No matter how high you are, the law is above you.
No matter how low you are, the law will protect you.
The present Government seems to have forgotten these principles. It appears to oppose both the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers.
Without the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers there is no true democracy, no freedom, no liberty, no security of property - merely dictatorship by a corrupt cabal put in power by a minority of voters, by the agency of a corrupt and outdated voting system.
No matter how high you are, the law is above you.
No matter how low you are, the law will protect you.
The present Government seems to have forgotten these principles. It appears to oppose both the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers.
Without the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers there is no true democracy, no freedom, no liberty, no security of property - merely dictatorship by a corrupt cabal put in power by a minority of voters, by the agency of a corrupt and outdated voting system.
Can you unpack that a bit, please? A definition of what you mean by total chaos would be helpful.
Anarchy..a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Could they not enforce the law without fear or favour rather than support the government of the day? Surely the latter road leads to totalitarianism?
They support the government of the day because they have been democratically elected by the voters.
Have they? Who elected the current government? No. The voters elect MPs; MPs choose a PM, the Monarch appoints a government led by that PM. The link between voters and government is shaky at best.
Can you unpack that a bit, please? A definition of what you mean by total chaos would be helpful.
Anarchy..a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Could they not enforce the law without fear or favour rather than support the government of the day? Surely the latter road leads to totalitarianism?
They support the government of the day because they have been democratically elected by the voters.
Have they? Who elected the current government? No. The voters elect MPs; MPs choose a PM, the Monarch appoints a government led by that PM. The link between voters and government is shaky at best.
I don't think the police can be expected to work differently just because UK democracy is not perfect.
No matter how high you are, the law is above you.
No matter how low you are, the law will protect you.
The present Government seems to have forgotten these principles. It appears to oppose both the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers.
Without the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers there is no true democracy, no freedom, no liberty, no security of property - merely dictatorship by a corrupt cabal put in power by a minority of voters, by the agency of a corrupt and outdated voting system.
100% correct.
Yes. Welcome to Merrie England...
A very accurate and succinct description of our present state @Sighthound .
Can you unpack that a bit, please? A definition of what you mean by total chaos would be helpful.
Anarchy..a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
That is not what anarchy means.
Just 6 words in your unhelpful post.
OK, Anarchy means without rules, rulers or government. It doesn’t mean chaos, although many people have interpreted it that way
So many, in fact, that, unfortunately for us linguistic purists it has now come to mean that for many. There is not now, AFAICT, a word for the purely political sense, except, perhaps, in academic or technical writing. (Unfortunately it is not the slightest bit unique () in that respect.)
The duty of the police is to enforce the law. They cannot/must not pick and choose.
The Police have always had discretion. Do you think they should stop giving friendly warnings and cautions ?
I suspect we'd all agree that dealing with minor transgressions with words of advice is reasonable, so long as members of whichever local minority community is least popular at the moment can expect the same latitude as the chief constable's spouse.
The duty of the police is to enforce the law. They cannot/must not pick and choose.
I understood the police were there to,'Uphold the peace', which sounds a lot nicer than 'enforcing the law'. 'The 'law' is always open to interpretation by whoever is in power.
The duty of the police is to enforce the law. They cannot/must not pick and choose.
I understood the police were there to,'Uphold the peace', which sounds a lot nicer than 'enforcing the law'. 'The 'law' is always open to interpretation by whoever is in power.
The duty of the police is to enforce the law. They cannot/must not pick and choose.
The Police have always had discretion. Do you think they should stop giving friendly warnings and cautions ?
I suspect we'd all agree that dealing with minor transgressions with words of advice is reasonable, so long as members of whichever local minority community is least popular at the moment can expect the same latitude as the chief constable's spouse.
My advice to any motorist stopped for a minor offence is not to ask " Haven't you got anything better to do"
[ote="Merry Vole;c-650516"]If I was growing up in a poor dysfunctional counqutry with bleak prospects then I would want to make the journey to the UK. And I would count the small boat bit to the mid-channel as the easiest and least dangerous bit.
This. Because the reasons why people leave their homelands, cities, drought lands and refugee camps are so appalling they are ready for any risk.
you have to understand,
no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land[/quote]
Thank you for that poem @MaryLouise. Speaking for myself - I think those of us who live in less extreme circumstances have little idea of the sheer desperation behind the decision to get on a boat. I am grateful for the poets and prophets who shake our complacency.
Now I need to work out what action I can take in response. Good Friday and Easter are a good time to do this.
My advice to any motorist stopped for a minor offence is not to ask " Haven't you got anything better to do"
Oh, @Telford, that made me laugh. Did people really try that one? Priceless!
There is a contingent of the population who believes that motoring law shouldn't be enforced and all police should be out catching rapists and murderers.
Given that by far the biggest criminal threat to most people is actually careless, dangerous or other illegal driving, I find this an odd position to take, but they don't see it that way. I can well imagine them reacting in this way if challenged over their illegal motoring.
My advice to any motorist stopped for a minor offence is not to ask " Haven't you got anything better to do"
Oh, @Telford, that made me laugh. Did people really try that one? Priceless!
There is a contingent of the population who believes that motoring law shouldn't be enforced and all police should be out catching rapists and murderers.
Given that by far the biggest criminal threat to most people is actually careless, dangerous or other illegal driving, I find this an odd position to take, but they don't see it that way. I can well imagine them reacting in this way if challenged over their illegal motoring.
Our borough has just reduced all 30mph speed limits to 20mph on safety grounds. The responses on Facebook have been what you would expect in everyone had been asked to donate their homes to the government.
My advice to any motorist stopped for a minor offence is not to ask " Haven't you got anything better to do"
Oh, @Telford, that made me laugh. Did people really try that one? Priceless!
There is a contingent of the population who believes that motoring law shouldn't be enforced and all police should be out catching rapists and murderers.
Given that by far the biggest criminal threat to most people is actually careless, dangerous or other illegal driving, I find this an odd position to take, but they don't see it that way. I can well imagine them reacting in this way if challenged over their illegal motoring.
Our borough has just reduced all 30mph speed limits to 20mph on safety grounds. The responses on Facebook have been what you would expect in everyone had been asked to donate their homes to the government.
Although I assume it's a small fraction of very voluble people (in the SUV driver demographic)
My advice to any motorist stopped for a minor offence is not to ask " Haven't you got anything better to do"
Oh, @Telford, that made me laugh. Did people really try that one? Priceless!
There is a contingent of the population who believes that motoring law shouldn't be enforced and all police should be out catching rapists and murderers.
Given that by far the biggest criminal threat to most people is actually careless, dangerous or other illegal driving, I find this an odd position to take, but they don't see it that way. I can well imagine them reacting in this way if challenged over their illegal motoring.
Our borough has just reduced all 30mph speed limits to 20mph on safety grounds. The responses on Facebook have been what you would expect in everyone had been asked to donate their homes to the government.
Although I assume it's a small fraction of very voluble people (in the SUV driver demographic)
Our road has a 20mph limit and speed bumps. They are seen as a challenge by some drivers who seem intent on having all four wheels off the ground.
My advice to any motorist stopped for a minor offence is not to ask " Haven't you got anything better to do"
Oh, @Telford, that made me laugh. Did people really try that one? Priceless!
There is a contingent of the population who believes that motoring law shouldn't be enforced and all police should be out catching rapists and murderers.
Given that by far the biggest criminal threat to most people is actually careless, dangerous or other illegal driving, I find this an odd position to take, but they don't see it that way. I can well imagine them reacting in this way if challenged over their illegal motoring.
Our borough has just reduced all 30mph speed limits to 20mph on safety grounds. The responses on Facebook have been what you would expect in everyone had been asked to donate their homes to the government.
Although I assume it's a small fraction of very voluble people (in the SUV driver demographic)
Not good for the refugees, either, given the south coast's weather forecast for the next few days...
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, this is of far greater importance.
However, if we step back from the moral for a moment, this is not remotely surprising. The Tory policy is not to stop the boats, it's to make political capital out of them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Not good for the refugees, either, given the south coast's weather forecast for the next few days...
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, this is of far greater importance.
However, if we step back from the moral for a moment, this is not remotely surprising. The Tory policy is not to stop the boats, it's to make political capital out of them. Nothing more, nothing less.
AFZ
Indeed. and I doubt if many tories give a toss about whether or not the refugees go to a watery grave...
There is a contingent of the population who believes that motoring law shouldn't be enforced and all police should be out catching rapists and murderers.
Given that by far the biggest criminal threat to most people is actually careless, dangerous or other illegal driving, I find this an odd position to take, but they don't see it that way. I can well imagine them reacting in this way if challenged over their illegal motoring.
Most motoring offences are basically breaches of safety rules, rather than an intent to cause harm. And IME, people often have an interesting relationship with those charged with enforcing safety rules, which is often not helped by those people so charged having a tendency to be officious gits who are obsessed with ensuring that reams of paperwork are correctly filed, rather than with actual safety.
Which is to say that, for the most part, people speed because they don't think they're doing anything unsafe, and campaigns to persuade them that their thinking is wrong aren't very successful (by contrast, campaigns against driving drunk have been rather more successful in altering the general public opinion.)
But it takes a particular breed of idiot to imagine that, once they have been stopped by a police officer for speeding, that a belligerent "haven't you got anything better to do" is going to make things better for them.
Though contempt of cop is not supposed to be a criminal offence.
No, but if you're in a position where the cop in question has the ability to make a judgement call about whether it's necessary to issue a penalty, or whether verbal advice will be sufficient, then being a jerk to the cop is likely to move their judgement towards door A.
Record numbers are crossing the Channel. Oh dear not good for the Cons
Some figures from an article in today's Guardian:
The previous record for arrivals in the three months from January to March was 4,548 in 2022.
There were 3,793 arrivals in the first three months of 2023.
The cumulative number of arrivals so far this year, 4,644, is 23% higher than the total at this point last year, which was 3,770, and 12% higher than the total at this stage in 2022, which was 4,162.
There were 29,437 arrivals across the whole of 2023, down 36% on a record 45,774 arrivals in 2022.
Though contempt of cop is not supposed to be a criminal offence.
No, but if you're in a position where the cop in question has the ability to make a judgement call about whether it's necessary to issue a penalty, or whether verbal advice will be sufficient, then being a jerk to the cop is likely to move their judgement towards door A.
My advice to chums has always been to be friendly and polite, stopping just short of grovelling. The object is to make the officer too embarrassed to do anything other than give a friendly warning.
Not good for the refugees, either, given the south coast's weather forecast for the next few days...
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, this is of far greater importance.
However, if we step back from the moral for a moment, this is not remotely surprising. The Tory policy is not to stop the boats, it's to make political capital out of them. Nothing more, nothing less.
AFZ
Indeed. and I doubt if many tories give a toss about whether or not the refugees go to a watery grave...
What is your evidence for this. The government does not want them to attempt the journey but attempts to bring in as many of them as possible on a border force vessel.
According to The Guardian, Peggy Mordaunt and a few other tory luminaries are backing plans to build a monument commemorating the Royal Navy's role in breaking up the slave trade following abolition of that trade in 1808. The monument will show heroic seamen setting free a Black man.
I assume I don't need to say what's wrong with this. A similarly themed statue in Boston, showing Honest Abe emancipating a slave, was taken down in 2020 as offensive. And that was put up in 1879.
Plus, this sorta project helps perpetuate the beloved myth that 1808, rather than 1834, was the year that Britain made its decisive break with slavery.
According to The Guardian, Peggy Mordaunt and a few other tory luminaries are backing plans to build a monument commemorating the Royal Navy's role in breaking up the slave trade following abolition of that trade in 1808. The monument will show heroic seamen setting free a Black man.
I assume I don't need to say what's wrong with this. A similarly themed statue in Boston, showing Honest Abe emancipating a slave, was taken down in 2020 as offensive. And that was put up in 1879.
Plus, this sorta project helps perpetuate the beloved myth that 1808, rather than 1834, was the year that Britain made its decisive break with slavery.
I have no problems with the monument but any facts attached to it do need to be accurate
I am not sugggesting that politicians should be above the law. Just that an investigation has been carried out and Rayner has been cleared. But that is not the result the Tories want, of course, so they want an investigation that will last into the election campaign.
I am not sugggesting that politicians should be above the law. Just that an investigation has been carried out and Rayner has been cleared. But that is not the result the Tories want, of course, so they want an investigation that will last into the election campaign.
Rayner has now offered to release years of her tax returns if senior Tories do the same,
How could they possibly refuse?
Not good for the refugees, either, given the south coast's weather forecast for the next few days...
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, this is of far greater importance.
However, if we step back from the moral for a moment, this is not remotely surprising. The Tory policy is not to stop the boats, it's to make political capital out of them. Nothing more, nothing less.
AFZ
Indeed. and I doubt if many tories give a toss about whether or not the refugees go to a watery grave...
What is your evidence for this. The government does not want them to attempt the journey but attempts to bring in as many of them as possible on a border force vessel.
O dear.
You seem to have forgotten that it's not so long ago since one or other of the harpies who acted as Home Secretary (either Patel or Braverman - I can't offhand recall which of the evil pair it was) wanted the Navy and/or the Border Force to repel the small boats, with the risk of upsetting them, and causing multiple deaths by drowning. The Navy etc. quite rightly refused to countenance such a murderous proceeding.
You may also have forgotten the right-wing outrage at the fact that the RNLI was also in the business of rescuing people - no matter what the reason for their plight - though I expect it was aired on your favourite *news* channel
Now, give me some evidence that the government is showing compassion towards those risking their lives in the Channel.
Not good for the refugees, either, given the south coast's weather forecast for the next few days...
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, this is of far greater importance.
However, if we step back from the moral for a moment, this is not remotely surprising. The Tory policy is not to stop the boats, it's to make political capital out of them. Nothing more, nothing less.
AFZ
Indeed. and I doubt if many tories give a toss about whether or not the refugees go to a watery grave...
What is your evidence for this. The government does not want them to attempt the journey but attempts to bring in as many of them as possible on a border force vessel.
O dear.
You seem to have forgotten that it's not so long ago since one or other of the harpies who acted as Home Secretary (either Patel or Braverman - I can't offhand recall which of the evil pair it was) wanted the Navy and/or the Border Force to repel the small boats, with the risk of upsetting them, and causing multiple deaths by drowning. The Navy etc. quite rightly refused to countenance such a murderous proceeding.
You may also have forgotten the right-wing outrage at the fact that the RNLI was also in the business of rescuing people - no matter what the reason for their plight - though I expect it was aired on your favourite *news* channel
Now, give me some evidence that the government is showing compassion towards those risking their lives in the Channel.
You need to concentrate on what has actually happened rather than what certain Home Secretaries have suppsoed to have said.
The evidence is that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but as soon as they get to British waters they are transfered to a safe UK boat.
I have read it. It's not the sort of monument I had in mind
Well, IIRC, the proposed monument is something like the various Great Emancipators, in its situating of the supposed liberators in relation to the liberated. Which I guess is to be expected, since the whole point IS to commemorate the Royal Navy.
To show my hand, I think the underlying agenda of erecting this sorta monument, at this particular point in time, is to say "What's all this nonsense about Britain being racist? We broke up the slave trade!!"
I see no evidence that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally. I see plenty of evidence that the government say they are trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but what they say and what they do have something wider than the English Channel between them.
I see no evidence that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally. I see plenty of evidence that the government say they are trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but what they say and what they do have something wider than the English Channel between them.
Doesn't the Rwandan scheme seem calculated to deter people from trying to enter illegally? "Don't bother coming to the UK, we're just gonna ship you to Rwanda where you won't get any of the benefits you were hoping to get here."
Not that I support the plan, but it does seem a fairly good match for the agenda of keeping people out.
Not good for the refugees, either, given the south coast's weather forecast for the next few days...
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, this is of far greater importance.
However, if we step back from the moral for a moment, this is not remotely surprising. The Tory policy is not to stop the boats, it's to make political capital out of them. Nothing more, nothing less.
AFZ
Indeed. and I doubt if many tories give a toss about whether or not the refugees go to a watery grave...
What is your evidence for this. The government does not want them to attempt the journey but attempts to bring in as many of them as possible on a border force vessel.
O dear.
You seem to have forgotten that it's not so long ago since one or other of the harpies who acted as Home Secretary (either Patel or Braverman - I can't offhand recall which of the evil pair it was) wanted the Navy and/or the Border Force to repel the small boats, with the risk of upsetting them, and causing multiple deaths by drowning. The Navy etc. quite rightly refused to countenance such a murderous proceeding.
You may also have forgotten the right-wing outrage at the fact that the RNLI was also in the business of rescuing people - no matter what the reason for their plight - though I expect it was aired on your favourite *news* channel
Now, give me some evidence that the government is showing compassion towards those risking their lives in the Channel.
You need to concentrate on what has actually happened rather than what certain Home Secretaries have suppsoed to have said.
The evidence is that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but as soon as they get to British waters they are transfered to a safe UK boat.
I see no evidence that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally. I see plenty of evidence that the government say they are trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but what they say and what they do have something wider than the English Channel between them.
I see no evidence that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally. I see plenty of evidence that the government say they are trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but what they say and what they do have something wider than the English Channel between them.
Doesn't the Rwandan scheme seem calculated to deter people from trying to enter illegally? "Don't bother coming to the UK, we're just gonna ship you to Rwanda where you won't get any of the benefits you were hoping to get here."
Not that I support the plan, but it does seem a fairly good match for the agenda of keeping people out.
Indeed, but perhaps not quite so convincing a match, given the latest report on poverty and deprivation in *safe* Rwanda:
I see no evidence that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally. I see plenty of evidence that the government say they are trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but what they say and what they do have something wider than the English Channel between them.
Doesn't the Rwandan scheme seem calculated to deter people from trying to enter illegally? "Don't bother coming to the UK, we're just gonna ship you to Rwanda where you won't get any of the benefits you were hoping to get here."
Not that I support the plan, but it does seem a fairly good match for the agenda of keeping people out.
Indeed, but perhaps not quite so convincing a match, given the latest report on poverty and deprivation in *safe* Rwanda:
I'm not sure how this is supposed to prove the Rwandan Scheme is not about keeping migrants out of the UK. It probably proves that the planners are indifferent to the well-being of the deportees, but I wasn't disputing that aspect of it.
If anything, if life in Rwanda is even crappier than had been previously understood, that would work BETTER as a deterrent.
Well, perhaps so, and ISWYM, but it rather gives the lie to the tories' view of Rwanda as an earthly paradise, to which refugees should be grateful to be sent.
BTW, here's an article from about 3 years ago, in which Priti Patel's idea of physically repelling small boats is mentioned:
Not good for the refugees, either, given the south coast's weather forecast for the next few days...
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, this is of far greater importance.
However, if we step back from the moral for a moment, this is not remotely surprising. The Tory policy is not to stop the boats, it's to make political capital out of them. Nothing more, nothing less.
AFZ
Indeed. and I doubt if many tories give a toss about whether or not the refugees go to a watery grave...
What is your evidence for this. The government does not want them to attempt the journey but attempts to bring in as many of them as possible on a border force vessel.
O dear.
You seem to have forgotten that it's not so long ago since one or other of the harpies who acted as Home Secretary (either Patel or Braverman - I can't offhand recall which of the evil pair it was) wanted the Navy and/or the Border Force to repel the small boats, with the risk of upsetting them, and causing multiple deaths by drowning. The Navy etc. quite rightly refused to countenance such a murderous proceeding.
You may also have forgotten the right-wing outrage at the fact that the RNLI was also in the business of rescuing people - no matter what the reason for their plight - though I expect it was aired on your favourite *news* channel
Now, give me some evidence that the government is showing compassion towards those risking their lives in the Channel.
You need to concentrate on what has actually happened rather than what certain Home Secretaries have suppsoed to have said.
The evidence is that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but as soon as they get to British waters they are transfered to a safe UK boat.
Bullshit.
Your response is noted but not appreciated. It gives me no encouragement to respond to you in future,
Comments
No matter how low you are, the law will protect you.
The present Government seems to have forgotten these principles. It appears to oppose both the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers.
Without the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers there is no true democracy, no freedom, no liberty, no security of property - merely dictatorship by a corrupt cabal put in power by a minority of voters, by the agency of a corrupt and outdated voting system.
100% correct.
Google Anarchy like I did. Do you have a better suggestion than elections ?
Just 6 words in your unhelpful post.
I don't think the police can be expected to work differently just because UK democracy is not perfect.
Yes. Welcome to Merrie England...
A very accurate and succinct description of our present state @Sighthound .
OK, Anarchy means without rules, rulers or government. It doesn’t mean chaos, although many people have interpreted it that way
The Police have always had discretion. Do you think they should stop giving friendly warnings and cautions ?
I suspect we'd all agree that dealing with minor transgressions with words of advice is reasonable, so long as members of whichever local minority community is least popular at the moment can expect the same latitude as the chief constable's spouse.
I understood the police were there to,'Uphold the peace', which sounds a lot nicer than 'enforcing the law'. 'The 'law' is always open to interpretation by whoever is in power.
The law is interpreted by the courts.
My advice to any motorist stopped for a minor offence is not to ask " Haven't you got anything better to do"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/26/exit-of-two-more-tory-ministers-forces-sunak-into-mini-reshuffle
Surely it's time Larry The Cat was given a ministerial post?
😸
This. Because the reasons why people leave their homelands, cities, drought lands and refugee camps are so appalling they are ready for any risk.
The poem Home by British-Somali poet Warsan Shire:
you have to understand,
no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land[/quote]
Thank you for that poem @MaryLouise. Speaking for myself - I think those of us who live in less extreme circumstances have little idea of the sheer desperation behind the decision to get on a boat. I am grateful for the poets and prophets who shake our complacency.
Now I need to work out what action I can take in response. Good Friday and Easter are a good time to do this.
Oh, @Telford, that made me laugh. Did people really try that one? Priceless!
There is a contingent of the population who believes that motoring law shouldn't be enforced and all police should be out catching rapists and murderers.
Given that by far the biggest criminal threat to most people is actually careless, dangerous or other illegal driving, I find this an odd position to take, but they don't see it that way. I can well imagine them reacting in this way if challenged over their illegal motoring.
Our borough has just reduced all 30mph speed limits to 20mph on safety grounds. The responses on Facebook have been what you would expect in everyone had been asked to donate their homes to the government.
I can't say I've actually noticed any difference.
Although I assume it's a small fraction of very voluble people (in the SUV driver demographic)
I Wales now you can get three changes of speed limit in 100 yards, and a sudden drop from 60mph to 20 mph isn't unknown.
Our road has a 20mph limit and speed bumps. They are seen as a challenge by some drivers who seem intent on having all four wheels off the ground.
Now, now, I'm sure some of them drive white vans.
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, this is of far greater importance.
However, if we step back from the moral for a moment, this is not remotely surprising. The Tory policy is not to stop the boats, it's to make political capital out of them. Nothing more, nothing less.
AFZ
Indeed. and I doubt if many tories give a toss about whether or not the refugees go to a watery grave...
Most motoring offences are basically breaches of safety rules, rather than an intent to cause harm. And IME, people often have an interesting relationship with those charged with enforcing safety rules, which is often not helped by those people so charged having a tendency to be officious gits who are obsessed with ensuring that reams of paperwork are correctly filed, rather than with actual safety.
Which is to say that, for the most part, people speed because they don't think they're doing anything unsafe, and campaigns to persuade them that their thinking is wrong aren't very successful (by contrast, campaigns against driving drunk have been rather more successful in altering the general public opinion.)
But it takes a particular breed of idiot to imagine that, once they have been stopped by a police officer for speeding, that a belligerent "haven't you got anything better to do" is going to make things better for them.
No, but if you're in a position where the cop in question has the ability to make a judgement call about whether it's necessary to issue a penalty, or whether verbal advice will be sufficient, then being a jerk to the cop is likely to move their judgement towards door A.
Some figures from an article in today's Guardian:
The previous record for arrivals in the three months from January to March was 4,548 in 2022.
There were 3,793 arrivals in the first three months of 2023.
The cumulative number of arrivals so far this year, 4,644, is 23% higher than the total at this point last year, which was 3,770, and 12% higher than the total at this stage in 2022, which was 4,162.
There were 29,437 arrivals across the whole of 2023, down 36% on a record 45,774 arrivals in 2022.
My advice to chums has always been to be friendly and polite, stopping just short of grovelling. The object is to make the officer too embarrassed to do anything other than give a friendly warning.
I assume I don't need to say what's wrong with this. A similarly themed statue in Boston, showing Honest Abe emancipating a slave, was taken down in 2020 as offensive. And that was put up in 1879.
Plus, this sorta project helps perpetuate the beloved myth that 1808, rather than 1834, was the year that Britain made its decisive break with slavery.
I have no problems with the monument but any facts attached to it do need to be accurate
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68677343
I am not sugggesting that politicians should be above the law. Just that an investigation has been carried out and Rayner has been cleared. But that is not the result the Tories want, of course, so they want an investigation that will last into the election campaign.
Rayner has now offered to release years of her tax returns if senior Tories do the same,
How could they possibly refuse?
O dear.
You seem to have forgotten that it's not so long ago since one or other of the harpies who acted as Home Secretary (either Patel or Braverman - I can't offhand recall which of the evil pair it was) wanted the Navy and/or the Border Force to repel the small boats, with the risk of upsetting them, and causing multiple deaths by drowning. The Navy etc. quite rightly refused to countenance such a murderous proceeding.
You may also have forgotten the right-wing outrage at the fact that the RNLI was also in the business of rescuing people - no matter what the reason for their plight - though I expect it was aired on your favourite *news* channel
Now, give me some evidence that the government is showing compassion towards those risking their lives in the Channel.
You need to concentrate on what has actually happened rather than what certain Home Secretaries have suppsoed to have said.
The evidence is that the government is trying to dissuade immigrants from coming here illegally but as soon as they get to British waters they are transfered to a safe UK boat.
Well, IIRC, the proposed monument is something like the various Great Emancipators, in its situating of the supposed liberators in relation to the liberated. Which I guess is to be expected, since the whole point IS to commemorate the Royal Navy.
To show my hand, I think the underlying agenda of erecting this sorta monument, at this particular point in time, is to say "What's all this nonsense about Britain being racist? We broke up the slave trade!!"
Doesn't the Rwandan scheme seem calculated to deter people from trying to enter illegally? "Don't bother coming to the UK, we're just gonna ship you to Rwanda where you won't get any of the benefits you were hoping to get here."
Not that I support the plan, but it does seem a fairly good match for the agenda of keeping people out.
Bullshit.
Precisely, and obvious to most people.
Indeed, but perhaps not quite so convincing a match, given the latest report on poverty and deprivation in *safe* Rwanda:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/28/fresh-blow-for-rwanda-deportation-plan-as-report-shows-extreme-poverty-and-hunger#:~:text=More than half of the,below the level of need”.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to prove the Rwandan Scheme is not about keeping migrants out of the UK. It probably proves that the planners are indifferent to the well-being of the deportees, but I wasn't disputing that aspect of it.
If anything, if life in Rwanda is even crappier than had been previously understood, that would work BETTER as a deterrent.
BTW, here's an article from about 3 years ago, in which Priti Patel's idea of physically repelling small boats is mentioned:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/01/uk-tested-channel-blockade-to-deter-migrants-leak-reveals