This thread exists to discuss British politics.
Political issues related to Northern Ireland and the Crown Dependencies (the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) are also considered on-topic here if there's no more appropriate OTC thread for them.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
As with other OTC threads, off-topic posts may be thumped or edited by the moderators.
- There is a dedicated thread to discuss LGBTQ+ rights in the United Kingdom. That doesn't mean it's always off-topic here, but unless something's directly linked to political events, that's probably a better thread for it.
- There's also a separate thread to talk about your favourite British Prime Ministers.
Recent political stuff:
- The vote to see if Britain should adopt Alternative Voting has failed.
- Lib Dems lose lots of councils and councillors, whilst Labour make the majority of the gains in England.
- The Scottish National Party do really well in the elections.
A link to the BBC politics page containing relevant information.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 3rd 2023 at 11:15:30 AM
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
I mean, we sent over a hundred very large missiles into a capital city with extensive air defences. I know that arms manufacturers like to hype the precision of their weapons, but let’s be real here - if we didn’t kill a single civilian, it was more through luck than judgement.
What's precedent ever done for us?
I heard something about suspicions of them mixing chlorine with a bit sarin a week back.
Regardless, sarin can be produced if you have the will and a degree in chemical engineering. The problem comes with having to work with unstable substances, so mixing it in an improvised way will likely get you killed, which is why it rarely pops up in the hands of anybody else except state actors.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Aum Shinrikyo was as close to a state actor as an independent terror group has ever gotten. They had wealthy donors, extensive connections within the Japanese government, and a billion-yen software company. Even then, the amount of sarin they produced was close to militarily useless - it killed a lot of people, but far less than it should have despite being released in ideal conditions through an ideal delivery mechanism. In other words, you can’t just brew up a little bit of sarin for repeated military usage - you have to go big or go home. See here for more details.
You also can’t just mix chlorine with sarin - sarin is so lethal that it can only be safely stored in its binary components until the moment of delivery. Even if you’re combining the binaries with chlorine in order to save on sarin, you’ll need a dedicated warhead to keep the two halves separate until the right moment. These were just pressurised barrels rolled out of the back of a helicopter. They did not have sarin in them.
What's precedent ever done for us?
Oh, I'm aware of Aum's influence. Merely pointing out that it's doable with the proper support. It's been a while since my last CBRN lecture (2012).
Do you know where the sarin screams came from? Since we got chlorine and sarin in the news at various different times.
Well, the OPCW is there now so I suppose we'll see.
EDIT: Ah okay I looked into it, so the simultanous release of a US report suspecting both chlorine and sarin, along with other reports confused me. Sorry. Should just stick to asking guys from the FDF CBRN unit...
edited 15th Apr '18 4:37:13 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Simple - this was an unusually effective chlorine attack, with the victims suffering unusually virulent symptoms, so people initially thought it might be something worse than chlorine. It almost certainly isn’t, though - there’s not much else you can put in those crappy barrels without the helicopter crew keeling over mid-flight, and since sarin is a liquid rather than a gas, you need a specialised warhead that will aerosolise it if you want to actually do anything with it.
So they had a warhead back in 2017? Interesting.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Assad had a pre-war sarin stockpile, and was probably manufacturing sarin until the Ghouta attacks, at which point he was pressured into shutting down the program. The question is whether he’s been burning that off or making new sarin warheads, which would be very important in deciding how to deal with it now that the pre-Ghouta stuff has probably expired. This strike was used as a data-point to suggest that he had ignored the international community’s instructions and had current sarin-manufacturing capabilities, but we now know that it tells us no such thing. That’s important for knowing whether the coalition missile attacks will actually do anything meaningful.
What's precedent ever done for us?
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
A clarification I should make: this all kicked off because Fox News thought this was a sarin attack, and the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military on Earth is an idiot manchild who the profiteering racists trailing in his wake are only so willing to say no to.
What's precedent ever done for us?
About the recent Windrush cock-up due to a mix of previous careless documentation practice combined with May's years of pushing for Home Office boneheadedness in the paperwork department (and other areas)...
I can't help but facepalm. People have already been deported over this? When they came as citizens of the British Empire and have been resident for decades? And, the Home Office didn't see these repercussions of their "rule tightening" coming?
Enoch Powell would be laughing.
edited 16th Apr '18 5:58:03 AM by Euodiachloris
So something perhaps junk food news-y: Queen Elizabeth a descendant fo Prophet Muhammed, claims report Newburgh Gazette. Interesting but to be treated with caution.
In the 2012 London Olympics, when the Opening Ceremony was boasting to the world about British history and pride, there was an entire section devoted to the the Windrush. When the Suffragettes came out, the Windrush weren't far behind them.
The way the Windrush families are being treated is right up there with the treatment of the Gurkhas.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
I'm not surprised. The establishment crows over these sorts of things to show "hey we aren't BAD" but is abjectly inept at just acknowledging they made a mistake.
Hell, half the time they spend their time defending their position BECAUSE they're the Government and it's just a "reality". The British government rarely, as an institution, displays actual contrition. Or even a real modicum of empathy - like agreeing that islanders forced off their home to make way for a US base, for example, may have a point (Though, politically, they are beholden elsewhere so to admit fault has a domino effect)
It's just annoying that Yes Prime Minister seems to be shockingly relevant STILL.
And a lot of this I attribute to Civil Servants as much as politicians, as having met a fair few of THOSE, I can state they are slaves to process. And very much London centric.
Are you talking about Senior Civil Servants or Civil Servants? They aren't the same thing and your 'London-centric' comment makes me think you're talking about the SCS.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
A procrastination in of itself
I’d note that civil servants are legally required to not let their own feelings get into it, they enforce the will of the elected government, no matter how stupid or immoral that will may be.
They don’t get to decide that islanders forced from their home for a military absenhave a point, the only person who gets to make that call is the relevant minister, until the minister changes their mind the civil society ervsnts are legally required to argue the positon.
It’s the same way that a defence attorney is still required to give their client a full defence even if they think that they are guilty.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
More SCS. Day to day CS? Hell, I was one. You do the job. But you have to have some point where you go "Um, no, this is wrong". Or at least I'd hope people would. But I know how hard it can be to push back against things, especially if you don't see the wider impact of those actions. I know you sometimes have to have that internal ethical wall at times, but we have conscientious objectors - it is a viable choice.
But yes, the SCS tends to a London centric views (The Mo D has a very detached view of day to day life for the Military on camp, for example - not understanding the complaints around married quarters, Sodexho / Aspire issues and so forth)
But here, the fact the Home Office destroyed documents, probably as part of some wider normal disposal process just seems to be all about letter of process rather than spirit.
So, for example, I can see why we'd stick to our guns around evicting islanders - we have higher strategic concerns and ultimately international loyalties; but I do feel a government has a moral duty in its actions. Perhaps that's naive; a government is just a legislative body. But I believe that it needs to act with some form of compassion and not be entirely bone headed.
Windrush: Theresa May hits back at Labour over landing cards BBC article
The prime minister told M Ps she was not home secretary when the move was approved, saying it happened in 2009.
She apologised for the distress caused to anyone told they must leave the UK.
Labour has disputed her claim, saying the Home Office had said on Tuesday that the decision was taken in 2010 - and is demanding "clarification" from Mrs May and Home Secretary Amber Rudd.
The Windrush row erupted after it emerged that some children of Caribbean migrants who settled in the UK from the late 1940s to the 1970s had been declared illegal immigrants and threatened with deportation.
Landing cards were filled in by Commonwealth citizens arriving from the West Indies and elsewhere, and were used by officials to help subsequent generations prove they had a right to remain in the UK.
They had been stored in a basement for decades but Downing Street says the UK Border Agency approved a business case in June 2009 to dispose of paper records, including the cards.
The decision to destroy the cards themselves was taken in October 2010, after the coalition came to power. Mrs May was not involved in the decision, which was taken at official level, said No 10.
"First Downing Street claimed the decision to destroy the Windrush-era landing cards was made by the Home Office in 2010 for data protection reasons. Then the Home Office passed the buck to a 2010 decision by the UK Border Agency.
"At PMQs, the prime minister tried to shift the blame onto the last Labour government but was undermined by her own spokesperson minutes later, who then stated it was an operational decision, which Labour ministers would not have been aware of. Her spokesperson couldn't even say when the cards were destroyed."
Whistleblowers contradict No 10 over destroyed Windrush landing cards Today's article (Guardian)
Staff, in fact, routinely used landing card information as part of their decision-making process, and saw the Windrush landing cards as a useful resource, according to information from two new Home Office whistleblowers.
Their accounts have been further supported by the emergence of Border Force guidance, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that appears to contradict the government’s justification of a decision to destroy an archive of Windrush-era arrival slips.
The Border Force note appears to undermine the Home Office and Downing Street’s rejection of the documents’ significance. Giving details of how landing cards are used currently, the document stated: “Information from a landing card may be used by an entry clearance officer in making a decision on a visa application.”
Home Office destroyed Windrush landing cards, says ex-staffer Yesterday's article (Guardian)
Officials said in a statement that the decision was taken on data protection grounds, “to ensure that personal data … should not be kept for longer than necessary. Keeping these records would have represented a potential breach of these principles”.
He said he asked managers at the time what would happen in the case of a dispute. He said he was told the majority of people on the landing cards were in their 70s and 80s and most of their cases would have been resolved, and the office did “not have the resources to keep them”.
“I suggested digitising but was told there were no resources,” he said. He remembered protesting: “Even if half the people are dead, they are historical records.” His manager responded that the cards were “redundant”.
edited 18th Apr '18 2:50:26 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
Pathetic. Even if it had been Labours decision, the Tories could have reversed it. As long as they were destroyed under her watch it is her responsibility.
Not to mention that the whole affair is less about those cards and more about her creating an hostile environment without considering how many people would end up caught up with it. This would be different if the UK had kept proper records, like most other European states did, but they didn't. Now they can't turn around and put the burden of proof on the people living in the country, they need to find some sort of middle ground.
The hostile environment policy was 2012-2013:
Whistleblowers contradict No 10 over destroyed Windrush landing cards Hostile environment quote
“That changed about five or six years ago with the hostile environment. Some of the immigration people welcomed it. There was a ’gotcha attitude’ – some people enjoyed it; I didn’t like that.”
“I was saying to them: ‘Look they’re more British than you! How can you, a 27-year-old fellow, refuse a 54-year-old fellow, and say he’s not entitled to remain in a country he’s lived in for 51 years? It is madness. It upset me and a few of the older staff members when they started saying to these fellows: we want four pieces of information per year you’ve been here.
“There were some people who enjoyed saying: I’ve caught you, you are illegal. But they weren’t illegal at all. I’ve got no issue with people getting rid of illegal immigrants but the Jamaican and Trinidadians – these are Commonwealth people, who were British subjects or citizens of the UK and colonies before their countries became independent.”
He was “shocked and ashamed” to read about cases of Windrush-generation residents, who have been in Britain for over half a century, being detained. “I’m astounded by it all,” he said. “They’ve realised that they have made a complete mistake.”
Previously staff had been allowed to apply reasonable discretion towards applicants in this group. “Some had come on their parents’ passport. Some of them came on their own passports – most of them didn’t still have them, of course they didn’t, they’ve been here for 40 years,” he said.
“So the policy in the citizenship department was: if they say they have been here for that long, OK, provided they pass the character checks and they’re not mass murderers, then in they come, give them British citizenship.” The policy was “to accept that people were telling the truth because there was no reason to doubt them”, he said.
The senior ex-Croydon immigration employee was also concerned by worsening Home Office attitudes towards people seeking to regularise their status. “In my day working in immigration we very much had the individual’s situation in our minds. We did not work from crib sheets or take a this-is-what-the-rules-say approach – you looked at each person’s case sympathetically and with discretion,” she said.
Her account chimed with comments made on Tuesday by an ex-employee who said from 2013 onwards, staff were “given no leeway to make a judgment call on the balance of probability rather than the burden of proof”. Many experienced staff took redundancy because they disliked the new atmosphere. The people who remained were told: “These are the rules, stick to them”.
edited 18th Apr '18 2:51:22 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
Tief girl with eartude
People who wanted jobs in immigration services racists with an agenda. What a shock.
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer
A procrastination in of itself
I suspect it’s not just that, people who aren’t racist also don’t want the jobs because they feel they couldn’t implement the mission of that department without compromising their morality.
There is a reason I refuse to apply for civil service jobs with either the border force or the department of Brexit, for those two areas I wouldn’t be able to justify to myself the agenda, and I’m a big fan of working within the system and being part of the machine.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Oh, bother.
Yeah, Immigration is right up there with Medicaid Billing
Disgusted, but not surprised
Further on the Skripal affair the Russian government claimed that a Swiss laboratory had proven that Skripal was poisoned with a chemical produced in Western countries. But now the lab has said over Twitter and newspapers (all in German) that it concluded no such thing.
It's up to the OPCW executive council to publish the findings, I believe.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Field Marshal of Cracked
I found the Daily Mail's coverage of the Windrush scandal to be infuriatingly hypocritical, years of constant anti-immigrant headlines and stories and suddenly "oh no, these poor immigrants, how could people be so cruel?"
advancing the front into TV Tropes
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]")
Not even Syria is claiming civilian casualties, so that should tell something. The videos you're referring to are probably the ones some people (with the intention of misinformation) are spreading, actually showing Ukraine.
Life is unfair...