UK Politics: The Edge of Destruction

[Serious Callers Only]

I think it's a conspiracy actually. Those 'dark enlightenment' shitgibbons.

Basically they want to use global warming and automation to not only capture all the capital permanently but genocide the rest of us (and i'm not only speaking for 'black southern hemisphere' countries), first by global warming and devastation of those countries for anything but resource extraction points, automation on a wide level, then murder of the refugees (with the nazi elements aided by the neolib razing of the government social contract, stressed to breaking point by that and the refugees), finally then murder of the rest of the unneeded underclass (invasions of the rest, army fodder, authoritarian measures to prevent revolution like facial recognition, drones, deep fakes etc). This is what makes sense for me, though i don't think i'll be alive to see the final result, but who knows, with how Russia is rushing their hand. Hopefully the oligarchs get fucked over by their mafia monster after the governments sabotage. I'm thinking China has a good chance to make it better than others in spite of their desert problems because of their rigidly controlled government where the capital doesn't wag the dog (yet) and organized crime is not exactly a party passtime.

 

They basically need to be fast enough that atomic bomb don't become more common on the 'developing world' or at least track them well enough to prevent one going 'missing' and hitting their smug fascist personal face a few months down the line. This is the main reason why Saudi Arabi was desperate for it enough to pay big for USA secrets, and iran was mercilessly hounded for attempting to attain it, in spite of never going to use it except in self-defense/revenge.

[Luzifer's right hand]

3 hours ago, Serious Callers Only said:

I think it's a conspiracy actually. Those 'dark enlightenment' shitgibbons.

Basically they want to use global warming and automation to not only capture all the capital permanently but genocide the rest of us (and i'm not only speaking for 'black southern hemisphere' countries), first by global warming and devastation of those countries for anything but resource extraction points, automation on a wide level, then murder of the refugees (with the nazi elements aided by the neolib razing of the government social contract, stressed to breaking point by that and the refugees), finally then murder of the rest of the unneeded underclass (invasions of the rest, army fodder, authoritarian measures to prevent revolution like facial recognition, drones, deep fakes etc). This is what makes sense for me, though i don't think i'll be alive to see the final result, but who knows, with how Russia is rushing their hand. Hopefully the oligarchs get fucked over by their mafia monster after the governments sabotage. I'm thinking China has a good chance to make it better than others in spite of their desert problems because of their rigidly controlled government where the capital doesn't wag the dog (yet) and organized crime is not exactly a party passtime.

 

They basically need to be fast enough that atomic bomb don't become more common on the 'developing world' or at least track them well enough to prevent one going 'missing' and hitting their smug fascist personal face a few months down the line. This is the main reason why Saudi Arabi was desperate for it enough to pay big for USA secrets, and iran was mercilessly hounded for attempting to attain it, in spite of never going to use it except in self-defense/revenge.

You forgot the part where the non-genocidical faction of the 0.1% fucks off to Mars. 

Maybe an AI takeover is also in the books. Genocide for everyone! 

[Chaircat Meow]

I am quite happy. For the first time I think we really are more likely to remain than leave. It feels like we are past peak-Brexit. I can't see the talks between May and Corbyn really going anywhere; Remainers are emboldened, Brexiteers are in despair and some of them are deserting the cause. The public is inching, very slowly, to the remain camp and as each month passes the mandate provided by the referendum lessens. Now doesn't seem like the time a deal is forged for leaving that commands a majority in Parliament.

In other news, I think Annunziata is quite a catch for Farage's party; her speech was pretty good, I think she'll do well in her new party. 

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

In other news, I think Annunziata is quite a catch for Farage's party; her speech was pretty good, I think she'll do well in her new party. 

With any luck they'll be splitting the right wing vote for years to come.

[Chaircat Meow]

13 hours ago, mormont said:

I do find myself agreeing with Jeremy Corbyn for once:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47904837

Assange shouldn't be extradited to the US over the WikiLeaks charges. But he should be extradited to Sweden over the rape charge, if and when the authorities there resurrect that (and the victim's lawyer has asked them to do so). 

I'm not sure why the BBC reckon this is a controversial stance with Labour supporters? Many of them are fans, many dislike him, but few in my experience would disagree with the fact that the US charges are politically motivated, even if some argue (wrongly) that the Swedish charges are too. 

Corbyn, from Hansard.

"The second case that I want to mention is that of Julian Assange and the ongoing attempt to extradite him to Sweden. I want to go on to something else in a second, but let me briefly quote Debra Sheehan, who has been campaigning for Mr Assange not to be extradited to Sweden: “I believe this ruling”—the ruling that he can be extradited—

“sets a very dangerous precedent allowing any UK citizen—and possibly any European citizen—to be extradited without charge. Mr Assange’s case shows that the European arrest warrant can be used in a totally disproportionate way without using other less draconian methods of completing police investigations, such as Mutual Legal Assistance.”

The European arrest warrant is a serious issue, because, as others have pointed out, it seems that countries with a far from rigorous, fair and open judicial system can gain arrest warrants against British subjects, who are then taken to a different jurisdiction, where they face a much lower threshold of proof before a conviction is obtained. It is not our business to protect criminals, but it is our business to ensure that people get a fair trial and that there is absolutely the presumption of innocence before any conviction is made."

[mormont]

OK, Corbyn didn't understand the Swedish legal system and hadn't done his research. But that quote is from eight years ago, when Corbyn was a backbench MP.

Yesterday, his Shadow Home Secretary and Shadow Foreign Secretary agreed that Assange should be extradited to Sweden if the case is restarted, albeit the former appeared to equivocate on that at first. So that does appear to be the Labour position.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

More like he didn't understand EUropean Arrest Warrants and how they work. I mean to be extradited without charge, really now?

Puidgemont will likely disagree about that.

[SeanF]

12 hours ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

I am quite happy. For the first time I think we really are more likely to remain than leave. It feels like we are past peak-Brexit. I can't see the talks between May and Corbyn really going anywhere; Remainers are emboldened, Brexiteers are in despair and some of them are deserting the cause. The public is inching, very slowly, to the remain camp and as each month passes the mandate provided by the referendum lessens. Now doesn't seem like the time a deal is forged for leaving that commands a majority in Parliament.

In other news, I think Annunziata is quite a catch for Farage's party; her speech was pretty good, I think she'll do well in her new party. 

Even before the launch, Farage's party has reached 15%.  There's a good chance they'll top the poll in the Euro elections.

[karaddin]

5 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

More like he didn't understand EUropean Arrest Warrants and how they work. I mean to be extradited without charge, really now?

Puidgemont will likely disagree about that.

Wasn't it technically accurate at the time? The extradition request was for questioning, charges hadn't been brought yet but were of course likely to follow. Or is that the complexity of European Arrest Warrants which I certainly don't have knowledge of.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

Wasn't it technically accurate at the time? The extradition request was for questioning, charges hadn't been brought yet but were of course likely to follow. Or is that the complexity of European Arrest Warrants which I certainly don't have knowledge of.

My standard disclaimer as usual in those situations. I am not a lawyer, so my legal expertise is that of a lay person.

Having that said, no afaik EAW are only valid for actually conducting a criminal prosecution, and not for a mere criminal investigation.

[mormont]

However, as this article explains, the Swedish authorities do not want Assange for a 'mere criminal investigation'.

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

Quote

 

What has become clear is that the Swedish approach to criminal proceedings is different from that of England or other common law jurisdictions. The interrogation requested takes place at a late stage, just before prosecution. Assange is thereby not required for mere questioning – indeed, he was questioned on 31 August 2010. 

As the English High Court held (paragraphs 152 and 153):

Plainly this is a case which has moved from suspicion to accusation supported by proof. […]

In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.

 

 

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

However, as this article explains, the Swedish authorities do not want Assange for a 'mere criminal investigation'.

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

 

Oh I don't mean to diminish it in any way or imply the charges weren't coming or that he was right to avoid facing them, was just asking if Corbyn's old statement was right on the technicalities - I think misunderstanding the details in that way is a lot more reasonable than just making shit up to support it. And it was a long time ago now so I wasn't sure on my memory.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

Oh I don't mean to diminish it in any way or imply the charges weren't coming or that he was right to avoid facing them, was just asking if Corbyn's old statement was right on the technicalities - I think misunderstanding the details in that way is a lot more reasonable than just making shit up to support it. And it was a long time ago now so I wasn't sure on my memory.

I am a bit in a hurry so short answer.

My answer was partly driven by the usual ignorance of British politicians towards the EU, its laws, and institutions (if you need evidence, just look at the whole sorry mess that is this Brexit process). So Corbyn's response fits perfectly into that narrative.

Is it possible, that what he said was true back then? Again, I am not a lawyer. However, it seems unlikely, that the EU arrest warrant was such a mess as Corbyn describes. And I am not aware there have been any major changes to it in the past eight years (a lawyer can correct me on that one). 

Despite Corbyn's hatred on some fictional stereotypical EU (AW). We could also talk about a slightly chauvinistic attitude on display by him.

Quote

The European arrest warrant is a serious issue, because, as others have pointed out, it seems that countries with a far from rigorous, fair and open judicial system can gain arrest warrants against British subjects, who are then taken to a different jurisdiction, where they face a much lower threshold of proof before a conviction is obtained. It is not our business to protect criminals, but it is our business to ensure that people get a fair trial and that there is absolutely the presumption of innocence before any conviction is made."

I believe that was also the bit @mormont was mainly looking at. The innate assumption that the British court system is the only fair one is not particularly elightented and highly offensive to 27 other EU countries. Little Englander indeed (Corbyn, I mean and not our most honourable mod).

Are there some states within the EU with a problem with the rule of law? Yes. Fortunately there's always the possibility to appeal (also the European arrest warrant).

Damn that took longer than I would have liked, gotta dash now.

[mormont]

8 hours ago, karaddin said:

Oh I don't mean to diminish it in any way or imply the charges weren't coming or that he was right to avoid facing them, was just asking if Corbyn's old statement was right on the technicalities - I think misunderstanding the details in that way is a lot more reasonable than just making shit up to support it. And it was a long time ago now so I wasn't sure on my memory.

Was it right on the technicalities? Not really. As the link explains, a UK court had already examined the case and concluded that charges would already have been brought under the UK system. That's the relevant technical factor, not whether charges have in fact been brought under a different legal system.

[lacuna]

On 4/13/2019 at 12:13 AM, Nothing Has Changed said:

I am quite happy. For the first time I think we really are more likely to remain than leave. It feels like we are past peak-Brexit. I can't see the talks between May and Corbyn really going anywhere; Remainers are emboldened, Brexiteers are in despair and some of them are deserting the cause. The public is inching, very slowly, to the remain camp and as each month passes the mandate provided by the referendum lessens. Now doesn't seem like the time a deal is forged for leaving that commands a majority in Parliament.

In other news, I think Annunziata is quite a catch for Farage's party; her speech was pretty good, I think she'll do well in her new party. 

Considering this is the second half of overtime, and no-one seems likely to score, it'll probably go to penalties. And the Germans always win on penalties.

[Werthead]

Here's an interesting one in the wake of the Notre Dame tragedy. The Houses of Parliament are ready to go up pretty much at any moment (the building has several fires a year, but these have so far been swiftly contained) and the government has been told the only way to save the building is to move out for 4-6 years and spend $4 billion doing it. They've been kicking the can down the road for lots of reasons, including the fact it will look massively insensitive to spend that money on their office whilst so many hospitals and police stations are in peril.

However, seeing Notre Dame might cause that to be reassessed: would people be really happy seeing Big Ben go up in flames if it can be avoided? The current plan has been kicking the can down the road to the next Parliament, for a possible move out around 2025, but I wonder if these events will re-focus thoughts on more timely action.

[ants]

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

Here's an interesting one in the wake of the Notre Dame tragedy. The Houses of Parliament are ready to go up pretty much at any moment (the building has several fires a year, but these have so far been swiftly contained) and the government has been told the only way to save the building is to move out for 4-6 years and spend $4 billion doing it. They've been kicking the can down the road for lots of reasons, including the fact it will look massively insensitive to spend that money on their office whilst so many hospitals and police stations are in peril.

However, seeing Notre Dame might cause that to be reassessed: would people be really happy seeing Big Ben go up in flames if it can be avoided? The current plan has been kicking the can down the road to the next Parliament, for a possible move out around 2025, but I wonder if these events will re-focus thoughts on more timely action.

Is there any thought to maybe building a new parliament house on a different site?  Turn the current one into a museum?  The current chamber isn't really fit for purpose, nor is the voting.  

[Mosi Mynn]

4 hours ago, ants said:

Is there any thought to maybe building a new parliament house on a different site?  Turn the current one into a museum?  The current chamber isn't really fit for purpose, nor is the voting.  

I quite like that idea.  It would preserve the current Houses of Parliament whilst giving the politicians a fit-for-purpose building.  Maybe the House of Lords can stay in there to retain a connection to history.

As long as they don't think of turning the building into luxury apartments ...

[Derfel Cadarn]

4 hours ago, ants said:

Is there any thought to maybe building a new parliament house on a different site?  Turn the current one into a museum?  The current chamber isn't really fit for purpose, nor is the voting.  

That would be my solution. And build the new parliament in the middle of the country to revitalise a deprived area. Get the politicians  out of London. No more costly second London homes. Build a hotel for all the politiicans to stay in while attending parliament. 

[Heartofice]

Anything to stop Parliament being an old boys shouting club would be an improvement. The way they behave right now is an embarrassment