

This is rather that it took a thousand years to get to were we are now and at no point did they RIP it up and start again as most countries have done, with a relatively simple set of rules, rules that cant be undone, at least not on a whim

 

As such most of the rights and freedoms we think we are legally entitled to can just be taken off us, if they wish 

 

They can scrap the right to vote, they can scrap the right to a jury trial, they can scrap the right to a trial at all, they can scrap freedom of expression,  the lot really 

Yes and even Americans who think their constitution is so sacred, are now finding out that those rules can be rewritten or just ignored, if you have enough power. Or they simply change the terminology to get compliance by deception....."mandates" spring to mind.

[lobster]

44 minutes ago, RobinJ said:

Yes and even Americans who think their constitution is so sacred, are now finding out that those rules can be rewritten or just ignored, if you have enough power. Or they simply change the terminology to get compliance by deception....."mandates" spring to mind.

No matter how enshrined you think your rights are,  they can away find an " emergency " as an excuse to override them on a temporary basis and then just never give them back

 

Democracy as we understand it is less than a 100 years old and was forced on the ptb by threat of revolution , there is no reason to believe they are in anyway committed to it and are not looking to reverse it

[Talorgan]

35 minutes ago, lobster said:

No matter how enshrined you think your rights are,  they can away find an " emergency " as an excuse to override them on a temporary basis and then just never give them back

 

Democracy as we understand it is less than a 100 years old and was forced on the ptb by threat of revolution , there is no reason to believe they are in anyway committed to it and are not looking to reverse it

It works well in giving illusion of some representation and avoiding disruption but really is rule by technocrats or councils/Soviets,

[lobster]

1 minute ago, Talorgan said:

It works well in giving illusion of some representation and avoiding disruption but really is rule by technocrats or councils/Soviets,

The first democratic election in the UK was in 1928, within three years they had scrapped the democratically elected government and installed a "government of national unity" made up of people choosed by the powers that be. Though they held elections these were somewhat fixed.Democracy was effectively suspended through out the 1930s and then again during the war.

 

So the first democratic election was 1928 the second was 1945

[Talorgan]

17 minutes ago, lobster said:

The first democratic election in the UK was in 1928, within three years they had scrapped the democratically elected government and installed a "government of national unity" made up of people choosed by the powers that be. Though they held elections these were somewhat fixed.Democracy was effectively suspended through out the 1930s and then again during the war.

 

So the first democratic election was 1928 the second was 1945

Seems like sooner or later the  Solution will be  people are inefficient so let AI run the system and will people agree to this ?

[lobster]

15 minutes ago, Talorgan said:

Seems like sooner or later the  Solution will be  people are inefficient so let AI run the system and will people agree to this ?

They probably would, but computers even AI computers are only as good as the people programming them, 

 

Did you know they have tought an AI computer to tell lies, not to make mistakes but to blatantly lie, so clearly destined for politics

Edited December 18, 2024 by lobster

[Grumpy Owl]

On 12/16/2024 at 6:06 PM, lobster said:

There is ,as you possibly know , a far greater chance of a not guilty in a jury trial than a magistrate trial. One of the reasons either way offences are more often heard in a jury trial at the behest of the accused and thus one of the reasons why there is such a long backlog

Personally, I think they will struggle to get this through, not least as it breaches the ECHR and the legal establishment is firmly against it, possibly on a point of principle, more likely as it will cost them money

 

On 12/17/2024 at 5:06 PM, lobster said:

Are you sure ? The nature of the uk constitution is they can do more or less anything they like 

They removed the right to a trial altogether in the second world war and again in northern Ireland in the 1970s

 

Both of those were far more extreme  than the current proposal and they managed it

 

You could argue the human rights act prevents it, but its not clear they actually care about that or cant get round it. 

 

If they are hell bent on it ,only the courts can stop them,  if they agree its necessary we are fucked

 

This is why I have become cautious when it comes to the likes of Nigel Farage and others who have called for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR on the grounds that "we can't deport illegals" or other reasons.

 

There's a lot more to the ECHR than people realise, and now I suspect that there are people calling for our withdrawal from it for other malicious reasons, as you point out above.

 

Be careful what you wish for!

[Sit down, Waldo]

Gamblers behind half of abusive posts to tennis stars

[Campion]

On 12/18/2024 at 8:12 PM, Grumpy Owl said:

This is why I have become cautious when it comes to the likes of Nigel Farage and others who have called for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR on the grounds that "we can't deport illegals" or other reasons.

 

There's a lot more to the ECHR than people realise, and now I suspect that there are people calling for our withdrawal from it for other malicious reasons, as you point out above.

 

Be careful what you wish for!

  

Yeah, that was why we voted for Brexit, to get back control of our borders and stop paying for the foreign bureaucracy.  Well, that worked didn't it, we still have record immigration, both illegal and legal.  Now the ECHR is used as the strawman to divert attention away from the replacement agenda.  Of course the ptb could have stopped immigration all this time if they'd wanted to, it's all smoke and mirrors. 

[SimonTV]

 

 

[SimonTV]

 

 

Ben suggest we may be on the way to a sovereign debt crisis, basically government cant steal enough tax because they destroyed the economy.

[Grumpy Owl]

"It's okay when we do it!"

 

Sue Gray among 30 newly appointed Labour peers

Quote

The government has appointed 30 new Labour peers including a string of ex-MPs and Sir Keir Starmer loyalists.

The prime minister's former chief of staff Sue Gray has also been handed a seat in the House of Lords, confirming reports earlier in the week.

It comes only two months after she left her role as the prime minister's chief of staff, amid internal rows over her influence.

The Conservatives appointed six new peers including former deputy prime minister Therese Coffey and Toby Young, the associate editor of The Spectator and son of former Labour peer Lord Michael Young. The Lib Dems have appointed two peers.

The list of new peers, external contains 18 men and 20 women.

A series of Labour MPs who lost their seats or stood down at the last election will now join the House of Lords - including Thangam Debbonaire, Julie Elliot, Lyn Brown and Steve McCabe.

Luciana Berger and Phil Wilson, two Labour MPs who lost their seat at the 2019 election are to become peers, as is Margaret Curran who lost her Glasgow East seat in 2015.

from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ln8z0jdz3o

 

It's not what you know, it's who you know, and all that. Interestingly:

 

Quote

Berger left Labour in 2019 due to concerns about antisemitism under then leader Jeremy Corbyn and stood unsuccessfully as a Lib Dem candidate. She rejoined Labour in 2023 after being invited back by Sir Keir.

Mike Katz, the national chairman of Jewish Labour Movement - appointed to the Lords as Labour peer, said he would use his new position to continue to fight the "toxic racism" of antisemitism.

 

I can also tell you, as it is not mentioned in the above BBC article, that my former MP Steve McCabe (Birmingham Selly Oak) was the chair of Labour's "Friends of Israel" group while in opposition.

 

Draw your own conclusions...

[Fluke]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14215131/germany-car-ploughs-crowd-christmas-market.htm

Magdeburg horror: 'At least 60-80' are injured as car ploughs into crowd of people at Christmas market in Germany

 

Just read this. Of course, just remember this is part and parcel of living in a major city :). Hope the injured survive and of course the perpetrator gets the help he needs, and deserves :).

 

I'm just going to post a balloon a Facebook now, to show I am a good nice person. 

 

 

[Anti Facts Sir]

Vehicles ploughing into markets in Germany seems to have become an annual event.

[Mazthehobo]

18 hours ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

Vehicles ploughing into markets in Germany seems to have become an annual event.

Without turning it into a joke, this event sounds like me playing GTA.

At one point video games were blamed for most of the bad things in society.

Hardly gets mentioned now.

[lobster]

5 minutes ago, Mazthehobo said:

Without turning it into a joke, this event sounds like me playing GTA.

At one point video games were blamed for most of the bad things in society.

Hardly gets mentioned now.

That's before the game industry got bigger than the film and music industry combined. To big to control now or rather to much financial influence to piss off 

 

They were blaming rock music for corruption of youth in the early 80s, that passed as well, probably because the music became incredibly bland

Edited December 21, 2024 by lobster

[Dazzer]

9 minutes ago, lobster said:

That's before the game industry got bigger than the film and music industry combined. To big to control now or rather to much financial influence to piss off 

 

They were blaming rock music for corruption of youth in the early 80s, that passed as well, probably because the music became incredibly bland

I dunno, every time i hear or see Taylor Swift I want to kill somebody 

[lobster]

1 minute ago, Dazzer said:

I dunno, every time i hear or see Taylor Swift I want to kill somebody 

That's funny, thanks I needed cheering up

[Anti Facts Sir]

So, same old MO, same old types responsible.

 

As usual, reasons to do this yet again vary:

 

1) FF to distract from German chancellor's forced removal.

 

2) Strike fear again into public at holiday time, when it should be "joy" and "celebration"

 

3) Allows "terror threat" to be escalated, whether connected to Syria, Russia, Timbuktu

 

4) "Certain religious groups" now residing in Western Europe not happy about an annual Christian celebration.

 

Take your pick.