Also in the news

[Guest]

Maybe those manufacturers of black hoodies that are going to be banned from selling too many to certian individuals could replace them with transparent hoodies and call them goodies. Do you think that Lammy will encourage black guys to wear them then? 

[purpleronnie]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Pretty amazing grown men wear hoodies anyway.

If only I could give more 'likes' to this.

 

But i'd add jogging bottoms when not jogging and football shirts when not playing it or watching it.

 

Oh and those dyed jeans with rips in them...them too.

 

Oh black jeans and white trainers them as well.

 

Oh and visible undershirts....that's an American thing but I hate it.

 

Any ill fitting trousers.

 

Square toed dress shoes.

 

Buttoning up all the buttons on a blazer.

 

Not tucking in dress shirts...see this on TV all the time.

 

If only the fashion police was a real thing....I'd join in a second.

[Countryfox]

3 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

I personally believe that the government should limit the number of hoodies that certain retailers sell to youngsters etc (such as Sports Direct), particularly in areas of high-levels of stabbing incidents particularly in London.

Quite clearly, hoodies are often associated with organised gangs and hence they see them as a way of hiding part of their physical identify.

 

Might sound daft, this idea, but if the number of hoodies sold by well-known clothing retailers and the like are restricted - wouldn't be surprised to see the number of knife crimes in particular decrease.

 

Hoodies etc allow the offenders to commit their crime and run away from the scene without CCTV cameras, victims and witnesses fully seeing what they look hide and hence allows the offender the opportunity to get away with the offence and unlikely to get caught within a swift response.

 

Can't stand them, as well.

 

I’m with you Wymes ...   and I’d also restrict the sale of women’s tights ...  I’m sure the number of bank heists  would fall too ..

 

 

 

 

 

[Spiritwalker]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

As far as I can make out, any “proper” Brexit, including no deal, or a just an FTA without membership of the Customs Union, means that the EU would need to insist on a hard border in Ireland.

 

On the other hand, any softer Brexit, including the arrangements during the transition period in May’s deal or the backstop, would result in the UK having to follow EU rules but have little say in framing them.

 

The only other arrangement I could envisage would be some form of Hard Brexit with a United Ireland, but I assume that would likely result in Unionist violence in Northern Ireland, and would be scuppered by the DUP in parliament anyway.

 

Do I have this right? How is any of this better than staying in the EU and at least having a strong voice in its future development?

It's not.

[Anorak]

5 hours ago, Samilktray said:

Yes it’s amazing that grown men still wear 1 of the most popular items of clothing in existence. A revelation. 

It's a bit weird that any grown man wouldn't own at least one hoodie! 

[Jon the Hat]

9 hours ago, Anorak said:

It's a bit weird that any grown man wouldn't own at least one hoodie! 

The entire Superdry business model lives on this basis.

[Jon the Hat]

What do we think about the ISIS girl who wants to come back home?

As far as I can see, she remains a British citizen, and hence has the right to enter the UK.  She should then be arrested and tried for any relevant crimes, taking into account that she was a child when she left.

[Vlad the Fox]

13 hours ago, FIF said:

Raving bonkers!

 

 

I used to think that he was the greatest WUM on the site then I actually realised that he believed the things he was saying.

 

I'm starting to move into the old man age range and I wear a hoodie most days when I'm out walking the dog.

You know you’re getting old when you look at an item of clothing and your first thoughts are ‘ooh that looks comfy’ or ‘mmm yes, that will keep me warm’ and ‘feel the quality of that, at this price as well’. 

[Lionator]

25 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

What do we think about the ISIS girl who wants to come back home?

As far as I can see, she remains a British citizen, and hence has the right to enter the UK.  She should then be arrested and tried for any relevant crimes, taking into account that she was a child when she left.

This is the correct answer however I'm sure 'rational' population of ours will not agree. 

[Alf Bentley]

15 hours ago, MattP said:

Do try and find three hours to watch it, it will be right up your street,

If it comes to the crunch then surely parliament isn't going to vote for a No Deal Brexit? I just can't in any way see them actually doing that assuming May can run the clock down and I presume that's exactly why she is doing it. Voting against will be the Labour front bench and the ERG - apart from that they must have 326 votes between them even discounting the minor parties.

The EU has some serious form for late minute negotiation and I imagine that's she's banking on parliamentarians managing to "hold it's nerve" to get some sort of meaningful concession she can bring back towards the end of March.
 

If parliament does vote for an Article 50 extension does she even have to do it? I mean the EU have stated there is only room for an extension if it involves a General Election or a Second referendum, there appears to be no desire for those in the HoC at the minute either.

 

 

Yes, I'll try to watch that series.

 

I hope that No Deal doesn't happen and my irrational instinct is that something will stop it. But you only have to read Peston's article to see how it easily could. Likewise, Stephen Bush (New Statesman) regularly points out that, to avoid No Deal, some or other group will have to make major concessions that could seriously damage, split or destroy their party/organisation (EU, Brexiteers, Tory Party, Tory Moderates, Labour etc.) - and every party/organisation hopes/expects it to be someone else. Oddschecker has No Deal at 7-4 with odds shortening....but I wouldn't recommend anyone putting money on that - for multiple reasons!

 

I've no idea whether, constitutionally, May could ignore a parliamentary vote to request an extension, but it would create outrage if she did. It's certainly possible that the EU could refuse such a request. That's the scenario that Peston assumes in his article: parliament forces May to request an extension but EU refuses, unless there's reason to believe that the UK will approve a deal (no sign of that).....though likely ERG rebellion tonight now...

Edited 14 February 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Alf Bentley]

32 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

What do we think about the ISIS girl who wants to come back home?

As far as I can see, she remains a British citizen, and hence has the right to enter the UK.  She should then be arrested and tried for any relevant crimes, taking into account that she was a child when she left.

 

That sounds about right. In theory, she could be tried for any crimes committed in Syria, but in practice there's unlikely to be evidence for that, even if she has committed them (membership/support of a proscribed organisation, possibly?).

 

Reports suggest that, although she could be charged with ISIS membership before she left, that's unlikely as she was only 15 and was really just lured in by recruiters/brainwashing.

 

You'd hope that the security services would also keep an eye on what she's up to in future, assuming she's allowed to return. Whether counter-indoctrination is necessary or possible and how that would be achieved is another issue. Her comments suggest that she still feels some loyalty to ISIS but also has criticisms of them....could be enough to work with, but you cannot control someone's thoughts, ultimately....

[Guest]

No Deal - all this time I thought you were talking about some Noel Edmonds TV programme. I was going to suggest that the manufacturers were banned from making it. 

[Izzy]

John McDonnell calls Winston Churchill a 'villain'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47233605

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

What do we think about the ISIS girl who wants to come back home?

As far as I can see, she remains a British citizen, and hence has the right to enter the UK.  She should then be arrested and tried for any relevant crimes, taking into account that she was a child when she left.

Given she entered a war zone to actively support the opposition she should really be handed over to the authorities in that country to face their system. Listening to her was quite scary though, didn't seem to have any regret at all in joining and said they deserve to lose because of the corruption??

 

You deserved to lose because you were helping a bunch of barbarians who threw people off buildings because of their sexuality, burnt and drowned people and assassinated anyone that didn't subscribe to your religion.

 

If she does have to come home certainly someone to keep an eye on given her views on the World, not to mention the children she'll raise.

[Jon the Hat]

30 minutes ago, Izzy said:

John McDonnell calls Winston Churchill a 'villain'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47233605

Not very controversial really, Churchill was a man for the war, not for a lot else.  As it goes, that war was so massively important that he can still be called a great prime minister and a great man despite his other failings, and the fact that we was undoubtedly a racist imperialist by today's standards.  As long as we judge him alongside others of his time I don't see an issue with any of that.

[Guest MattP]

McDonnell happily gives speeches under pictures of Assad and Stalin yet refers to Churchill as a villain - expect nothing else from him to be honest. 

 

Startling he's the shadow chancellor and a possible choice for next Labour leader - important to say aswell that unlike Jeremy Corbyn, McDonnell is intelligent, isn't naive and doesn't have his strings pulled by the Murray's and Milne's of the World.

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

What do we think about the ISIS girl who wants to come back home?

As far as I can see, she remains a British citizen, and hence has the right to enter the UK.  She should then be arrested and tried for any relevant crimes, taking into account that she was a child when she left.

She has no regret over anything she's done. She's 19 and can make her own decisions and should face either of the 2 options that any ISIS supporter should face, locked up or put down. 

 

The majority of these scum that are turning tail and fleeing "home" don't face any repercussions for their actions, which personally I think is a disgrace. 

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That sounds about right. In theory, she could be tried for any crimes committed in Syria, but in practice there's unlikely to be evidence for that, even if she has committed them (membership/support of a proscribed organisation, possibly?).

 

Reports suggest that, although she could be charged with ISIS membership before she left, that's unlikely as she was only 15 and was really just lured in by recruiters/brainwashing.

 

You'd hope that the security services would also keep an eye on what she's up to in future, assuming she's allowed to return. Whether counter-indoctrination is necessary or possible and how that would be achieved is another issue. Her comments suggest that she still feels some loyalty to ISIS but also has criticisms of them....could be enough to work with, but you cannot control someone's thoughts, ultimately....

In this country, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 and i would have thought she was guilty of high treason.

[Guest MattP]

45 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

She has no regret over anything she's done. She's 19 and can make her own decisions and should face either of the 2 options that any ISIS supporter should face, locked up or put down. 

 

The majority of these scum that are turning tail and fleeing "home" don't face any repercussions for their actions, which personally I think is a disgrace. 

It's deplorable to be honest that because this wasn't an official "state" citizenship couldn't be revoked and legally we are still obliged to help these people.

 

It would be hard to swallow if they were people who made a stupid decision, let alone ones who still show no remorse over it - unfortunately they probably know the law is on their side regarding this.

[Alf Bentley]

25 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

In this country, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 and i would have thought she was guilty of high treason.

 

Interesting info here about treason, high treason and petty treason (had never even heard of petty treason, so I've learned something today). Last person tried here for treason was WW2 traitor Lord Haw Haw, apparently

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

There should certainly be investigations into what she and other returnees got up to out there, and into whether any of it constitutes criminality and whether there's evidence to support charges.

Any such crimes are more likely to have impacted Syrian citizens than Brits (unless she's been involved in planning UK terrorism - unlikely) so there's a logic to handing her over to the Syrian legal authorities. But does the UK recognise the Assad regime or its legal system as legitimate? If not, we'd presumably want to investigate under the law of England & Wales?

[foxy boxing]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

What do we think about the ISIS girl who wants to come back home?

As far as I can see, she remains a British citizen, and hence has the right to enter the UK.  She should then be arrested and tried for any relevant crimes, taking into account that she was a child when she left.

Ideally she should not be allowed back as she chose willingly to be with a terrorist organisation who hate everything this country stands for. she has stated she has no regrets so is still very much a security risk. at the very least she should have a number of years of de - radicalization courses. no doubt she will get all the help she needs at British taxpayers expense, of course.

[woznotwos]

16 hours ago, purpleronnie said:

If only I could give more 'likes' to this.

 

But i'd add jogging bottoms when not jogging and football shirts when not playing it or watching it.

 

Oh and those dyed jeans with rips in them...them too.

 

Oh black jeans and white trainers them as well.

 

Oh and visible undershirts....that's an American thing but I hate it.

 

Any ill fitting trousers.

 

Square toed dress shoes.

 

Buttoning up all the buttons on a blazer.

 

Not tucking in dress shirts...see this on TV all the time.

 

If only the fashion police was a real thing....I'd join in a second.

You'd get locked up 

[yorkie1999]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Interesting info here about treason, high treason and petty treason (had never even heard of petty treason, so I've learned something today). Last person tried here for treason was WW2 traitor Lord Haw Haw, apparently

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

There should certainly be investigations into what she and other returnees got up to out there, and into whether any of it constitutes criminality and whether there's evidence to support charges.

Any such crimes are more likely to have impacted Syrian citizens than Brits (unless she's been involved in planning UK terrorism - unlikely) so there's a logic to handing her over to the Syrian legal authorities. But does the UK recognise the Assad regime or its legal system as legitimate? If not, we'd presumably want to investigate under the law of England & Wales?

Maybe a few of our radicalized british subjects should have a gander at wiki before they get flying off to join the cause. Also immigrants to the uk should be made aware of what it actually means to hold a british passport.

 

"An alien resident in the United Kingdom owes allegiance to the Crown, and may be prosecuted for high treason. The only exception is an enemy lawful combatant in wartime, e.g. a uniformed enemy soldier on British territory."

 

"A British subject resident abroad also continues to owe allegiance to the Crown. If he or she becomes a citizen of another state before a war during which he bears arms against the Crown, he or she is not guilty of high treason. On the other hand, becoming a citizen of an enemy state during wartime is high treason, as it constitutes adhering to the sovereign's enemies"

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

What do we think about the ISIS girl who wants to come back home?

As far as I can see, she remains a British citizen, and hence has the right to enter the UK.  She should then be arrested and tried for any relevant crimes, taking into account that she was a child when she left.

This reminds me of that Dave Chappelle bit 'how old is 15 really?'

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

What do we think about the ISIS girl who wants to come back home?

As far as I can see, she remains a British citizen, and hence has the right to enter the UK.  She should then be arrested and tried for any relevant crimes, taking into account that she was a child when she left. 

 

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not very controversial really, Churchill was a man for the war, not for a lot else.  As it goes, that war was so massively important that he can still be called a great prime minister and a great man despite his other failings, and the fact that we was undoubtedly a racist imperialist by today's standards.  As long as we judge him alongside others of his time I don't see an issue with any of that.

for both of these.

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

It's deplorable to be honest that because this wasn't an official "state" citizenship couldn't be revoked and legally we are still obliged to help these people.

 

It would be hard to swallow if they were people who made a stupid decision, let alone ones who still show no remorse over it - unfortunately they probably know the law is on their side regarding this.

Deplorable perhaps, but also necessary - being able to revoke citizenship without a receiving nation is a slippery slope that could easily be abused.