When we get someone other than Traffickers prosecuted, I will be very surprised. No action with be taken against the RNLI
The evidence is against you. @chrisstiles has already mentioned prosecutions of people other than people traffickers. The previous version of the legislation has struggled in the court of appeal, for example the case of Fouad Kakaei initially convicted of helping steer a boat across the Channel, which was overturned in March this year. A case could be made that the newest legislation makes an asylum claim illegal if someone enters the UK by such means precisely to sidestep the basis of the appeal, so that more people who are picked up from boats in the Channel are criminalised and sent to prison rather than being treated as the refugees that they are. A case can also be made that under the previous legislation with it's phrase about profit allows appeals against such convictions based on the fact that refugees crossing the Channel in a boat aren't paddling the boat from a profit motive, and by taking that out of the current legislation the government is removing a foreseeable basis of appeal.
People other than traffickers will face prosecution. No doubt about that at all, the wording of the Act makes it clear that this is one of the aims of the legislation. I agree, action against the RNLI will be politically untenable and is a very remote possibility, but actions against other people who help people in need who don't have a much-loved national institution behind them is possible.
When we get someone other than Traffickers prosecuted, I will be very surprised. No action with be taken against the RNLI
The evidence is against you. @chrisstiles has already mentioned prosecutions of people other than people traffickers. The previous version of the legislation has struggled in the court of appeal, for example the case of Fouad Kakaei initially convicted of helping steer a boat across the Channel, which was overturned in March this year. A case could be made that the newest legislation makes an asylum claim illegal if someone enters the UK by such means precisely to sidestep the basis of the appeal, so that more people who are picked up from boats in the Channel are criminalised and sent to prison rather than being treated as the refugees that they are. A case can also be made that under the previous legislation with it's phrase about profit allows appeals against such convictions based on the fact that refugees crossing the Channel in a boat aren't paddling the boat from a profit motive, and by taking that out of the current legislation the government is removing a foreseeable basis of appeal.
People other than traffickers will face prosecution. No doubt about that at all, the wording of the Act makes it clear that this is one of the aims of the legislation. I agree, action against the RNLI will be politically untenable and is a very remote possibility, but actions against other people who help people in need who don't have a much-loved national institution behind them is possible.
@Alan Cresswell explains it as cogently, and as patiently, as usual. If only the Priti Patel Fan Club would take the trouble to read such posts with comprehension.
Telford's about to tell us all that he didn't expect anyone to agree with him, which is his way of not conceding he's wrong despite overwhelming evidence.
In other news that just boggles the imagination, this afternoon Parliament debates racism and not a single BAME MP (there are 63 of them) has been chosen to speak. That's right, Parliament is going to debate racism without hearing from anyone who has ever been the victim of racism. I don't believe it
Did any of the speakers defend racism ?
I remember sitting in a plane flying to Iceland, looking down on the Hebrides from cruising altitude.
We still cleared those islands by a smaller distance than that by which the point went over your head there.
Hell, astronauts in the ISS have the same experience.
Please explain what you are on about.
Why do you think it might be a problem that all the people in a given conversation about racism are white?
Over 200 years ago Slavery in the British empire was abolished by an all white Parliament.
I'm sure you fully understand and take the point that 200 years ago an all white Parliament would be the only option for those times. I'm sure you also understand that one of the reasons abolishing the legal slave trade (slavery in Britain is, sadly, still alive and kicking) was such a struggle was because white (mainly male, Anglican/Protestant) politicians weren't particularly interested in listening to others who weren't.
We don't live 200 years ago. We don't have the excuse for that kind of ignorance. We now live in a nation that has, representationally, people who are not only white but are non-white and from other ethnicities and cultures. It's really not hard to conclude that some of these people have valuable contributions to make about the experience of being non-white and from ethnic minorities. There are even Parliamentarians who are non-white and from ethnic minority backgrounds. As Parliament is going to have a debate about these things, again it's not hard to come to the conclusion the kind of folk who ought to be taking part in the debate at various levels.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
You'll have to take up the issue of abuse being directed towards Patel with those who have been doing it. It is true she has experience of being a non-white Politician. However, she clearly isn't the only non-white Parliamentarian. BAME in the Houses of Parliament doesn't begin and end with her, or even with her party. It seems strange to debate racism without the formal inclusion of a representative body of those who have experienced it. I'm sure you must know that that is the point being made?
As for your implication further down the thread that I resent people of colour being Tory politicians I'll leave that fluffy piece of nonsense in the land of make-believe where it came from! Thanks for the label 'left wing' by the way. I don't know if that phrase means to you whatever it might - if anything - mean to me. But if it means I am clearly not a supporter of the current Tory Government, you're spot on.
Priti Patel gets so much flak on this issue because she described the English football team taking the knee before matches as gesture politics
Kneeling is a gesture, and a political statement. Isn't it exactly gesture politics?
In the sense of using the English language to mean that when a man uses his hands to do a job, he's engaged in a handjob? Perhaps context brings a little more meaning to the task of understanding what is meant than just sticking words together.
It seems to me that is usually the sort of thing that is said by someone who agrees with a viewpoint, but thinks that some particular way of advancing it is empty and meaningless. For example...
"The mayor's photo-op in front of the homeless shelter is just gesture politics, because we all know he's been defunding the same shelter for years now."
So, it seems a somewhat strange thing for Ms. Patel to be saying about athletes taking the knee, because her view of the action is the opposite of my example above: She thinks the cause is harmful to society, and is upset because the players seem to sincerely support it.
She may have decided that the dog whistle "virtue signalling" was too blatant even for a tory home secretary.
Possibly something like that. Though I will say that "virtue signaling" doesn't carry quite the same meaning as a phrase like "gesture politics" or "empty gesture". More often than not, people who use it really do think that progressive politics are harmful.
My main problem with "virtue signaling" is its roots in weirdo sociobiology, where it is usually not meant as a metaphor, ie. they really do believe that some people are genetically programmed to express left-wing opinions. But I think most people who now use it probably aren't aware of that pedigree.
When we get someone other than Traffickers prosecuted, I will be very surprised. No action with be taken against the RNLI
The evidence is against you. @chrisstiles has already mentioned prosecutions of people other than people traffickers. The previous version of the legislation has struggled in the court of appeal, for example the case of Fouad Kakaei initially convicted of helping steer a boat across the Channel, which was overturned in March this year. A case could be made that the newest legislation makes an asylum claim illegal if someone enters the UK by such means precisely to sidestep the basis of the appeal, so that more people who are picked up from boats in the Channel are criminalised and sent to prison rather than being treated as the refugees that they are. A case can also be made that under the previous legislation with it's phrase about profit allows appeals against such convictions based on the fact that refugees crossing the Channel in a boat aren't paddling the boat from a profit motive, and by taking that out of the current legislation the government is removing a foreseeable basis of appeal.
People other than traffickers will face prosecution. No doubt about that at all, the wording of the Act makes it clear that this is one of the aims of the legislation. I agree, action against the RNLI will be politically untenable and is a very remote possibility, but actions against other people who help people in need who don't have a much-loved national institution behind them is possible.
It is better to not type and be thought a fool than to tap away and remove all doubt.
1. That statement was not only not true but plainly ridiculous as was made clear on that thread at the time.
2. However, if we were to accept your premise (which you have asserted again (against all evidence and logic)) then your position concerning the proposed new law is even more problematic:
On one hand you are arguing that a terrible situation was the fault of enforcement officers doing not what the executive intended. On the other you are arguing that the new law is fine because enforcement officers don't do that which is not intended by the government.
Seriously, I have more challenging debates with my 3 year old Zogglet.
Then again, the cabinet clearly believe they are entitled to hold to both sides of any issue, so why shouldn't you?
Comments
People other than traffickers will face prosecution. No doubt about that at all, the wording of the Act makes it clear that this is one of the aims of the legislation. I agree, action against the RNLI will be politically untenable and is a very remote possibility, but actions against other people who help people in need who don't have a much-loved national institution behind them is possible.
Quite so.
Knitting fog, or herding cats, are comparatively simple exercises.
I do often find it like trying to nail fog to a wall.
Another analogy might be *walking through treacle*, perhaps?
@Alan Cresswell explains it as cogently, and as patiently, as usual. If only the Priti Patel Fan Club would take the trouble to read such posts with comprehension.
Johnson, Patel etc. want it both ways. It's good to see this group of people say no to them.
AFZ
Indeed. There is still some faint hope that, one day, the lunacy will be overcome.
You'll have to take up the issue of abuse being directed towards Patel with those who have been doing it. It is true she has experience of being a non-white Politician. However, she clearly isn't the only non-white Parliamentarian. BAME in the Houses of Parliament doesn't begin and end with her, or even with her party. It seems strange to debate racism without the formal inclusion of a representative body of those who have experienced it. I'm sure you must know that that is the point being made?
As for your implication further down the thread that I resent people of colour being Tory politicians I'll leave that fluffy piece of nonsense in the land of make-believe where it came from! Thanks for the label 'left wing' by the way. I don't know if that phrase means to you whatever it might - if anything - mean to me. But if it means I am clearly not a supporter of the current Tory Government, you're spot on.
In the sense of using the English language to mean that when a man uses his hands to do a job, he's engaged in a handjob?
ITTWACW!
Well, Jesus was a carpenter, so...
It seems to me that is usually the sort of thing that is said by someone who agrees with a viewpoint, but thinks that some particular way of advancing it is empty and meaningless. For example...
"The mayor's photo-op in front of the homeless shelter is just gesture politics, because we all know he's been defunding the same shelter for years now."
So, it seems a somewhat strange thing for Ms. Patel to be saying about athletes taking the knee, because her view of the action is the opposite of my example above: She thinks the cause is harmful to society, and is upset because the players seem to sincerely support it.
Possibly something like that. Though I will say that "virtue signaling" doesn't carry quite the same meaning as a phrase like "gesture politics" or "empty gesture". More often than not, people who use it really do think that progressive politics are harmful.
My main problem with "virtue signaling" is its roots in weirdo sociobiology, where it is usually not meant as a metaphor, ie. they really do believe that some people are genetically programmed to express left-wing opinions. But I think most people who now use it probably aren't aware of that pedigree.
"I don't believe in gestures, I believe in substance."
A fine mist has more substance than Johnson and he has more gestures than a sign language convention.
AFZ
That remains true, so what's your problem ?
When this happens, I will agree with you
I did not know it was an offence to vote for the local Conservqative MP.
That, again.
You are, perhaps.
It is better to not type and be thought a fool than to tap away and remove all doubt.
1. That statement was not only not true but plainly ridiculous as was made clear on that thread at the time.
2. However, if we were to accept your premise (which you have asserted again (against all evidence and logic)) then your position concerning the proposed new law is even more problematic:
On one hand you are arguing that a terrible situation was the fault of enforcement officers doing not what the executive intended. On the other you are arguing that the new law is fine because enforcement officers don't do that which is not intended by the government.
Seriously, I have more challenging debates with my 3 year old Zogglet.
Then again, the cabinet clearly believe they are entitled to hold to both sides of any issue, so why shouldn't you?
AFZ