Off Topic The Politics Thread

If, which I think is unlikely, Brexit is denied, then, yes, I think that this would split the Tories (and probably Labour too). ERG might join up with Farage to stop splitting the Leave vote

 

I think that's about right. I suspect a move to WTO would produce comparatively little disruption on either side of The Channel because it's in everyone's interest to smooth it out. No one will put up a hard border in N Ireland. I can understand the EU being frustrated. Let's get it done on March 29.

 

Matt Hancock buys himself a genetic test kit and learns that he has a 15% chance of developing prostate cancer by the age of 75. He immediately declares that he will seek advice from his GP and make sure he attends regular screening.

Over the counter DNA tests are notoriously unreliable. The average rate for men to develop prostate cancer is actually 18%, so Mr Hancock is actually lower than average risk (and risk is just an algorithm, it’s not a guarantee.) Prostate cancer is by no means a death sentence, many people have it in the background and it has no impact on either their life expectancy or their quality of life, while treating it would definitely negatively impact their quality of life. There is no screening programme, as the PSA Test used to detect it is also notoriously unreliable and can lead to unnecessary and painful treatment. GPs are very busy seeing people with actual illnesses.

Matt Hancock is Secretary of State for Health.

FFS.

 

please log in to view this image

No Deal Brexit tariff slashing 'could save Next £15m'
by Westmonster
Brexit
March 21, 2019
Created with Snap
FacebookTwitterWhatsApp
419 shares
Fashion retailer Next have revealed that a No Deal Brexit could save them up to £15m with benefits that could then be passed on to to shoppers. Hardline Remainer politicians will of course completely ignore this No Deal upside of course.
The potential savings would be due to the slashing of trade tariffs, with the UK set to undergo huge trade liberalisation if Britain breaks free from the European Union next week with a WTO Brexit.
Next’s Chief Executive, Lord Wolfson, has said: “In the (seemingly unlikely) event that these provisional rates are introduced in the near future, we estimate that there would be a net reduction in the tariffs we pay of around £12m to £15m.
“In the medium term, our intention would be to pass on cost price improvements to customers, in the form of better pricing.
“In the context of £1.7bn of stock purchases, the savings would be relatively modest.”
Not only that, but Wolfson hit back at the doom-mongers, saying of the current business environment: “Whilst our relationship with the EU remains uncertain, other economic indicators for the consumer look less worrying than at this point last year.”
As Trade Minister George Hollingbery has said of the potential for No Deal exit from the EU: “If we leave without a deal, we will set the majority of our import tariffs to zero, while maintaining tariffs for the most sensitive industries.
“This balanced approach will help to support British jobs and avoid potential price spikes that would hit the poorest households the hardest.”
There are huge opportunities with a WTO Brexit that allows the British government to act unilaterally outside of European Union control. Time to grasp that huge opportunity.

 

Toyota to build new Suzuki car at UK plant, no big headline for good news...

https://www.ft.com/content/5655fd42-4afc-11e9-bbc9-6917dce3dc62

 

wait till he reads the koran

Home Office refuses Christian convert asylum by quoting Bible passages that 'prove Christianity is not peaceful'
Campaigners say case demonstrates 'distortion of logic' and 'reckless' approach to asylum seekers' lives
The Home Office has refused asylum to a Christian convert by quoting Bible passages which it says prove Christianity is not a peaceful religion.
The Iranian national, who claimed asylum in 2016, was told passages in the Bible were “inconsistent” with his claim to have converted to Christianity after discovering it was a “peaceful” faith.
The refusal letter from the department states the book of Revelations – the final book of the Bible – is “filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence”, and cites six excerpts from it.
.
It then states: “These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful’ religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.”
When contacted by The Independent, the Home Office said the letter was “not in accordance” with its policy approach to claims based on religious persecution, and said it was working to improve the training provided to decision-makers on religious conversion.
Lawyers and campaigners said the case demonstrated a “distortion of logic” and a “reckless” approach to asylum seekers’ lives, stemming from a tendency by the department to “come up with any reason they can to refuse” cases.
Nathan Stevens, the asylum seeker’s caseworker, tweeted: “I’ve seen a lot over the years, but even I was genuinely shocked to read this unbelievably offensive diatribe being used to justify a refusal of asylum.
“Whatever your views on faith, how can a government official arbitrarily pick bits out of a holy book and then use them to trash someone’s heartfelt reason for coming to a personal decision to follow another faith?”

please log in to view this image

The latest immigration statistics reveal an increase in the number of incorrect asylum refusals, with successful appeals against Home Office decisions up 5 per cent since 2015-16, now standing at 45 per cent of all of those that go to tribunal.
Legal expert Conor James McKinney, deputy editor of website Free Movement, said the case was a symptom of the Home Office’s tendency to “come up with any reason they can to refuse asylum”.
“You can see from the text of the letter that the writer is trying to pick holes in the asylum seeker’s account of their conversion to Christianity and using the Bible verses as a tool to do that,” he said.

please log in to view this image

UK orders deportation of people fleeing persecution under ‘deal’
“The Home Office is notorious for coming up with any reason they can to refuse asylum and this looks like a particularly creative example, but not necessarily a systemic outbreak of anti-Christian sentiment in the department.”
Sarah Teather, director of the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) in the UK, said the case was a “particularly outrageous example of the reckless and facetious approach of the Home Office to determining life and death asylum cases”.
She said JRS regularly encountered cases where asylum had been refused on “spurious grounds”, adding: “Some of these cases require more legal knowledge to recognise than this bizarre misquoting of the Bible, but as this instance gains public attention, we need to remember it reflects a systematic problem and a deeper mindset of disbelief, and is not just an anomaly that can be explained away.”
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, meanwhile branded it “wholly inappropriate” for the Home Office to use “theological justifications for refusing asylum applications”.
He added: “Decisions on the merits of an asylum appeal should be based on an assessment of the facts at hand – and not on the state’s interpretation of any given religion. It’s not the role of the Home Office to play theologian.”
Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent Minds
A Home Office spokesperson said: “This letter is not in accordance with our policy approach to claims based on religious persecution, including conversions to a particular faith.
“We continue to work closely with key partners, including the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of religion and a range of faith groups, to improve our policy guidance and training provided to asylum decision-makers so that we approach claims involving religious conversion in the appropriate way.”

 

Guy Verhoftwat‏@GuyVerhoftwat 7h7 hours ago
The UK should revoke Article 50 now.
It's time to see the big picture.
Yes, democracy will be destroyed, but people will be able to go on holiday to France without having to buy a £7 visa.
That's what's really important.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Also great news for the quality clothing manufacturers of Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Turkey, Sri Lanka etc, famed for their dedication to workers welfare.

https://www.nextplc.co.uk/~/media/F...rporate-responsibility/factory-list-jan19.pdf

As long as we Brits get cheap rags, brilliant. Plus saving here will offset some of the costs for food.

 

I haven’t plus can’t see that Turks blokes posts anyway plus apart from the odd tit and blue sheep which is banter ... not Guilty
It’s a forum nothing more to me

 

? As the article says, this is Toyota making a Suzuki model in its Derbyshire plant. It will not lead to any more jobs or investment. Though I suppose we should be rejoicing because it’s not closing down?

 

Just logged out to see the Turk bloke’s post

Looks like a straight threat to me and lesser comments have had bans imo ...

Turk it’s a forum nothing more so take it easy and calm down ... it’s banter

Don’t read my posts as I don’t read yours

 

I also read that Nissan are looking at allocating Mitsubishi production to Sunderland.

 

Who should we blame for the Christchurch atrocity?
Douglas Murray

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

A New Zealand flag is placed next to flowers and tributes near Al Noor mosque in Christchurch
Douglas Murray
A frequent complaint heard from Muslim communities in recent years has been irritation and anger over any suggestion that Muslims – as a whole – need to apologise for attacks carried out in the name of their religion. I have sympathy for this irritation, tying as it does innocent people to the actions of guilty ones. But since the attack in New Zealand was carried out by a non-Muslim who was targeting Muslims, whether or not it needs to be said still it should be said – indeed must be said – that non-Muslims abhor, are disgusted, outraged and sickened by somebody going into a place of worship and gunning down innocent people. We condemn it in the most fulsome and unreserved terms. In what world of sickness do you have to live to think that shooting a child or an adult is a legitimate response to any claim or grievance, real or imagined?
Apart from the gunman himself, it isn’t clear that anyone else is responsible for the massacre. But that hasn’t stopped all manner of people on social media seeking to apportion blame – in a way that suggests that they had their list of culprits ready long before this heinous act.
Perhaps because of some remaining awareness of libel laws, this has not crossed over into mainstream publications. But those on British social media currently being claimed to have instructed a terrorist to go into a New Zealand mosque include Melanie Phillips, Boris Johnson, Rod Liddle, David Aaronovitch, Sajid Javid, The Times, Julia Hartley-Brewer and me. Those compiling lists in the US have tended to favour blaming Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Chelsea Clinton. I will get back in a moment to expressing the unutterable contempt I have towards the people playing this game.
These attributions of blame have been published by prominent commentators, a member of the House of Lords and an academic from King’s College London. Some are additionally targeting journalists accused merely of ‘refusing’ to name names and denounce colleagues. I have pointed out here before the dumbfounding double-standard at work in such moments.
But let me pause for a moment to play this the other way around. Imagine if after any Islamist atrocity of recent years (or after the next one) I or anybody else decided to hold specific British journalists and members of the House of Lords personally responsible for the massacre. Or claim that the dead are only dead because of (say) The Guardian, because they once published an opinion piece from Osama bin Laden, and that if anybody wants to make their feelings felt they might head to that organ’s offices immediately after chasing certain members from the House of Lords. I wouldn’t do it myself, because I retain some respect for standards of truth and evidence when it comes to such serious accusations (as I mentioned here the other week). Yet perhaps others will become keen to attribute such guilt after the next Islamist atrocity now that the new rules are clear.
There was a demonstration of how low this has gone in New York on Friday, where a vigil to commemorate the dead of New Zealand was attended by a pregnant Chelsea Clinton. There a left-wing activist decided to accuse Chelsea Clinton on video of being personally responsible for inspiring the sort of terror that took place in New Zealand. One reason why I continue to insist on the differences between the terms ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ was demonstrated here. Chelsea Clinton was accused of causing the New Zealand massacre because she recently criticised Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s expressions of anti-Semitism. Here we get to a rub. We might agree that there are some people who are motivated by hatred of Muslims: the terrorist in Christchurch clearly was. But the merest criticism of Ilhan Omar for anti-Semitism gets described as ‘Islamophobia’ and thus an act of incitement to do the sort of thing that happened in New Zealand. How is one to get out of this illogical whirlpool? By being exceedingly exact about terms. However, let me park this argument for another time. Fifty people are dead and there are non-definitional arguments that require more urgent attention.
Firstly let me say this. If you are going to accuse specific public figures of being somehow responsible for a mass slaying, there are only two things you can be doing. The first is hoping that people do not read the terrorist’s manifesto and just believe your lies. The alternative is that you force people to read the shooter’s manifesto and then realise that you are lying, since none of the public figures mentioned above is mentioned in the manifesto.
Millions of people have read the writers mentioned and listened to the politicians and broadcasters, and of those millions only this man in New Zealand has been inspired to murder. And then it turns out that he hasn’t even praised or in any way cited any of the people featured above. However to even engage in this game is to pretend that the shooter’s manifesto is a serious document that must be taken at face value.
If you are going to do that then you are going to have to be honest. The manifesto’s contents include exhortations to a form of fascism the terrorist calls ‘Green nationalism’. So if you want to take down everything praised in the manifesto you’re going to have to go for the Green movement as an accomplice to murder. The terrorist also cites some poetry (Dylan Thomas and W.E. Henley) as well as Nelson Mandela. So again, we’re going to have to lose a certain amount of poetry as well as one of the 20th century’s great moral heroes if we go down this path.
But most fascinating is that the shooter cites Candace Owens as an inspiration. Over recent days the media has gone huge on this. Some readers will know that Owens is a prominent young black Republican Trump supporter, who is also one of the leaders of the student activist group Turning Point. In his manifesto the shooter says that he wants to credit Owens in particular for inspiring him. I am told by a colleague that this is a meme on far-right message boards associated with the ‘alt-right’ who like to troll Turning Point (who they hate for being pro-Israel, among other things) by endlessly, mockingly tipping their hat to them. The fact that the shooter says what he says about Candace Owens, and says that he knows that he must disavow some of her more extreme statements [his view] reads to me like a very clear attempt to target Candace Owens, whom he clearly hates. He wishes to send the mob after her. I am sorry to say that I think people have been played for suckers here, and the media have fallen into one of the traps that the killer laid for them.
One final point in closing. Among the multiple ‘inspirations’ carved on the terrorist’s gun were the words ‘for Rotherham’. This is being used by some people as an example not just of the shooter’s motives but of the iniquity of the journalists and writers (especially at The Times) who have at any point written about the rape abuse scandals there.
So here is a thought. The people bestriding social media blaming people who have written about Rotherham or related atrocities seem to be under the impression that some chunk of the general public is ready and primed for similar acts of terror. They think that shutting down discussion now would stop such atrocities being repeated. I wonder if they would consider a different possibility? Which is that rather than inciting acts of violent rage by discussing such issues, it is possible that the organs willing to break the silence may in fact be engaged in defusing a societal problem rather than exacerbating it.

 

will have to open that when i get home
no one thinks about the garment workers when they are buying clothing
its all about how much will it cost me
i dont even look at the label to see where it was made

 

Because everything else is closing down and the UK has record unemployment... No...?

 

Fair point, it was more the hypocrisy of the Next bloke that wound me up a little. His company benefits more than anyone else.

 

I actually agree with every single word she said.
What she failed to mention is that she herself has been equally useless and has lied and flip-flopped her way to the utter, ****wittery filled ****-fest that we have been subjected to.

 

Sky poll today showed 33% of people blamed Parliament for the failure to reach a deal, and 24% blamed May.

 

Who did the other 43% blame? If it was the EU I’m sure you would have told us......