Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[urban.spaceman]

8 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Come on man, you can do better than comparing the United Kingdom to a football club 😂

It's called an analogy but I suppose the biggest mistake of comparing the two is that under King Power we actually had good times, whereas we never did under the Tories. And the damage to the country at the time of handover is far more catastrophic than you seem to currently understand. 

[Muzzy_no7]

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

It's called an analogy but I suppose the biggest mistake of comparing the two is that under King Power we actually had good times, whereas we never did under the Tories. And the damage to the country at the time of handover is far more catastrophic than you seem to currently understand. 

I know what an analogy is. The point was that it’s a particularly poor one when comparing ownership of a football club with governing a sovereign country. “It’s called an analogy” is unnecessarily sarcastic and condescending, as is “you seem to understand”, which is a pretty transparent attempt to belittle rather than actually address the point.

 

Saying we never had good times under the Tories’ is a subjective political opinion rather than evidence that the comparison between UK government and LCFC suddenly works😂.

 

And if we’re going to talk about inheritances, let’s just pretend 2010 didn’t happen ayy? Labour left the Conservatives a pretty grim inheritance too, particularly following the financial crisis and the state of the public finances. You can argue the Conservatives made things considerably worse over 14 years, but that doesn’t make every problem exclusively theirs any more than Labour’s inheritance in 2010 made everything that followed exclusively Labour’s fault.

The whole point is that governments inherit problems and then become responsible for what they do with them. That applies to Labour, Conservatives and whoever comes next. Otherwise “it was worse when we took over” becomes an infinite political Get Out of Jail Free card.

 

Take care now, I’m off for some beers in the sun.

 

[Tommy G]

4 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Very senior civil servants will give advice but the civil service absolutely 100% is waiting on ministerial direction. 

 

There are certainly long standing issues - actually social care is a great example, the failure of trickle down economics, failure to renationalise failing privatised industries etc where both parties are absolutely to blame. 

 

But the country clearly went very badly downhill during those 14 years. I blame Osborne for a lot of it. He presided over the treasury at a point where we had record low interest rates and was exactly the time that we should have been borrowing to invest and build and get our country moving. With virtually nil interest attached we could have developed all sorts of things that would have huge value. Instead he cut and chose that time to waste one if the biggest economic opportunities any government has ever had. And things just spiralled downhill from there. Lack of spending, lack of growth, lack of economic benefit to ordinary people, all while he boasted of booming Britain, and we see the rise of the far right, as we always do when leaders need to blame something other than themselves for economic woes. You can trace Brexit, small boats, economic stagnation all to those early Tory government decisions. 

 

But yes labour needs to do better. I'm quite positive Burnham might be more willing to really look for real change, we will see.

He's sorted bus fares, made it easier to cancel netflix and now banning disposable BBQs so he's on the right track 

[urban.spaceman]

4 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

I know what an analogy is. The point was that it’s a particularly poor one when comparing ownership of a football club with governing a sovereign country. “It’s called an analogy” is unnecessarily sarcastic and condescending, as is “you seem to understand”, which is a pretty transparent attempt to belittle rather than actually address the point.

The point of the analogy was to ask you if you thought it was possible for Labour to turn around the state of the prison service - and everything else in this country - in an impossible time frame and with diminished resources to do so. You still haven't answered that. 

 

4 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Saying we never had good times under the Tories’ is a subjective political opinion rather than evidence that the comparison between UK government and LCFC suddenly works😂.

It's an objective fact. I can't think of more than two policies introduced by the Tories that improved life in this country. Even then they're both dubious. Feel free to name any you can think of. 

 

4 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

 

And if we’re going to talk about inheritances, let’s just pretend 2010 didn’t happen ayy? Labour left the Conservatives a pretty grim inheritance too, particularly following the financial crisis and the state of the public finances. You can argue the Conservatives made things considerably worse over 14 years, but that doesn’t make every problem exclusively theirs any more than Labour’s inheritance in 2010 made everything that followed exclusively Labour’s fault.

The whole point is that governments inherit problems and then become responsible for what they do with them. That applies to Labour, Conservatives and whoever comes next. Otherwise “it was worse when we took over” becomes an infinite political Get Out of Jail Free card.

 

Take care now, I’m off for some beers in the sun.

 

The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by unregulated American banks crashing the global economy, not Labour. 

 

Gordon Brown is widely credited for not just Britain's dealing with the crisis but influencing the international response too. Look it up. 

 

The Tories made everything worse over their fourteen years. Prisons, courts, schools and universities, NHS, social services, the economy, trade, poverty and the cost of living, immigration, the invention of a small boats crisis, Brexit, housing, energy, water, police service and the decimation of our armed forces. The list goes on and on. TL;DR: We are all financially worse off and have fewer rights. 

 

You can't turn around any of those things in just two years, let alone all of them. In normal circumstances without the above challenges you could probably argue bUt LaBoUr HaVe HaD tWo YeArS NoW with a straight face and get away with it, but you can never absolve the Tories of their catastrophic 14 years in power - we're going to be living with the consequences of them and their actions for generations.

 

Some of those ****s should be in prison. 

[urban.spaceman]

PS enjoy your beers - they're more expensive now cos of the you know who. 

[kenny]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

PS enjoy your beers - they're more expensive now cos of the you know who. 

FFS what have labour increased the tax on now?

 

I thought we would go at least 6 months before the latest new record tax level.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Hesgeth strikes again.

 

USS Abraham Lincoln sailors tried to jump overboard amid extended deployment – reports | US military | The Guardian

 

https://share.google/ysJT8mXkfesv6vcJo

 

Fake news, apparently

Edited 12 August by Trav Le Bleu

[CornwallFox]

6 hours ago, Tommy G said:

He's sorted bus fares, made it easier to cancel netflix and now banning disposable BBQs so he's on the right track 

He's starting on small annoyances, but isn't it nice to have somebody deal with those annoyances instead of actively encouraging them? As you will know, we're awaiting a budget before he can - if he does - do anything more substantial.

 

Interesting that you chose not to get involved with the rest of my post. You do try to give off a objective vibe but can't entirely allow yourself to consider that right wing economics is the underlying problem - including with the 2007/8 financial crisis. 

Edited 12 August by CornwallFox

[Tommy G]

4 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

He's starting on small annoyances, but isn't it nice to have somebody deal with those annoyances instead of actively encouraging them? As you will know, we're awaiting a budget before he can - if he does - do anything more substantial.

 

Interesting that you chose not to get involved with the rest of my post. You do try to give off an objective vibe but can't entirely allow yourself to consider that right wing economics is the underlying problem - including with the 2007/8 financial crisis. 

Was busy working and couldn’t be arsed to get into a big debate, just gets me banned from certain topics so don’t engage anymore.

[CornwallFox]

7 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

I know what an analogy is. The point was that it’s a particularly poor one when comparing ownership of a football club with governing a sovereign country. “It’s called an analogy” is unnecessarily sarcastic and condescending, as is “you seem to understand”, which is a pretty transparent attempt to belittle rather than actually address the point.

 

Saying we never had good times under the Tories’ is a subjective political opinion rather than evidence that the comparison between UK government and LCFC suddenly works😂.

 

And if we’re going to talk about inheritances, let’s just pretend 2010 didn’t happen ayy? Labour left the Conservatives a pretty grim inheritance too, particularly following the financial crisis and the state of the public finances. You can argue the Conservatives made things considerably worse over 14 years, but that doesn’t make every problem exclusively theirs any more than Labour’s inheritance in 2010 made everything that followed exclusively Labour’s fault.

The whole point is that governments inherit problems and then become responsible for what they do with them. That applies to Labour, Conservatives and whoever comes next. Otherwise “it was worse when we took over” becomes an infinite political Get Out of Jail Free card.

 

Take care now, I’m off for some beers in the sun.

 

The Tories didn't have a bad inheritance.

Public service satisfaction was at all time highs and growth was okay again. The worst of the financial crisis had been and gone.

There was a short term deficit as the tax receipts from financial services had dropped, alongside increased spending to support the economy through the crisis, but that was only ever a short term issue in the grand scheme. 

Coming out of that, as I mentioned before, we had decent growth and record low interest rates. A great time to invest. Instead we cut and saw a double dip recession under Osborne and never saw any sort of benefit for ordinary people ever since. 

Edited 12 August by CornwallFox

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Was busy working and couldn’t be arsed to get into a big debate, just gets me banned from certain topics so don’t engage anymore.

There's no real debate to be had but okay

[Muzzy_no7]

19 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

The point of the analogy was to ask you if you thought it was possible for Labour to turn around the state of the prison service - and everything else in this country - in an impossible time frame and with diminished resources to do so. You still haven't answered that. 

 

It's an objective fact. I can't think of more than two policies introduced by the Tories that improved life in this country. Even then they're both dubious. Feel free to name any you can think of. 

 

The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by unregulated American banks crashing the global economy, not Labour. 

 

Gordon Brown is widely credited for not just Britain's dealing with the crisis but influencing the international response too. Look it up. 

 

The Tories made everything worse over their fourteen years. Prisons, courts, schools and universities, NHS, social services, the economy, trade, poverty and the cost of living, immigration, the invention of a small boats crisis, Brexit, housing, energy, water, police service and the decimation of our armed forces. The list goes on and on. TL;DR: We are all financially worse off and have fewer rights. 

 

You can't turn around any of those things in just two years, let alone all of them. In normal circumstances without the above challenges you could probably argue bUt LaBoUr HaVe HaD tWo YeArS NoW with a straight face and get away with it, but you can never absolve the Tories of their catastrophic 14 years in power - we're going to be living with the consequences of them and their actions for generations.

 

Some of those ****s should be in prison. 

I don’t think anyone is seriously arguing that Labour should have fixed 14 years of accumulated problems in two years. Of course inherited problems take time to address, and I have no issue with giving Labour time to implement policies and judge whether they work. What I object to is turning “the Tories left a mess” into a blanket exemption from accountability for anything Labour does afterwards.

 

An inheritance explains the starting point but of course doesn’t give the incoming government immunity from criticism.

 

And the “it’s an objective fact that the Tories didn’t improve anything” point simply isn’t an objective fact — it’s your assessment of their record. You can argue that their overall record was disastrous while still acknowledging that things such as furlough, the National Living Wage, same-sex marriage, Universal Credit reforms and various other policies had positive effects for at least some people. Whether those policies outweighed the negatives is a perfectly legitimate debate, but saying there were no improvements isn’t an objective proposition.

 

On 2008, I haven’t argued that Labour caused the global financial crisis. Brown deserves credit for his role in the international response. But that doesn’t automatically settle every question about the UK’s pre-crisis position, financial regulation or subsequent economic management. Those are separate issues.

 

As for the enormous list of prisons, courts, NHS, schools, universities, poverty, immigration, Brexit, housing, energy, water, policing, armed forces etc., you’re presenting a series of conclusions as though they’re all uncontested facts. Some are very legitimate criticisms of the Conservative record; others require considerably more nuance.

 

Brexit is obviously a Conservative responsibility politically.

 

Net migration reaching record levels under the Conservatives is a perfectly fair criticism.
 

The state of prisons and courts after 14 years is absolutely something they should be judged on. (Although still, it’s not entirely their fault)

 

I’m sorry but you just can’t reasonably attribute every increase in the cost of living to the government when COVID, global energy prices and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine were major external shocks. Likewise, saying Britain is simply “financially worse off” or has “fewer rights” requires defining what you’re measuring.

And that’s really the issue here. You can believe the Conservatives were an absolutely terrible government without believing they are responsible for every problem Britain has ever had or will ever have. Labour have governed for decades in our modern history too, and governments inherit problems from their predecessors just as their successors will inherit problems from them.

The principle has to work both ways: if Labour don’t deserve criticism because they’ve inherited an unprecedented mess, then equally they shouldn’t automatically receive credit for every improvement simply because they happen to be in government when it occurs. We should judge what they actually do.

 

The LCFC analogy just won’t wash I’m afraid . Leicester City is a single organisation with one ownership structure, a finite budget, a manager, a defined objective and a relatively straightforward chain of accountability. The UK is a sovereign country containing millions of people, thousands of institutions, Parliament, an ‘independent’ civil service, local government, courts, an economy and countless external factors. A new football owner can change the manager, staff, strategy and spending almost immediately. A government obviously cannot just take over the state and rebuild it from scratch.

 

So yes — give Labour time. Judge them fairly against the scale of the problems they’ve inherited. But that doesn’t mean giving them an indefinite political Get Out of Jail Free card, as I’ve already said.

 

And it’s an objective fact” and then listing virtually every major problem in Britain isn’t an argument in itself. Some of those claims are factual, some are interpretations, and some are political opinions. Treating the entire list as settled fact doesn’t make the argument stronger.

 

Oh yeah, prison? With all the Labour members, employees and elected persons who covered up the grooming gang scandal.

 

12 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

The Tories didn't have a bad inheritance.

Public service satisfaction was at all time highs and growth was okay again. The worst of the financial crisis had been and gone.

There was a short term deficit as the tax receipts from financial services had dropped, alongside increased spending to support the economy through the crisis, but that was only ever a short term issue in the grand scheme. 

Coming out of that, as I mentioned before, we had decent growth and record low interest rates. A great time to invest. Instead we cut and saw a double dip recession under Osborne and never saw any sort of benefit for ordinary people ever since. 

I think you’re conflating two completely separate arguments: whether the Conservatives inherited a difficult situation in 2010, and whether the Conservatives subsequently made good decisions.

 

You can quite reasonably argue that Osborne’s austerity programme was too severe, that the government should have invested more while borrowing costs were exceptionally low, and that the recovery could have been stronger. None of that means the inheritance itself was somehow any good.

 

The worst of the immediate banking crisis may have passed, but that doesn’t mean the economic consequences had disappeared. Britain was coming out of a major recession with a very large deficit, rising public debt, depressed tax receipts and much higher welfare spending. (Which, again has risen far too quickly)

 

Also, “growth was okay again” doesn’t establish that the underlying position was healthy. Recovering from a severe recession naturally produces a rebound in growth. You still have to consider productivity, unemployment, tax revenues, debt, the structural deficit and the sustainability of the recovery. And yes, low interest rates presented a strong case for investment — I have no problem with the argument that Osborne missed an opportunity there. But that’s an argument that the Conservatives mishandled the inheritance, not evidence that there was no difficult inheritance to begin with.

 

The double-dip is similar. Presenting it as simply “Osborne caused a double-dip recession” ignores the Eurozone crisis, weak external demand and other factors affecting the economy at the time.

And “ordinary people never saw any sort of benefit” is political rhetoric, not an objective fact. Employment rose substantially and unemployment fell over the subsequent years, and there were periods of real wage growth. You can argue that those gains were inadequate, unevenly distributed or later wiped out by the cost-of-living crisis, but saying there was literally no benefit to ordinary people is, again, just silly.

Edited 13 August by Muzzy_no7

[Salisbury Fox]

12 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

The Tories didn't have a bad inheritance.

Public service satisfaction was at all time highs and growth was okay again. The worst of the financial crisis had been and gone.

There was a short term deficit as the tax receipts from financial services had dropped, alongside increased spending to support the economy through the crisis, but that was only ever a short term issue in the grand scheme. 

Coming out of that, as I mentioned before, we had decent growth and record low interest rates. A great time to invest. Instead we cut and saw a double dip recession under Osborne and never saw any sort of benefit for ordinary people ever since. 

I think you are downplaying the deficit a little, given it was around  £160 billion in 2010 and wasn’t simply a short term problem that disappeared when the financial crisis ended. It’s worth mentioning that our fiscal position was further complicated by Labour’s extensive use of PFI, which created substantial long term obligations (estimated to be £130 billion in 2010) that were not reflected in conventional public sector debt. 

[LCFCJohn]

On 11/08/2026 at 11:28, urban.spaceman said:

****ing monstrous. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3q5vl581wo

And again, if people like Trump and all those who respond to anything related to illness with little emojis of syringes, look at all the absolute crap that goes into most of the food and drinks stocked on our supermarket shelves, the true reason for more issues involving poor health and probably things like autism (additives and E-numbers in things) would be clear….

[CornwallFox]

5 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

I don’t think anyone is seriously arguing that Labour should have fixed 14 years of accumulated problems in two years. Of course inherited problems take time to address, and I have no issue with giving Labour time to implement policies and judge whether they work. What I object to is turning “the Tories left a mess” into a blanket exemption from accountability for anything Labour does afterwards.

 

An inheritance explains the starting point but of course doesn’t give the incoming government immunity from criticism.

 

And the “it’s an objective fact that the Tories didn’t improve anything” point simply isn’t an objective fact — it’s your assessment of their record. You can argue that their overall record was disastrous while still acknowledging that things such as furlough, the National Living Wage, same-sex marriage, Universal Credit reforms and various other policies had positive effects for at least some people. Whether those policies outweighed the negatives is a perfectly legitimate debate, but saying there were no improvements isn’t an objective proposition.

 

On 2008, I haven’t argued that Labour caused the global financial crisis. Brown deserves credit for his role in the international response. But that doesn’t automatically settle every question about the UK’s pre-crisis position, financial regulation or subsequent economic management. Those are separate issues.

 

As for the enormous list of prisons, courts, NHS, schools, universities, poverty, immigration, Brexit, housing, energy, water, policing, armed forces etc., you’re presenting a series of conclusions as though they’re all uncontested facts. Some are very legitimate criticisms of the Conservative record; others require considerably more nuance.

 

Brexit is obviously a Conservative responsibility politically.

 

Net migration reaching record levels under the Conservatives is a perfectly fair criticism.
 

The state of prisons and courts after 14 years is absolutely something they should be judged on. (Although still, it’s not entirely their fault)

 

I’m sorry but you just can’t reasonably attribute every increase in the cost of living to the government when COVID, global energy prices and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine were major external shocks. Likewise, saying Britain is simply “financially worse off” or has “fewer rights” requires defining what you’re measuring.

And that’s really the issue here. You can believe the Conservatives were an absolutely terrible government without believing they are responsible for every problem Britain has ever had or will ever have. Labour have governed for decades in our modern history too, and governments inherit problems from their predecessors just as their successors will inherit problems from them.

The principle has to work both ways: if Labour don’t deserve criticism because they’ve inherited an unprecedented mess, then equally they shouldn’t automatically receive credit for every improvement simply because they happen to be in government when it occurs. We should judge what they actually do.

 

The LCFC analogy just won’t wash I’m afraid . Leicester City is a single organisation with one ownership structure, a finite budget, a manager, a defined objective and a relatively straightforward chain of accountability. The UK is a sovereign country containing millions of people, thousands of institutions, Parliament, an ‘independent’ civil service, local government, courts, an economy and countless external factors. A new football owner can change the manager, staff, strategy and spending almost immediately. A government obviously cannot just take over the state and rebuild it from scratch.

 

So yes — give Labour time. Judge them fairly against the scale of the problems they’ve inherited. But that doesn’t mean giving them an indefinite political Get Out of Jail Free card, as I’ve already said.

 

And it’s an objective fact” and then listing virtually every major problem in Britain isn’t an argument in itself. Some of those claims are factual, some are interpretations, and some are political opinions. Treating the entire list as settled fact doesn’t make the argument stronger.

 

Oh yeah, prison? With all the Labour members, employees and elected persons who covered up the grooming gang scandal.

 

I think you’re conflating two completely separate arguments: whether the Conservatives inherited a difficult situation in 2010, and whether the Conservatives subsequently made good decisions.

 

You can quite reasonably argue that Osborne’s austerity programme was too severe, that the government should have invested more while borrowing costs were exceptionally low, and that the recovery could have been stronger. None of that means the inheritance itself was somehow any good.

 

The worst of the immediate banking crisis may have passed, but that doesn’t mean the economic consequences had disappeared. Britain was coming out of a major recession with a very large deficit, rising public debt, depressed tax receipts and much higher welfare spending. (Which, again has risen far too quickly)

 

Also, “growth was okay again” doesn’t establish that the underlying position was healthy. Recovering from a severe recession naturally produces a rebound in growth. You still have to consider productivity, unemployment, tax revenues, debt, the structural deficit and the sustainability of the recovery. And yes, low interest rates presented a strong case for investment — I have no problem with the argument that Osborne missed an opportunity there. But that’s an argument that the Conservatives mishandled the inheritance, not evidence that there was no difficult inheritance to begin with.

 

The double-dip is similar. Presenting it as simply “Osborne caused a double-dip recession” ignores the Eurozone crisis, weak external demand and other factors affecting the economy at the time.

And “ordinary people never saw any sort of benefit” is political rhetoric, not an objective fact. Employment rose substantially and unemployment fell over the subsequent years, and there were periods of real wage growth. You can argue that those gains were inadequate, unevenly distributed or later wiped out by the cost-of-living crisis, but saying there was literally no benefit to ordinary people is, again, just silly.

Thanks for responding. I like your response. I include myself (and you sometimes) when I say that we don't have enough reasonable discussions that accept all parties do good and bad. It's fairly clear I think the Tory's overall record over that period was utterly abysmal but TBF you have highlighted a small number of things I would have to accept weren't bad. A big problem more generally is that there's no ability in society right now to have those kind of conversations. Politicians and the media want to conflate everything into soundbites and good Vs bad type debates and it's very difficult to even get even handed information let alone debate it. We've allowed the Americanisation of our country and politics to its detriment. What is really needed is a genuine discussion about the broader picture of politics - what I would call the failure of neo-liberalism and the need for a completely new era of economics. 

[leicsmac]

Richard Littlejohn, excelling himself as usual. 

Edited 16 August by leicsmac

[Grebfromgrebland]

On 12/08/2026 at 15:28, Tommy G said:

He's sorted bus fares, made it easier to cancel netflix and now banning disposable BBQs so he's on the right track 

It reminds me of Burn's "Let them have tartar sauce" 

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Richard Littlejohn, excelling himself as usual. 

And so is Julia Hartley-Brewer, his female equivalent, apparently. 

[CornwallFox]

No idea of the veracity of any of the below but it's going around: 

 

So the net is really starting to close in around Nigel Farage's fishy finances - as today the Labour Party wrote to the Gambling Commission to request an investigation. 

The subject? 

Mowbray Jackson, who ran a platform called Tether.bet 

Tether.bet no longer exists, after it shut down suddenly only a couple of weeks ago, but it appears that it was operating entirely without a UK gambling license. Why does that matter?

Operating without a license made it the PERFECT vehicle for moving large, unregulated amounts of money, from outside the UK into the UK, without any government oversight. It's a process you might have heard of. It's called "money laundering". 

Now I'm not an expert in money laundering. 🙅🏻‍♂️

But you know who is? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Mowbray Jackson's very good friend, George Cottrell. And it was through Tether.bet that George is moved VAST amounts of money into the UK - and sending it on a magical, mystical journey straight to Nigel Farage's and Reform UK's bank account. 

Allegedly. 

Now "Posh George" might be a very busy boy - but you know who else is ALSO a very busy boy?

Mowbray Jackson. Seems the lad was taking time out from his presumably very busy job running Tether.bet to moonlight as a data controller for a political party. And you'll never guess which political party he works for. 

Go on.

You'll never guess. 😅

Are you starting to see why Nigel Farage might be getting very tetchy about all those reporters peering into his finances? 

I'll bet you are! ☕

[Trav Le Bleu]

This guy fulfils the criteria on two levels.

 

Judge swapped in Trump's defamation case against BBC - BBC News

 

https://share.google/GNtS1XmGi5v36PHAo

 

 

Edited 20 August by Trav Le Bleu

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

This guy fulfils the criteria on two levels.

 

Judge swapped in Trump's defamation case against BBC - BBC News

 

https://share.google/GNtS1XmGi5v36PHAo

 

 

Well, some judges appointed by the Dear Leader have refused to carry out his direct bidding before... we'll see what this one does in this case. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

36 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, some judges appointed by the Dear Leader have refused to carry out his direct bidding before... we'll see what this one does in this case. 

Surely the BBC would say that a judge can't be appointed by the prosecution.

 

It breaches article 6 of the ECHR and is also illegal in the case of the ICC.

 

Though we decided some time back that we didn't need the ECHR, so...

 

Much easier if people don't have rights.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Surely the BBC would say that a judge can't be appointed by the prosecution.

 

It breaches article 6 of the ECHR and is also illegal in the case of the ICC.

 

Though we decided some time back that we didn't need the ECHR, so...

 

Much easier if people don't have rights.

You would think so, and it will no doubt result in more legal eagling from both sides. 

[Grebfromgrebland]

3 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Surely the BBC would say that a judge can't be appointed by the prosecution.

 

It breaches article 6 of the ECHR and is also illegal in the case of the ICC.

 

Though we decided some time back that we didn't need the ECHR, so...

 

Much easier if people don't have rights.

In fairness we don't care about the ICC either.

 

As a country Britain's government is morally bankrupt right now and is perceived as such by most of the world.

[leicsmac]

Oh, Elon. Honestly, what happened to make you fall so far, mate?