Off Topic Politics Thread

[......loading......]

I read your next post as well before replying and the answer to both is; Are they investigating the complicit relevant peoples that could but didn't do anything about it then? Because we have not heard anything like that. Surely the media would have detailed that this was being investigated if it was. The report just seems to shrug off what has happened and made suggestions to stop it happening again.

And you are a different person to me. I live in these kind of areas. I have always been a very down to earth person that mingles with "the scroungers" and those that mix in higher circles than I would like to. I know prostitutes and drug users. I might call them out for their bad habits but I don't dismiss them unless they are actually really bad people. I have always mixed with a very mixed bag of folks both when I was earning big as an accountant in my younger days and when I was packing eggs in my still young but not as young days. I do not look down on people unless they are really bad people!

I disagree that British Society is to blame. As much as the media and many others like to focus on the nasty element that pounce on things as it suits their fight or reason to riot etc. Most of British Society does care. They are not to blame. They are not glaring at these girls. They are glaring at those that ignored it!

I don't want to read too much into the small statement you made but you seem to think that the bulk of society has no empathy for people who make mistakes or get drawn into bad situations when the reality is that most people do care. While I do think Humanity has a fault of being greedy (which causes the problems the world is in financially) I do also believe (know) that most people are sympathetic and empathetic no matter how it may come across with their vocabulary be that language be derived from local terms or just lack of words but they very much do care about people.

The part of society that seems not to care is the one that zones in on a minority of bad eggs out to cause trouble to continually dismiss any debate about anything that happens in this country and dare I say in the world. On all sorts of issues.

What you thought of them as a schoolkid doesn't really surprise me from an immature mind of a school kid. Do you think the same if you walk past them now as an adult?

There are plenty of vulnerable people in this country. Not just girls, not just those with unfortunate upbringings or childhoods, not just addicts or drug users. This or something like this, maybe not the sex element but something, could take advantage of every one of us and we should not have to worry that if it is perpertated by a certain demographic or someone from a community in an area or even someone high up (like in the olden days of cover ups) where it going public could inflame tensions or cause problems at a higher level that we would be ignored by the system itself.

Maybe the 2022 final report can put into action the safety net to stop future possibilities of something this big but I very much doubt it because every time they prosecute or are too late to prosecute the perpretators and fail to deal with the systemic failings. They can bring in all the recommendations they want but the same people are still in the same positions. Those that ignored are still there to ignore next time. Every few years we get another of these massive scandals.

Has anyone been actually prosecuted for giving Jimmy Savile the access they did? I mean the people who knew? The only one it seems that is being investigated by the police to get the people who let something happen is a non sexual one as in the Post Office scandal.

But for me to be able to trust anything setup to avoid "mistakes" of the past you first need to get rid of the people who allowed those mistakes to be made while they were fully aware that they were mistakes. These weren't just "sleeping on the job" failures. People knew they were happening and let them continue. They need to be rooted out for any new safety net to work.

I think you are an idealist if you think that way. Crimes against prostitutes are rarely investigated. Serial killers who murder prostitutes get away with it a lot longer. When I was at school, there were girls who got passed around the drug dealers. The exact same thing we are now calling grooming gangs. It has always happened and always been happening. And yes, society cares less about them than ‘normal’ kids. You are deluding yourself - and going against every statistic - if you thing otherwise.

If well to do kids were being abused, nobody’s fear of racism would have prevented action being taken. It is an endemic issue in our society. And I am sorry but this national inquiry will not lead to one person being prosecuted.

Why? Because proving someone made a mistake, or a bad call, is not proof of criminality. Proving that will be incredibly hard, especially as it is proven that the system the bad cogs worked in was deeply flawed.

 

[ImpSaint]

I think you are an idealist if you think that way. Crimes against prostitutes are rarely investigated. Serial killers who murder prostitutes get away with it a lot longer. When I was at school, there were girls who got passed around the drug dealers. The exact same thing we are now calling grooming gangs. It has always happened and always been happening. And yes, society cares less about them than ‘normal’ kids. You are deluding yourself - and going against every statistic - if you thing otherwise.

If well to do kids were being abused, nobody’s fear of racism would have prevented action being taken. It is an endemic issue in our society. And I am sorry but this national inquiry will not lead to one person being prosecuted.

Why? Because proving someone made a mistake, or a bad call, is not proof of criminality. Proving that will be incredibly hard, especially as it is proven that the system the bad cogs worked in was deeply flawed.

These weren't "bad calls" or "mistakes." People were told exactly what was happening. Other people having been told decided not to act and told others not to act or how they should act. That is in no way bad calls/mistakes that is gross misconduct in office whether they be a police chief that told his police what to do or that it wasn't what was described or a council official that chose not to act on information given to them. It might not be law to report a violent crime but they were reported and ignored.

Anyway reading on this "national inquiry" is not a 10 year inquiry the way we think of inquiries. It is a national commission which will oversee local inquiries but with statutory powers. I guess that means that this commission will setup the local inquiries and guide them, using its own powers to force people to attend if they refuse, which they could have done with a local inquiry. I guess it also means the national commission can stop local authorities in essence investigating themselves and coming up with "nothing to see here." It is also time limited.

However the headline the other day was her stating in black and white that:

"Despite reviews, reports and inquiries raising questions about men from Asian or Pakistani backgrounds grooming and sexually exploiting young white girls, the system has consistently failed to fully acknowledge this or collect accurate data so it can be examined effectively.

"Instead, flawed data is used repeatedly to dismiss claims about 'Asian grooming gangs' as sensationalised, biased or untrue.

Which like when the politicos dismissed people's real life experiences of being replaced by migrant agencies as being untrue just makes sentiment worse. By trying to deny something was true it makes it worse when it is actually true. Even yesterday the Labour team were trying to play with words around the report despite Baroness Casey talking about flawed data, they continue to do so.

And when media zoned in on the Yvette Cooper statement of:
"Her report concludes that further local investigations are needed but that they should be directed and overseen by a national commission with statutory inquiry powers."
they asked Does this mean Whitehall and Westminster will avoid investigation? Are they exempt? The response from No10 and those that have been questioned so far on the Labour side of things has not been clear!!!

But at at least the last page of walls of text seem to have been actually addressed, It isn't a 10 year inuiry it is an overseeing body. It will be local inquiries but unable to just mark their own homework and say A++ Will it solely focus on local level and ignore everything else that went on up the tree as far as it goes? Hopefully but that is not clear.

I would like to point out something glaring in what I did read though. This section here from Yvette Cooper:
Finally, Baroness Casey describes ways in which patterns of grooming gang child sexual exploitation are changing.
Including evidence of rape and sexual exploitation taking place in street gangs and drug gangs, that combine criminal and sexual exploitation.
I do not believe that this kind of exploitation has been sufficiently investigated.

Maybe the wording but she makes it sound like she is surprised and also she clearly says "are changing" as if this is something new. Surely she does not believe this despite living in a bubble? County Lines has been a big problem in the North, in the very places the grooming gangs problem is in for a long time and it involve young boys and girls. Often they are at the mercy of their "boss" for a couple of days. Again looked after, "cared for" but used and abused.

My eldest son was disappearing for days at a time when he was 16 and months at a time 17-19!! Not saying he was sexually abused at all but I hate to think what he would have seen in that time but he is home and safe now aged 20, albeit a bit part time hippy, yoga, breathwork, mediation, organic foods, homeopathy and positive vibes man so a bit crazy but safe and harmless. There is no way that either Baroness Casey "discovered" that grooming gangs are changing nor that Yvette Cooper was that naive that she though County Lines was just about using runners for delivering drugs around and job done!

Far from "are" changing it is a different aspect entirely when you get to County Lines and Gang Culture which they entwine together in a lot of cases. Initiation gang bangs for girls to get into the gang. These politicians talk as if they have no idea how widespread this country's problems are at the moment. I have never known drugs to be more accessible than they are these days and no-one hides it. The estates stink of weed but police don't do anything and where's there's so much weed there's gonna be plenty of everything else. County Lines is a big problem in places like Lincolnshire or right across the Midlands upward. If your kid has old train tickets in their pockets you can guess what they've been up to. And surely not hard to see kids on their own on trains in school times because they don't travel in groups.

 

[......loading......]

These weren't "bad calls" or "mistakes." People were told exactly what was happening. Other people having been told decided not to act and told others not to act or how they should act. That is in no way bad calls/mistakes that is gross misconduct in office whether they be a police chief that told his police what to do or that it wasn't what was described or a council official that chose not to act on information given to them. It might not be law to report a violent crime but they were reported and ignored.

Anyway reading on this "national inquiry" is not a 10 year inquiry the way we think of inquiries. It is a national commission which will oversee local inquiries but with statutory powers. I guess that means that this commission will setup the local inquiries and guide them, using its own powers to force people to attend if they refuse, which they could have done with a local inquiry. I guess it also means the national commission can stop local authorities in essence investigating themselves and coming up with "nothing to see here." It is also time limited.

However the headline the other day was her stating in black and white that:

"Despite reviews, reports and inquiries raising questions about men from Asian or Pakistani backgrounds grooming and sexually exploiting young white girls, the system has consistently failed to fully acknowledge this or collect accurate data so it can be examined effectively.

"Instead, flawed data is used repeatedly to dismiss claims about 'Asian grooming gangs' as sensationalised, biased or untrue.

Which like when the politicos dismissed people's real life experiences of being replaced by migrant agencies as being untrue just makes sentiment worse. By trying to deny something was true it makes it worse when it is actually true. Even yesterday the Labour team were trying to play with words around the report despite Baroness Casey talking about flawed data, they continue to do so.

And when media zoned in on the Yvette Cooper statement of:
"Her report concludes that further local investigations are needed but that they should be directed and overseen by a national commission with statutory inquiry powers."
they asked Does this mean Whitehall and Westminster will avoid investigation? Are they exempt? The response from No10 and those that have been questioned so far on the Labour side of things has not been clear!!!

But at at least the last page of walls of text seem to have been actually addressed, It isn't a 10 year inuiry it is an overseeing body. It will be local inquiries but unable to just mark their own homework and say A++ Will it solely focus on local level and ignore everything else that went on up the tree as far as it goes? Hopefully but that is not clear.

I would like to point out something glaring in what I did read though. This section here from Yvette Cooper:
Finally, Baroness Casey describes ways in which patterns of grooming gang child sexual exploitation are changing.
Including evidence of rape and sexual exploitation taking place in street gangs and drug gangs, that combine criminal and sexual exploitation.
I do not believe that this kind of exploitation has been sufficiently investigated.

Maybe the wording but she makes it sound like she is surprised and also she clearly says "are changing" as if this is something new. Surely she does not believe this despite living in a bubble? County Lines has been a big problem in the North, in the very places the grooming gangs problem is in for a long time and it involve young boys and girls. Often they are at the mercy of their "boss" for a couple of days. Again looked after, "cared for" but used and abused.

My eldest son was disappearing for days at a time when he was 16 and months at a time 17-19!! Not saying he was sexually abused at all but I hate to think what he would have seen in that time but he is home and safe now aged 20, albeit a bit part time hippy, yoga, breathwork, mediation, organic foods, homeopathy and positive vibes man so a bit crazy but safe and harmless. There is no way that either Baroness Casey "discovered" that grooming gangs are changing nor that Yvette Cooper was that naive that she though County Lines was just about using runners for delivering drugs around and job done!

Far from "are" changing it is a different aspect entirely when you get to County Lines and Gang Culture which they entwine together in a lot of cases. Initiation gang bangs for girls to get into the gang. These politicians talk as if they have no idea how widespread this country's problems are at the moment. I have never known drugs to be more accessible than they are these days and no-one hides it. The estates stink of weed but police don't do anything and where's there's so much weed there's gonna be plenty of everything else. County Lines is a big problem in places like Lincolnshire or right across the Midlands upward. If your kid has old train tickets in their pockets you can guess what they've been up to. And surely not hard to see kids on their own on trains in school times because they don't travel in groups.

My best mate works county lines. It is not just a northern thing. Portsmouth has real issues with it. And, again, criminals prey on kids in care because everybody ‘expects’ them to disappear and drop out. County lines and sexual grooming are two sides of a coin. The exact same process is involved and the exact same types of kid. But most people don’t have sympathy for the hoody dealing on their street corner. And the police have historically seen both county lines kids and sex workers as problems rather than victims.

So, again, I say grooming gangs are nothing new. Authority brushing the issues of the impoverished youths under the carpet is nothing new. Distrusting young people when they accuse adults is nothing new. Cover ups are nothing new.

So what is new?

 

[ImpSaint]

My best mate works county lines. It is not just a northern thing. Portsmouth has real issues with it. And, again, criminals prey on kids in care because everybody ‘expects’ them to disappear and drop out. County lines and sexual grooming are two sides of a coin. The exact same process is involved and the exact same types of kid. But most people don’t have sympathy for the hoody dealing on their street corner. And the police have historically seen both county lines kids and sex workers as problems rather than victims.

So, again, I say grooming gangs are nothing new. Authority brushing the issues of the impoverished youths under the carpet is nothing new. Distrusting young people when they accuse adults is nothing new. Cover ups are nothing new.

So what is new?

I didn't say it was "just a Northern thing" nor meant to imply that. I meant that here the problem is off the scale and for the most part un-noticed by anyone other than the odd mention by the police etc.

I don't know why you keep returning to grooming gangs being nothing new. I think we all agree on that. The problem is not that "this is a new thing". The problem is that it was ignored by those that should not be ignoring these things for "political" reasons. The crux is that latter part! That people that should have been there to do what they can............didn't do what they could, despite having the details in front of them, not because they saw these girls as "throwaway white trash" but because they thought more about "sounding racist" or "not wanting to stir the pot!"

It is that latter part that is why this has blown up as it has. Because authorities "chose" not to act!

No-one is suggesting that it would put a stop to grooming gangs, just like prosecuting murderers does not mean there will be no more murders, however it should have been taken through the process as and when it came up and not ignored for political reasons.

Saying nothing is new is not a good enough answer. That is dismissive. Just because it has happened since humans existed in communities does not mean it should be allowed to be ignored when cases are reported to those that should be acting on information they are given. Saying "its nothing new" does not excuse the authoritiies actions.

 

[tomw24]

MP's have passed a vote backing assisted dying. I think I agree with this. I do think people who are terminally ill and have a really poor prognosis and quality of life should be able to have control over when they pass away.

 

[......loading......]

I didn't say it was "just a Northern thing" nor meant to imply that. I meant that here the problem is off the scale and for the most part un-noticed by anyone other than the odd mention by the police etc.

I don't know why you keep returning to grooming gangs being nothing new. I think we all agree on that. The problem is not that "this is a new thing". The problem is that it was ignored by those that should not be ignoring these things for "political" reasons. The crux is that latter part! That people that should have been there to do what they can............didn't do what they could, despite having the details in front of them, not because they saw these girls as "throwaway white trash" but because they thought more about "sounding racist" or "not wanting to stir the pot!"

It is that latter part that is why this has blown up as it has. Because authorities "chose" not to act!

No-one is suggesting that it would put a stop to grooming gangs, just like prosecuting murderers does not mean there will be no more murders, however it should have been taken through the process as and when it came up and not ignored for political reasons.

Saying nothing is new is not a good enough answer. That is dismissive. Just because it has happened since humans existed in communities does not mean it should be allowed to be ignored when cases are reported to those that should be acting on information they are given. Saying "its nothing new" does not excuse the authoritiies actions.

Did I say it did?

Can you point out where I have said those who ignore this are doing a good job?

The key difference between us is I think the racial aspect is a divisive distraction from the key issue - the lack of respect for ‘white trash’, where you somehow don’t believe that there is such a thing. That to me is pure madness. The truth here is that these kids are seen as less valuable than other members of the community, and tend not to be believed when they accuse anybody at all. The fact this has conflated with pre-existing racial tension has elevated it in the public consciousness.

Pakistani Grooming Gangs

Islamophobia is a woke disease

It’s a cultural thing


Sorry, but all three of these phrases are all over Twitter. Why? Because othering human vileness is what humans do.

 

[Archers Road]

Remembered which bit as "subsidising export prices?" The whole setup was initially (supposed to be) about stopping certain countries gaining competitive advantage over each other in their nation's "specialist" areas, yes..........as long as we're not talking French farming or German Car Manufacture which was of course ignored if not subsidised by the EU itself but then that was the whole reason for the setup of the EU (EU not EEC ) but that doesn't cover things like national railways or postal services which have no actual "export" effect. That was all about attracting outside of the EU money into the EU (mostly from countries those that support the EU moan about money coming from.)

Thatcher had refused to privatise British Rail. It was the Pro EU lot under John Major that forced her to concede shortly before she got the boot and they who put it into action.............and they and everyone in power since was quite happy to take what was not a rigid EU rule to hide behind, both in terms of doing it and as a a reason why you could not re-nationalise it.

From Wiki a shortened version:
Thatcher always resisted rail privatisation and was said to have told Transport Secretary Nicholas Ridley “Railway privatisation will be the Waterloo of this government. Please never mention the railways to me again.” Shortly before her resignation, she accepted the arguments for privatising British Rail, which her successor John Major implemented in 1994. The Economist later considered the move to have been “a disaster”.

The Pro EU mob in the house, which back then was mostly blue and less of the reds, have continued the "we can't do that because of the EU" on all sorts of issues, whether they are binding rules or not. Some things they truly couldn't without a comeback but others they were just happy to use it as an excuse.

We have to remember that while we see politics as re-aligning in this era that it actually realigned in the UK on Blair's first majority. Before then The Labour was mostly split to say the least on the EU question and the Tories were mostly Pro (as they still were before and after the 2016 referendum.)

Labour's conference pre the Maastricht vote was dominated by talk of a referendum with Tony Benn and others giving speeches on the subject but it was voted down, not because they were Pro EU, but because they were happy for the Tories to tear themselves apart on the EU question and were fearful that if they pushed for a referendum and it produced a "yes" result that would give Major and his party a boost. This was of course a time when the country was still reeling from the ERM withdrawal debacle.

Labour became a Pro EU party when Blair came in with such a large majority that he could add 143 new MPs to his roster which was a 53% increase on the existing 273.

Maastricht passed 292 - 112 in the house with Tories being whipped to vote for and Labour being whipped to abstain, however 40 Tories and 61 Labour ignored the whip and voted against.

4 years later and with the "New" Labour party numbers having the anti EU % watered down by the new arrivals of Blair's landslide Blair was happy to renege on the promises he made to get the Labour Leadership of "renationalising the railways" by being yet another to hide behind the EU excuse.

Tldr


Ps, which unpatriotic government privatised the Royal Mail?

 

[Archers Road]

MP's have passed a vote backing assisted dying. I think I agree with this. I do think people who are terminally ill and have a really poor prognosis and quality of life should be able to have control over when they pass away.

Don't really have an opinion on this myself, but aren't doctors supposed to take an oath to do no harm? I wonder how that squares with assisted dying?

 

[ImpSaint]

Tldr


Ps, which unpatriotic government privatised the Royal Mail?

TLDR: Thatcher refused to privatise BR. The Pro EU lobby that ended up ousting her forced her hand in the last weeks and it was them wot pushed the deal through.

PO: Vince Cable! It was in the Lib Dem manifesto, although Blair did try to sell it to the Dutch in 2003/4 and then opened it up to competition in his last term but reneged on actually privatising it under pressure from the unions, which disappointed Peter Mandelson who was 100% behind the attempt.

If you're looking for a Tory then look no further than Pro EU arch remainer and hero to you all when it suited, Michael Heseltine who was pushing for it from 1993 onward.

Should it have been subsidised forever? Who uses Royal Mail? Hermes is cheaper and includes tracking for anything other than letters and the only post I get is uber amounts of junk from politicians or numerous GP surveys or adverts.

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

Don't really have an opinion on this myself, but aren't doctors supposed to take an oath to do no harm? I wonder how that squares with assisted dying?

Most people would agree with some form of assisted dying but this bill falls short on safeguards. Any attempt to include amendments were kicked into touch and Leadbeater seemed determined to get this through at any cost. I really don't believe our elected representatives have listened to the concerns raised or for some unknown reason they favour euthanasia of the NHS draining sick people, pension taking old people, or benefit recipient people. The expanse of this procedure in Canada to include the disabled, drug users and those with mental health issues should make people very wary of how this bill will develop.

This week has been a bad one for human life. Although abortions in this country have always been illegal, it was generally accepted that it could be done up to 24 weeks. Changes to the abortion laws as part of the Crime and Punishment Bill will now allow an expectant mother to abort a baby at any stage without prosecution. It would still be illegal for healthcare professionals to carry out an abortion past 24 weeks, but not so for the mother. The arguments about how developed a baby is at 24 weeks are now pretty well redundant because a fully formed baby can be aborted without punishment. I would think that both the pro and anti abortion lobby would be deeply concerned about this bill.
This week we have seen bills introduced to legally end early life and late life all within the last 3 days.

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

I’m with Tom on this that I think I am on board, but not sure.

 

[greensaint]

Most people would agree with some form of assisted dying but this bill falls short on safeguards. Any attempt to include amendments were kicked into touch and Leadbeater seemed determined to get this through at any cost. I really don't believe our elected representatives have listened to the concerns raised or for some unknown reason they favour euthanasia of the NHS draining sick people, pension taking old people, or benefit recipient people. The expanse of this procedure in Canada to include the disabled, drug users and those with mental health issues should make people very wary of how this bill will develop.

This week has been a bad one for human life. Although abortions in this country have always been illegal, it was generally accepted that it could be done up to 24 weeks. Changes to the abortion laws as part of the Crime and Punishment Bill will now allow an expectant mother to abort a baby at any stage without prosecution. It would still be illegal for healthcare professionals to carry out an abortion past 24 weeks, but not so for the mother. The arguments about how developed a baby is at 24 weeks are now pretty well redundant because a fully formed baby can be aborted without punishment. I would think that both the pro and anti abortion lobby would be deeply concerned about this bill.
This week we have seen bills introduced to legally end early life and late life all within the last 3 days.

Yes, both bills have left me troubled.

I understand people have sincere feelings on both sides of the assisted dying issue, but as it's been discussed and reported I've noticed a couple of things.

Those in favour seem to be mostly middle class and/or celebrity people who actually would have little difficulty in accessing a way to end their life without involving others. They just seem to want attention at times. Many against seem to be disabled people who are concerned about (mostly indirect tbf) pressure they feel could be directed at them.

I was horrified when the bill passed it's first stage, pictures of people punching the air and drinking champagne to celebrate. Horrible, disrespecful triumphalism.

The bill is also one of the most impractical bits of lawmaking for decades. The NHS is not set up for this and little notice of those involved in patient care have been listened to. I can see people moving postcodes to get a positive outcome (as they see it).

However Lawyers will make money I confidently predict.

On the plus side the Welsh NHS have roused themselves to give me a date for my hip replacement, so my personal pain load may be reduced in the near future

 

[San Tejón]

Just watched this short video which is questioning if Sergio Gor, the man responsible for vetting people who work in the White House, is actually Sergey Goryachev from Saratova, Russia. It also claims that Gor has never been vetted for working in the White House, in the 5 months he has been there.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Libby]

Mental that a protest group managed to access an RAF base. **** are they playing at.

 

[Archers Road]

At least can rest assured that the RAF are there to protect us all in the event of an attack.

 

[......loading......]

I am all for allowing people to choose their own time and method of death. Do no harm should also mean not keeping people alive artificially after terrible injuries. It definitely shouldn’t mean: keep the patient alive at all costs.

 

[shoot_spiderman]

Remembered which bit as "subsidising export prices?" The whole setup was initially (supposed to be) about stopping certain countries gaining competitive advantage over each other in their nation's "specialist" areas, yes..........as long as we're not talking French farming or German Car Manufacture which was of course ignored if not subsidised by the EU itself but then that was the whole reason for the setup of the EU (EU not EEC ) but that doesn't cover things like national railways or postal services which have no actual "export" effect. That was all about attracting outside of the EU money into the EU (mostly from countries those that support the EU moan about money coming from.)

Thatcher had refused to privatise British Rail. It was the Pro EU lot under John Major that forced her to concede shortly before she got the boot and they who put it into action.............and they and everyone in power since was quite happy to take what was not a rigid EU rule to hide behind, both in terms of doing it and as a a reason why you could not re-nationalise it.

From Wiki a shortened version:
Thatcher always resisted rail privatisation and was said to have told Transport Secretary Nicholas Ridley “Railway privatisation will be the Waterloo of this government. Please never mention the railways to me again.” Shortly before her resignation, she accepted the arguments for privatising British Rail, which her successor John Major implemented in 1994. The Economist later considered the move to have been “a disaster”.

The Pro EU mob in the house, which back then was mostly blue and less of the reds, have continued the "we can't do that because of the EU" on all sorts of issues, whether they are binding rules or not. Some things they truly couldn't without a comeback but others they were just happy to use it as an excuse.

We have to remember that while we see politics as re-aligning in this era that it actually realigned in the UK on Blair's first majority. Before then The Labour was mostly split to say the least on the EU question and the Tories were mostly Pro (as they still were before and after the 2016 referendum.)

Labour's conference pre the Maastricht vote was dominated by talk of a referendum with Tony Benn and others giving speeches on the subject but it was voted down, not because they were Pro EU, but because they were happy for the Tories to tear themselves apart on the EU question and were fearful that if they pushed for a referendum and it produced a "yes" result that would give Major and his party a boost. This was of course a time when the country was still reeling from the ERM withdrawal debacle.

Labour became a Pro EU party when Blair came in with such a large majority that he could add 143 new MPs to his roster which was a 53% increase on the existing 273.

Maastricht passed 292 - 112 in the house with Tories being whipped to vote for and Labour being whipped to abstain, however 40 Tories and 61 Labour ignored the whip and voted against.

4 years later and with the "New" Labour party numbers having the anti EU % watered down by the new arrivals of Blair's landslide Blair was happy to renege on the promises he made to get the Labour Leadership of "renationalising the railways" by being yet another to hide behind the EU excuse.

In other words, basically, EU members should be able to maintain control of their own resources within their borders, but shouldn’t subsidise services that are competing with other members across the EU

 

[StJabbo1]

In other words, basically, EU members should be able to maintain control of their own resources within their borders, but shouldn’t subsidise services that are competing with other members across the EU

That's the basis of many trade deals to avoid unfair competition. The EU countries have more individual freedoms than one would think if you give credence to much of the brexshit campaign.

 

[San Tejón]

Exposing the lies about Trump’s new mobile phone. I think I read that it would take about 5 years to build the infrastructure to make a mobile phone completely in the USA.


THE Trump Organisation’s latest bit of tacky merchandise – the T1 smartphone – isn’t quite as stars-and-stripes as advertised.

The $499 gold-plated handset is being marketed under the new Trump Mobile brand as a made-in-the-USA alternative to Apple’s iPhone 17.

But eagle-eyed sleuths have already called foul on the internet, uncovering that images of the T1 – due to ship in September – show a Chinese-made Android device that has been given a MAGA makeover.

What’s more, Trump’s team are flogging the gizmo for three times what the original costs on Amazon.

The Trump Mobile network itself has been dubbed an “All American service”, though critics suggest that the only thing truly domestic about it is the mark-up. The Trump grift goes on…

 

[StJabbo1]

Exposing the lies about Trump’s new mobile phone. I think I read that it would take about 5 years to build the infrastructure to make a mobile phone completely in the USA.


THE Trump Organisation’s latest bit of tacky merchandise – the T1 smartphone – isn’t quite as stars-and-stripes as advertised.

The $499 gold-plated handset is being marketed under the new Trump Mobile brand as a made-in-the-USA alternative to Apple’s iPhone 17.

But eagle-eyed sleuths have already called foul on the internet, uncovering that images of the T1 – due to ship in September – show a Chinese-made Android device that has been given a MAGA makeover.

What’s more, Trump’s team are flogging the gizmo for three times what the original costs on Amazon.

The Trump Mobile network itself has been dubbed an “All American service”, though critics suggest that the only thing truly domestic about it is the mark-up. The Trump grift goes on…

Oh what a surprise Trump the grifter tells lies.