Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mark

The Politics Thread 2019

Recommended Posts

Meanwhile, in Canada, a Human Rights Tribunal is deciding whether or not to punish waxing salons for refusing to wax this woman’s knob and bollocks:

 

17772112_web1_190719-SNW-M-Jessica-Yaniv.thumb.jpg.e37e3e2abd86a8d01aa64bff5922bdf7.jpg

 

https://www.cloverdalereporter.com/news/publication-ban-lifted-on-transgender-complainants-name-in-surrey-waxing-dispute/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

World’s gone nuts. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Meanwhile, in Canada, a Human Rights Tribunal is deciding whether or not to punish waxing salons for refusing to wax this woman’s knob and bollocks:

 

17772112_web1_190719-SNW-M-Jessica-Yaniv.thumb.jpg.e37e3e2abd86a8d01aa64bff5922bdf7.jpg

 

https://www.cloverdalereporter.com/news/publication-ban-lifted-on-transgender-complainants-name-in-surrey-waxing-dispute/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

World’s gone nuts. 

game's gone

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Meanwhile, in Canada, a Human Rights Tribunal is deciding whether or not to punish waxing salons for refusing to wax this woman’s knob and bollocks:

 

17772112_web1_190719-SNW-M-Jessica-Yaniv.thumb.jpg.e37e3e2abd86a8d01aa64bff5922bdf7.jpg

 

https://www.cloverdalereporter.com/news/publication-ban-lifted-on-transgender-complainants-name-in-surrey-waxing-dispute/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

World’s gone nuts. 

She should see what her gynaecologist thinks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

 

 

...Don't see the problem? :huh:

 

Life saving drugs >

Medical devices (I assume to save lives) >

Fresh food >

 

Only gets dodgy after that, somehow it's nuclear plants parts over chemicals to purify drinking water, but I'd assume that's because we have enough drinking water anyways, or enough stores of the chemicals to render it inferior to nuclear parts. :dunno:

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

There's plenty of water in Abbey park and the river soar.  We'll be fine....

That's the spirit. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bovril said:

Brexit:

 

2016 - Out and into the World

2019 - What do we need that the forest cannot provide? 

 

Who was it (Gavin Williamson?) who wanted to send an aircraft carrier to threaten China? We haven't even got enough ships to protect our oil tankers from Iran.

 

This idea that we are somehow a major world power able to strike out on our own is deluded, dangerous nonsense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting.

 

Nadler: Mueller has evidence of Trump high crimes and misdemeanours

 

Robert Mueller will go to Congress on Wednesday to testify before two House committees about his report on Russian election interference, links between the Trump campaign and Moscow and potential obstruction of justice by the president.

 

As the special counsel speaks to the judiciary and intelligence committees, the eyes of America will be trained on Capitol Hill.

On Sunday, the chairman of the judiciary panel indicated the stakes when he said Mueller’s 448-page report contained “very substantial evidence that the president is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours” – the benchmark for impeachment.

“It’s important that we not have a lawless administration and a lawless president,” the New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler told Fox News Sunday. “And it’s important that people see what we’re doing and what we’re dealing with.”

Nadler’s committee would initiate impeachment proceedings.

 

“The report presents very substantial evidence that the president is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours,” he said, “and we have to present, or let Mueller present those facts to the American people and then see where we go from there because the administration must be held accountable and no president can be above the law.”

Mueller was appointed in May 2017, submitted his report in March 2019 and saw it released with redactions a month later.

Attorney general William Barr released a brief summary in which he said conspiracy between Trump and Moscow had not been proven and instances of possible obstruction of justice – the report details 11 by the president or his campaign – were not sufficient to establish that an offence had been committed.

Mueller, who said in his report he did not exonerate Trump, subsequently gave a press conference in which he said his work should speak for itself. Most took that to mean he did not pursue the obstruction charges in part because of a justice department opinion which holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

 

On Sunday Adam Schiff of California, the House intelligence committee chair, told CBS’s Face the Nation: “It’s been clear from Bob Mueller that he felt and the justice department feels bound by this Office of Legal Counsel opinion that you can’t indict a sitting president.”

 

The Russia investigation is not the only subject of discussion of impeachment and whether Trump has committed “high crimes and misdemeanours”, a standard not defined in the constitution and thereby forever the subject of debate.

In the case of now-closed investigations of campaign finance violations involving former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen making payments to women who claim affairs with Trump, Schiff said the president was “essentially an unindicted co-conspirator”.

“He has been identified as ‘individual one’,” he said, “the person who directed Michael Cohen to commit this fraudulent campaign scheme. And I assume this all means that in the Southern District of New York, the case will be reopened when he leaves office.”

Schiff also said that though Cohen is in prison Trump is “not above the law. He may have a temporary reprieve while he occupies that office”.

Among Democrats, debate rages on about whether impeachment is merited or politically desirable as the 2020 election approaches. Pro-impeachment opinion is strong among supporters and an increasing number of elected officials, contenders for the presidential nomination among them.

Mueller’s testimony was initially set for 17 July. In a tense political standoff, other demands by House committees for testimony from Trump aides and allies have been blocked by the White House.

Trump, who has repeatedly and inaccurately claimed exoneration, said this week he would not watch Mueller’s testimony and accused Democrats of “just playing games”. On Sunday he tweeted a nonspecific but familiar complaint about “presidential harassment” and focused on his ongoing racist attacks on four progressive Democratic congresswomen.

 

Republicans who will question Mueller have tried to dampen expectations.

The hearing will be “like an old TV show that you watched years ago”, Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the judiciary committee, told the Associated Press. “After a few minutes you could quote what the characters could say, and nothing is new anymore. Frankly, the American people have moved on.”

 

nsurprisingly, David Ciciline, a New Jersey Democrat on the same panel, disagreed. He told the AP the hearing would be “the first opportunity for the American people to hear directly from Mr Mueller about what he found about Russian interference in the American presidential election and efforts by the president to impede, undermine or stop the investigation.”

He added: “I do think that the contents of the report are so significant, and so damning, that when Mr Mueller brings them to life, and actually tells the American people ... it will have an impact.”

Accordingly, Democrats have been preparing intensely.

Jamie Raskin of Maryland, another member of the judiciary committee, told the AP: “There are still millions of people who think, absurdly, that there is no evidence of presidential obstruction or collusion in the report.”

 

That, he said, was because Barr and Trump have created a “fog of propaganda”.

“We just want to clear the fog,” Raskin said.

Nadler told Fox News Sunday any Republican questioning of Mueller about supposed FBI misconduct, an attack line meant to discredit the special counsel’s work, would be an “irrelevancy” and a waste of time.

“What’s before the American people is the conduct of this president,” he said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

There's plenty of water in Abbey park and the river soar.  We'll be fine....

They closed the boating lake the other week due to low water levels. You need to look elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Who was it (Gavin Williamson?) who wanted to send an aircraft carrier to threaten China? We haven't even got enough ships to protect our oil tankers from Iran.

 

This idea that we are somehow a major world power able to strike out on our own is deluded, dangerous nonsense.

There are hundreds of British flagged and British owned/operated tankers in that region daily, we'll never have enough ships to protect them all.

HMS Queen Elizabeth will deploy to East Asia though, and will conduct freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea.

 

A sea not owned by China.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The democrats doubling down to hopefully get one more turn at the trough. Whatever.

I feel like my country is on a Kubler/Ross wheel of the five stages of grief. For a political system that does not work except for the very rich.

Politicians who will do absolutely anything but help the majority of its citizens. And no another new corrupt president is not going to make it better. :frusty:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

There are hundreds of British flagged and British owned/operated tankers in that region daily, we'll never have enough ships to protect them all.

HMS Queen Elizabeth will deploy to East Asia though, and will conduct freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea.

 

A sea not owned by China.

 

I'm sure the Chinese will be quaking in their boots.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I'm sure the Chinese will be quaking in their boots.

That's not the point of freedom of navigation operations, but I'm sure you don't care.

The laissez-faire thought process by a significant proportion of the UK population towards Chinese military ambition in one of the world's most vital shipping routes is astounding.

Edited by Beechey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

That's not the point of freedom of navigation operations, but I'm sure you don't care.

 

Of course I don't care about pointless willy-waving.

 

The question is, why do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Because I believe in the rule of law. If China is allowed to completely tear up the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, why doesn't everyone else?

China are a party to this convention, as is the UK. Further, we're a member of the Five Power Defence Arrangements, and Chinese actions in this area are calling into question our obligations to such agreements.

 

The fact you call it pointless willy-waving tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge on the topic, as well are your predisposition to arguments on the topic.

The Rule of Law. Like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action JCPOA with Iran. The tanker your country pirated from Iran. "Law for thee but not for me."

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SO1 said:

The Rule of Law. Like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action JCPOA with Iran. The tanker your country pirated from Iran. "Law for thee but not for me."

I take it you've read the UNCLOS, then? I actually have read the relevant sections, so let me point something out to you.

 

Part II, Section 3, Subsection A, Article 18 states the following.

 

1. Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:

     (a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or

     (b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.

2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.

 

If the Gibraltar Port Authorities suspected this vessel of breaching Gibraltar law (which they did), then as this vessel entered the territorial waters of Gibraltar under its own free will to resupply, it halted its progress, meaning the right of free passage ceased to apply to the vessel.

This allowed the port authorities to impound the vessel and begin their investigations.

 

Iran, on the other hand, entered Omani waters, boarded a British vessel and steered it into Iranian waters.

See the difference?

 

Tell me again, where is the piracy?

Edited by Beechey
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Beechey said:

I take it you've read the UNCLOS, then? I actually have read the relevant sections, so let me point something out to you.

 

Part II, Section 3, Subsection A, Article 18 states the following.

 

1. Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:

     (a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or

     (b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.

2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.

 

If the Gibraltar Port Authorities suspected this vessel of breaching Gibraltar law (which they did), then as this vessel entered the territorial waters of Gibraltar under its own free will to resupply, it halted its progress, meaning the right of free passage ceased to apply to the vessel.

This allowed the port authorities to impound the vessel and begin their investigations.

 

Iran, on the other hand, entered Omani waters, boarded a British vessel and steered it into Iranian waters.

See the difference?

 

Tell me again, where is the piracy?

Its your opinion.You know what happened. We're going to see where we all stand when the world is governed by 'might makes right' and 'preemptive war'. Sad for us all.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Because I believe in the rule of law. If China is allowed to completely tear up the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, why doesn't everyone else?

China are a party to this convention, as is the UK. Further, we're a member of the Five Power Defence Arrangements, and Chinese actions in this area are calling into question our obligations to such agreements.

Presumably you're therefore also against a Royal Navy deployment to the Gulf, where they frequently do freedom of navigation operations? Operation Kipion is exactly the same as this South China Sea deployment, except that's a standing deployment and this is a one-off.

 

The fact you call it pointless willy-waving tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge on the topic, as well are your predisposition to arguments on the topic.

 

In Williams speech (the one that got Hammond's trip to China cancelled) he said Britain was prepared to use 'lethal force' to deter countries that flout International Law (a reference to China). He also said it represented 'an opportunity for Britain to enhance its military threat'.

 

In what way is that not willy waving? See if you can answer in a civil and less confrontational manner this time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

In Williams speech (the one that got Hammond's trip to China cancelled) he said Britain was prepared to use 'lethal force' to deter countries that flout International Law (a reference to China). He also said it represented 'an opportunity for Britain to enhance its military threat'.

 

In what way is that not willy waving? See if you can answer in a civil and less confrontational manner this time.

"

Sorry, is there something civil about saying I support "pointless willy waving", referring to your suggestions that the Royal Navy is deploying to scare China?

You set the tone, mate.

 

The UK has as recently as 2018 used lethal force to deter countries which flout international law. This is nothing new, this is a known fact. We do it pretty much every year.

You disagree that a deployment of the fleet flagship to the other side of the planet to operate alongside the Australian, French, US and Japanese navies enhances our military?

This especially as the UK looks to redeploy itself East of Suez.

 

I don't really disagree with you on Williamson, I think he was an eccentric, and probably ill suited to the role. But this does not diminish the military operation, which had been planned since late 2017/early 2018.

 

I'd like for you to address the main point of my previous post, though, in that FoN is emphatically not "pointless willy waving".

Edited by Beechey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Because I believe in the rule of law. If China is allowed to completely tear up the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, why doesn't everyone else?

China are a party to this convention, as is the UK. Further, we're a member of the Five Power Defence Arrangements, and Chinese actions in this area are calling into question our obligations to such agreements.

Presumably you're therefore also against a Royal Navy deployment to the Gulf, where they frequently do freedom of navigation operations? Operation Kipion is exactly the same as this South China Sea deployment, except that's a standing deployment and this is a one-off.

 

The fact you call it pointless willy-waving tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge on the topic, as well are your predisposition to arguments on the topic.

Why should the sea (or the land) belong to anyone? Do the worms and bacteria and fish and .... not have the right to own themselves?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...