Politics Election 2019

[Scouse]

Our Supreme Court is a foreign court now?

What a lying cunt. The ECHR hasn't done anything - but it does, rightly, loom over our supreme court. And the very last sentence he said:

I do not believe that the purpose of the european convention of human rights was to stop a soveriegn parliament from moving illegal migrants to a country deemed to be safe in parliamentary statute and binding international law

Fighting for the rights of migrants and the under-represented was exactly what the ECHR, which we helped setup on the back of atrocities by european governments, was designed to do. And because the UK is turning increasingly scummy, and wanting to do dubious things, that the ECHR is pulling us up.

It's the desire to paint migrants as "illegal" that's the problem here - because there's no legal way the UK can do it without exiting all sorts of conventions and basically becoming an even more scummy country.

"Illegal Migrants" - they need to be processed in line with international agreements we signed up to before they can be deemed illegal. So this is weasel words.
"safe" in parliamentary statute. Currently it's the UN which deems what country is safe (not ECHR). If Parliament labels Rawanda safe it's officially exiting the agreement we entered into where the UN decides on the status of a country and it still puts itself on a warpath with the ECHR because the ECHR can point out that our new law breaks our own agreements and therefore effectively nullify it.

But emergency legislation @Tom - they can push that through very quickly. Easily before the next general election.

I'd be amazed if they did anything about our compliance with the ECHR - that's just bluster. They'll kick the can down the road by deeming Rawanda "safe" and then one of the rights groups will appeal to the ECHR down the line (after another round that goes to the UK supreme court). At which point it'll be Labour's decision whether to exit from the ECHR. And the Tories can then blame Labour for allowing the boats to keep coming.

 

[Embattle]

Raw sewage 'cover-up' at Windermere World Heritage Site

Leaked papers suggest United Utilities logged dozens of incidents as less serious than they had been.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

Raw sewage 'cover-up' at Windermere World Heritage Site

Leaked papers suggest United Utilities logged dozens of incidents as less serious than they had been.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Environment Agency signed off all the downgrades without attending any of the incidents.

This is by design though. The government cut all the budget so they don't have capacity to even check.

A friend of mine is pretty senior in the EA. Says in many ways that the EA is as much use as a chocolate fireguard. They can't respond to shit and have no teeth when they do.

 

[Wij]

View: https://twitter.com/jimmysecuk/status/1732733117947891902?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

 

[Scouse]

View: https://twitter.com/jimmysecuk/status/1732733117947891902?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

So, if I read this correct, some Russian hacked our shit and gave the info to someone and it ended on Corbyn's desk somehow and it was useful to him during the election?

So, for me, there's two questions this raises:

1) What was it about?
2) If true, did we do a bad thing and try to cover it up?

 

[Wij]

It was known about at the time, it just hadn’t been proven.

The problem is that Corbyn flat-out lied about it.

 

[Scouse]

It was known about at the time, it just hadn’t been proven.

The problem is that Corbyn flat-out lied about it.

Well, that depends on how it came to him really. If it came through a trusted party then he could resonably put it down to "conspiracy".

But I think that's all a sideshow distraction from the really important stuff:

1) What was it?
2) Did we try to cover up a bad thing and got caught out?

 

[Scouse]

1) What was it.
2) Did we try to cover up a bad thing and got caught out?

Ah OK. It was about US access to the NHS. Tories were doing that.

Corbyn got hold of it (and, frankly, who cares how) - but Tories were caught out by it.

Tories sat on the "Russian election interference" report and take a load of donations from Russia, but when Corbyn gets hold of a document that shows the Tories are lying and planning further NHS skullduggery, it's Corbyn at fault.

I know he's a dirty Tankie (or whatever). Yes yes. Authentic documents given to him make him bad.

 

[Raven]

It's times like this that I wish I lived in feudal Japan.

 

[Wij]

Ah OK. It was about US access to the NHS. Tories were doing that.

Corbyn got hold of it (and, frankly, who cares how) - but Tories were caught out by it.

Tories sat on the "Russian election interference" report and take a load of donations from Russia, but when Corbyn gets hold of a document that shows the Tories are lying and planning further NHS skullduggery, it's Corbyn at fault.

I know he's a dirty Tankie (or whatever). Yes yes. Authentic documents given to him make him bad.

Using FSB-hacked material and lying about it like a lying cunt is bad.

Tories are bad and want to sell off the NHS is already known. There's plenty of evidence for that already that isn't from Russia.

 

[Scouse]

Using FSB-hacked material and lying about it like a lying cunt is bad.

Worse than Tories lying about discussions taking place?

They got found out. Thst's a good thing - and the story here.

Corbyn *may* have known where the document came from but I find it unlikely.

But you're looking in the wrong place and the wrong people again IMO.

 

[Wij]

Worse than Tories lying about discussions taking place?

They got found out. Thst's a good thing - and the story here.

Corbyn *may* have known where the document came from but I find it unlikely.

But you're looking in the wrong place and the wrong people again IMO.

Bollocks. Of course he knew. He was told that at the time. He CHOSE to lie about it.

I don't have to take sides. The Tories can be wrong AND Corbyn can too.

 

[Scouse]

Bollocks. Of course he knew. He was told that at the time. He CHOSE to lie about it.

Well, from the stuff you posted - which I dutifully watched - I saw nothing that showed that. So link please.

 

[Wij]

Well, from the stuff you posted - which I dutifully watched - I saw nothing that showed that. So link please.

I don't have a link but I remember people at the time saying it and it turned out to be true.

Please don't play the "Corbyn is dumb and doesn't listen to what hundreds of people were saying at the time" card.

 

[Scouse]

I don't have a link but I remember people at the time saying it and it turned out to be true.

Please don't play the "Corbyn is dumb and doesn't listen to what hundreds of people were saying at the time" card.

I'm not playing anything. I think it's reasonable to assume Corbyn got his information from someone in his team and he'd reasonably think it was weird conspiracy theory nonsense that some Russian hacking group gave it to him.

And, even if he did know, I bet him, like me, doesn't care.

The important thing is that we were provided data that proved the government was lying. That's the actually important thing.

If the government doesn't lie to it's population then it can't be caught out in those lies - so Russian interference of this nature completely disappears.

 

[Wij]

I'm not playing anything. I think it's reasonable to assume Corbyn got his information from someone in his team and he'd reasonably think it was weird conspiracy theory nonsense that some Russian hacking group gave it to him.

And, even if he did know, I bet him, like me, doesn't care.

The important thing is that we were provided data that proved the government was lying. That's the actually important thing.

If the government doesn't lie to it's population then it can't be caught out in those lies - so Russian interference of this nature completely disappears.

Dafuq?

 

[Scouse]

Dafuq?

Am I misunderstanding something here?

A) Corbyn will have been given the information by someone.
B) I bet he hasn't got the time to check the original source - that should also have been checked by someone.
C) If the information is true, why should Corbyn care where it came from? True is true.
D) Even if he knew. Who cares? - true is true.

on "Russian interference":
A) Russia will try to interfere with our elections. Just like we would try to interfere with non-allied elections (if they ever held them, but lets face it - we're not blameless in the creation of the criminal state that was born out of the fall of communism - Yeltsin begged the west to help, but we saw loads of cash and didn't care)
B) If Russia gets hold of stuff that's true, that our government has been lying about, then that's gold-standard election guff, no?
C) If our government doesn't lie about this stuff, then Russia can get hold of whatever the fuck it likes. Because our government can't be caught out lying.

See how that works? What is it that you're struggling with?

 

[Wij]

Am I misunderstanding something here?

A) Corbyn will have been given the information by someone.
B) I bet he hasn't got the time to check the original source - that should also have been checked by someone.
C) If the information is true, why should Corbyn care where it came from? True is true.
D) Even if he knew. Who cares? - true is true.

on "Russian interference":
A) Russia will try to interfere with our elections. Just like we would try to interfere with non-allied elections (if they ever held them, but lets face it - we're not blameless in the creation of the criminal state that was born out of the fall of communism - Yeltsin begged the west to help, but we saw loads of cash and didn't care)
B) If Russia gets hold of stuff that's true, that our government has been lying about, then that's gold-standard election guff, no?
C) If our government doesn't lie about this stuff, then Russia can get hold of whatever the fuck it likes. Because our government can't be caught out lying.

See how that works? What is it that you're struggling with?

lol - he said he got them through a FoI request! A flat-out lie. You can't rely on his honest naivety if he covers it up with a whopper.

He should care where it comes from firstly because be fucking honest. Second because using it encourages further meddling. It's just the wrong thing to do. Thirdly because Russia has a history of tampering with the documents it hacks and leaks. You shouldn't trust it. They don't have the best interests of the UK in mind so if you want to be prime minister of the UK it shows bad judgement to accept their help.

Also, you don't seem to understand what happened in the fall of the USSR and the creation of Putin's KGB-led state. The west had very little to do with it. That's the Putin-approved message, not reality. There's a very good account of it in Catherine Belton's "Putin's People" which I have read.

 

[Scouse]

lol - he said he got them through a FoI request! A flat-out lie. You can't rely on his honest naivety if he covers it up with a whopper.

So we come back to - have we got that evidenced anywhere? Or just on twitter? Because a lot of shit was written about him that was just patently untrue.

Do you think he actually puts in FOI requests himself?

AS for the rest. You make some valid points. But on balance - the document was born out true and right now we're yacking about corbyn, and not the Tories and their lying about giving the US access to the NHS.

So once again, because: russia, we're looking in the wrong direction.

 

[Scouse]

Honestly @Wij. I don't care that other countries are interfering in our elections. We interfere in theirs like real motherfuckers. That's just politics...

 

[Jupitus]

But on balance

but on whose balance? Ah yes, yours.....

 

[Scouse]

but on whose balance? Ah yes, yours.....

It's just my opinion Jup. Should I give someone elses?

What in your opinion is more important:
A) Corbyn lied about where he got some documents that showed the Tories plan to open up the NHS to the yanks?
B) Corbyn showed the Tories lied

??

As far as I can see there's no proof that Corbyn lied. But the Tories did - and we have the proof. And even if true - they're not equivalent lies are they. One is about our government flogging the NHS off, and the other is about obtaining proof that the government is planning to flog the NHS off...

 

[Wij]

What in your opinion is more important:
A) Corbyn lied about where he got some documents that showed the Tories plan to open up the NHS to the yanks?
B) Corbyn showed the Tories lied

False dichotomy. I can care about both.

 

[Scouse]

False dichotomy. I can care about both.

And even if true - they're not equivalent lies are they. One is about our government flogging the NHS off, and the other is about obtaining proof that the government is planning to flog the NHS off...

...

Add to that, you don't seem to care about both. You're special obsession is Russia and any influence they have over us.

(And even then you miss the trick - the Tories are knee-deep in donations)

 

[Wij]

...

Add to that, you don't seem to care about both. You're special obsession is Russia and any influence they have over us.

(And even then you miss the trick - the Tories are knee-deep in donations)

I criticise the Tories all the time. Literally never voted for them.

That doesn’t mean I can’t criticise Corbyn too. It’s not either/or.

 

[Scouse]

That doesn’t mean I can’t criticise Corbyn too. It’s not either/or.

Nope it isn't. 100% agree with you.

We're 90% aligned on most things old chum. That's probably why we're arguing quite a lot at the mo. The closer in ideas people are the more the divergence of thought troubles ya.

It's just I can't really get worked up over this because I think the outing of the truth (with the caveat that it's the whole truth) trumps minor transgressions.

It's the same with wiki. Assange is an asshat, yep, but the wholesale release of US state secrets - secrets that cover up criminality - is but a minor thing. It's the criminality that's revealed that's the important thing. And the good that is done by the release of those secrets absolutely trumps anything else.

If people are put in danger by the release of those criminal secrets then that's on the criminals - there doesn't have to be a "duty of care" to protect spies. That's the sort of colllateral damage I don't mind about - whilst there's absolutely some horrible things it's generally not innocent civilians getting fucked over wholesale by a criminal state. And if the state wasn't being a cunt in the first place, then the releases wouldn't ever have been necessary.

People who release secrets indicating lies committed by states - no matter if they get them through dodgy, criminal or outright outrageous means - are ultimately protectors of democracy.

 

[Wij]

Assange released the names of hundreds of Afghan people who had worked with the US that led to their torture and death. I think they would have minded the collateral damage.

 

[Wij]

And he’s not averse to releasing stuff that has been altered either. That’s not transparency. Anyway we’ve been here before. He’s a cunt.

 

[Wij]

That’s a fair point tbh:


View: https://twitter.com/shitlondon/status/1734207391372128417?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw

 

[Scouse]

Frankly, any politician that doesn't put automatically deleting whatsapp messages on is a fucking idiot.

However, they shouldn't be using whatsapp. We're not allowed to in the bank because it's not auditable. It's a sackable offence.