Expressing support for policies which treat people as sub-human commodities or bargaining chips, as guilty unless they provide impossible to supply information, is language far more foul than an entire ship load of the saltiest of sailors.
I do not believe that there is such a policy and I would not support such a policy
I imagine the Queen has had enough excuse over the years to mutter "fucking hell" followed by the name of one of her children, grandchildren or husband...
Expressing support for policies which treat people as sub-human commodities or bargaining chips, as guilty unless they provide impossible to supply information, is language far more foul than an entire ship load of the saltiest of sailors.
I do not believe that there is such a policy and I would not support such a policy
Parts of this thread are reminding me of Tony Campolo's classic challenge to a Christian audience when he said, 'Last night, 30,000 kids died of malnutrition, but you don't give a shit. And the worst thing about what I've just said is you're more upset by my use of the word 'shit' than the fact that 30,000 kids have died of malnutrition.'
Expressing support for policies which treat people as sub-human commodities or bargaining chips, as guilty unless they provide impossible to supply information, is language far more foul than an entire ship load of the saltiest of sailors.
I do not believe that there is such a policy and I would not support such a policy
Parts of this thread are reminding me of Tony Campolo's classic challenge to a Christian audience when he said, 'Last night, 30,000 kids died of malnutrition, but you don't give a shit. And the worst thing about what I've just said is you're more upset by my use of the word 'shit' than the fact that 30,000 kids have died of malnutrition.'
I remember hearing Mr Campolo say exactly that - at the Christian Resources Exhibition opening some years ago. It impressed me, and many others.
But an odd thought has struck me that I should probably thank A Shropshire Town for confirming my point so eloquently. As long as enough voters are prepared to overlook or excuse or whatever-the-hell he/she is doing in order to rationalise such evils as the Windrush scandal then there is no accountability to our government and our democracy is failing in the most basic terms.
The government enacted The Hostile Environment because they simply did not care about the 'collateral damage' measured in real people's ruined lives that it would cause. They were able to get away with it because it seems that too many of us don't care either.
Expressing support for policies which treat people as sub-human commodities or bargaining chips, as guilty unless they provide impossible to supply information, is language far more foul than an entire ship load of the saltiest of sailors.
I do not believe that there is such a policy and I would not support such a policy
Expressing support for policies which treat people as sub-human commodities or bargaining chips, as guilty unless they provide impossible to supply information, is language far more foul than an entire ship load of the saltiest of sailors.
I do not believe that there is such a policy and I would not support such a policy
Who had been Home Secretary for over a year and a half by the time this happened.
What kind of policy could they have established that a man who had arrived with a lawfully issued visa could have had it cancelled, be arrested in the course of an obvious psychiatric episode, and be handed into immigration custody only to be dead six days later of starvation and dehydration, untended and naked in a filthy cell with no mattress or bedding?
How fortunate those people must be if the delay between death and inquest means they have moved away from having to give answer for their leadership and the culture of inhumane unconcern their policies fostered.
Telford you are now in Hell. The reactions of others are perfectly acceptable here.
Ok Telford the policy may not have been to deport innocent people (though that is questionable) but the consequence was to do just that. The consequences show that the original was flawed. It doesn’t matter what the aim was. If people are treated unlawfully (which they were) and the government was warned this would happen (which they were) then the policy should have not continued. The policy is at fault. The policy was brought by ministers.
I cannot be much clearer. Are you going to argue properly or just make statements?
Telford you are now in Hell. The reactions of others are perfectly acceptable here. Ok Telford the policy may not have been to deport innocent people (though that is questionable) but the consequence was to do just that. The consequences show that the original was flawed. It doesn’t matter what the aim was. If people are treated unlawfully (which they were) and the government was warned this would happen (which they were) then the policy should have not continued. The policy is at fault. The policy was brought by ministers.
I cannot be much clearer. Are you going to argue properly or just make statements?
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
Telford you are now in Hell. The reactions of others are perfectly acceptable here. Ok Telford the policy may not have been to deport innocent people (though that is questionable) but the consequence was to do just that. The consequences show that the original was flawed. It doesn’t matter what the aim was. If people are treated unlawfully (which they were) and the government was warned this would happen (which they were) then the policy should have not continued. The policy is at fault. The policy was brought by ministers.
I cannot be much clearer. Are you going to argue properly or just make statements?
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
OK you need to produce evidence. This is a discussion and all you have done is make statements. Is that clear
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
Just what is that "current evidence". To devise such a policy is not the function of the public service and most certainly something that they would not do. What the public service did do was to implement the political decision taken by the relevant minister, or very likely given the ramifications of the policy, made by Cabinet.
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
Just what is that "current evidence". To devise such a policy is not the function of the public service and most certainly something that they would not do. What the public service did do was to implement the political decision taken by the relevant minister, or very likely given the ramifications of the policy, made by Cabinet.
What is your evidence for this. The only thing we know for certain is that the deportation of those here legally was never a policy.
Telford you are now in Hell. The reactions of others are perfectly acceptable here. Ok Telford the policy may not have been to deport innocent people (though that is questionable) but the consequence was to do just that. The consequences show that the original was flawed. It doesn’t matter what the aim was. If people are treated unlawfully (which they were) and the government was warned this would happen (which they were) then the policy should have not continued. The policy is at fault. The policy was brought by ministers.
I cannot be much clearer. Are you going to argue properly or just make statements?
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
OK you need to produce evidence. This is a discussion and all you have done is make statements. Is that clear
The evidence is that whenever these incompetents are criticised they complain that they are bullied.
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
Just what is that "current evidence". To devise such a policy is not the function of the public service and most certainly something that they would not do. What the public service did do was to implement the political decision taken by the relevant minister, or very likely given the ramifications of the policy, made by Cabinet.
What is your evidence for this. The only thing we know for certain is that the deportation of those here legally was never a policy.
Read any book on British governance. Policy is a matter for the government; implementation for the public service.
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
Just what is that "current evidence". To devise such a policy is not the function of the public service and most certainly something that they would not do. What the public service did do was to implement the political decision taken by the relevant minister, or very likely given the ramifications of the policy, made by Cabinet.
What is your evidence for this. The only thing we know for certain is that the deportation of those here legally was never a policy.
No, what we know has been summarised for you very clearly by @alienfromzog. It’s your choice to put your fingers in your ears and go ‘la la la’.
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
Just what is that "current evidence". To devise such a policy is not the function of the public service and most certainly something that they would not do. What the public service did do was to implement the political decision taken by the relevant minister, or very likely given the ramifications of the policy, made by Cabinet.
What is your evidence for this. The only thing we know for certain is that the deportation of those here legally was never a policy.
Read any book on British governance. Policy is a matter for the government; implementation for the public service.
That only works if the public service follows the policy.
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
Just what is that "current evidence". To devise such a policy is not the function of the public service and most certainly something that they would not do. What the public service did do was to implement the political decision taken by the relevant minister, or very likely given the ramifications of the policy, made by Cabinet.
What is your evidence for this. The only thing we know for certain is that the deportation of those here legally was never a policy.
No. That is not the only thing we know for certain. The fact that it appears to be all you know is because you have chosen to be ignorant and refuse to even consider the huge amount of other information out there.
Secondly, your position is astoundingly simplistic and absolves the democratically elected government from any responsibility for anything.
These two things together is why I asked you if were being deliberately stupid. Ignorance of basic facts and logical fallacies.... Not to mention a complete absence of empathy for the victims. This is what allows democratic governments to behave so badly; people like you.
Telford you are now in Hell. The reactions of others are perfectly acceptable here. Ok Telford the policy may not have been to deport innocent people (though that is questionable) but the consequence was to do just that. The consequences show that the original was flawed. It doesn’t matter what the aim was. If people are treated unlawfully (which they were) and the government was warned this would happen (which they were) then the policy should have not continued. The policy is at fault. The policy was brought by ministers.
I cannot be much clearer. Are you going to argue properly or just make statements?
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
OK you need to produce evidence. This is a discussion and all you have done is make statements. Is that clear
The evidence is that whenever these incompetents are criticised they complain that they are bullied.
Polly Toynbee in this week's Guardian wrote a piece suggesting that coronavirus will be abig threat to this government because she believes it will uncover the hollowing out of our public sector.
As you would expect from Toynbee, it's part polemic but she's right that Cameron and May and Johnson have faced no democratic accountability for the vandalism of our public sector because it's gone largely unnoticed by most of the public.
As with Windrush, the victims have been largely invisible to the public at large. She obviously believes this is about to change. I am not so sure but it proves my wider point that our democracy is completely failing to hold anybody to account.
If she's right, then at least some good may come out of our latest National Crisis...
True.
Mark Blyth's otherwise outstanding book on Austerity (Austerity, the history of a dangerous idea) concludes that governments cannot pursue such foolish, self-destructive policies in democracies for very long because the public would not allow them to do so. 2010-20 in the UK at least shows this isn't true. If your propaganda is good enough, you can get away with inflicting all sorts on people.
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves
<citation needed>
It's my opinion. Am I not allowed an opinion ?
I base my opinion on the fact that they acted contrary to official government policy.
Your opinion is worthless - no, actually, worth less than worthless, it sucks harder than a supermassive black hole - if your 'fact' is something you made up to help you sleep better at night.
I'll let you know when you've recrossed the event horizon back into normal space where the rest of us are.
I am not so sure but it proves my wider point that our democracy is completely failing to hold anybody to account.
Or it proves that a significant percentage of the population either agrees with or is indifferent towards the policy in question.
That’s the problem with democracy - if a lot of people disagree with you then you’re not going to get what you want. That’s as true for questions like “who should have the right to live here” as it is for any other questions.
Well, if the government policy is "deport the forrins, even those who aren't forrin", then we should be told in plain English, rather than "we say we have no policy to deport the forrins, but are lying about that to save your blushes". Their trust in democracy should be sufficient to carry the day, surely?
If she's right, then at least some good may come out of our latest National Crisis...
True.
Mark Blyth's otherwise outstanding book on Austerity (Austerity, the history of a dangerous idea) concludes that governments cannot pursue such foolish, self-destructive policies in democracies for very long because the public would not allow them to do so. 2010-20 in the UK at least shows this isn't true. If your propaganda is good enough, you can get away with inflicting all sorts on people.
AFZ
As a certain Mr Hitler found out - for a while, anyway...
If she's right, then at least some good may come out of our latest National Crisis...
True.
Mark Blyth's otherwise outstanding book on Austerity (Austerity, the history of a dangerous idea) concludes that governments cannot pursue such foolish, self-destructive policies in democracies for very long because the public would not allow them to do so. 2010-20 in the UK at least shows this isn't true. If your propaganda is good enough, you can get away with inflicting all sorts on people.
AFZ
As a certain Mr Hitler found out - for a while, anyway...
Yes I think people forget that the Weimar Republic was actually a functioning democracy until about 1931... (1933 was the Enabling Law IIRC). Democracy is far more fragile than we think.
Telford you are now in Hell. The reactions of others are perfectly acceptable here. Ok Telford the policy may not have been to deport innocent people (though that is questionable) but the consequence was to do just that. The consequences show that the original was flawed. It doesn’t matter what the aim was. If people are treated unlawfully (which they were) and the government was warned this would happen (which they were) then the policy should have not continued. The policy is at fault. The policy was brought by ministers.
I cannot be much clearer. Are you going to argue properly or just make statements?
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
OK you need to produce evidence. This is a discussion and all you have done is make statements. Is that clear
The evidence is that whenever these incompetents are criticised they complain that they are bullied.
Not evidence at all.
Bullying in the workplace is a serious matter. If tryout argument is that they try to cover up wrong stuff by complaining that, then go bury your head back in the sand. You have still not given evidence whatsoever. Opinion is not evidence.
If she's right, then at least some good may come out of our latest National Crisis...
True.
Mark Blyth's otherwise outstanding book on Austerity (Austerity, the history of a dangerous idea) concludes that governments cannot pursue such foolish, self-destructive policies in democracies for very long because the public would not allow them to do so. 2010-20 in the UK at least shows this isn't true. If your propaganda is good enough, you can get away with inflicting all sorts on people.
AFZ
As a certain Mr Hitler found out - for a while, anyway...
Yes I think people forget that the Weimar Republic was actually a functioning democracy until about 1931... (1933 was the Enabling Law IIRC). Democracy is far more fragile than we think.
AFZ
Functioning is probably stretching it a bit. The Nazis were able to point at a thoroughly chaotic decade and blame liberal democracy for it. Where most democratic societies differ is in having a few decades of pretty stable democratic governance to weigh in the balance against any potential chaos. They also have the warning from history. It's right to be vigilant but we're not as vulnerable as Weimar was. There were also vulnerabilities built into the system in Weimar, such as the low threshold for entry into parliament that meant the coalition governments often were as weak as propaganda claimed. Most PR systems now have a higher threshold for that reason.
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves
<citation needed>
It's my opinion. Am I not allowed an opinion ?
I base my opinion on the fact that they acted contrary to official government policy.
Your opinion is worthless - no, actually, worth less than worthless, it sucks harder than a supermassive black hole - if your 'fact' is something you made up to help you sleep better at night.
I'll let you know when you've recrossed the event horizon back into normal space where the rest of us are.
If she's right, then at least some good may come out of our latest National Crisis...
True.
Mark Blyth's otherwise outstanding book on Austerity (Austerity, the history of a dangerous idea) concludes that governments cannot pursue such foolish, self-destructive policies in democracies for very long because the public would not allow them to do so. 2010-20 in the UK at least shows this isn't true. If your propaganda is good enough, you can get away with inflicting all sorts on people.
AFZ
As a certain Mr Hitler found out - for a while, anyway...
Yes I think people forget that the Weimar Republic was actually a functioning democracy until about 1931... (1933 was the Enabling Law IIRC). Democracy is far more fragile than we think.
AFZ
Functioning is probably stretching it a bit. The Nazis were able to point at a thoroughly chaotic decade and blame liberal democracy for it. Where most democratic societies differ is in having a few decades of pretty stable democratic governance to weigh in the balance against any potential chaos. They also have the warning from history. It's right to be vigilant but we're not as vulnerable as Weimar was. There were also vulnerabilities built into the system in Weimar, such as the low threshold for entry into parliament that meant the coalition governments often were as weak as propaganda claimed. Most PR systems now have a higher threshold for that reason.
It's a fair point. I think that the vulnerabilities in the current Anglosphere are more subtle but also dangerous for that reason. US politics was corrupted by big money at least 3 decades ago. That's before we get to Trump's dismantling of the republic.
In the UK, it's complicated but there is a constituency who believe their vote counts for nothing and they never benefit regardless. Some of these people voted for Brexit...
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
Just what is that "current evidence". To devise such a policy is not the function of the public service and most certainly something that they would not do. What the public service did do was to implement the political decision taken by the relevant minister, or very likely given the ramifications of the policy, made by Cabinet.
What is your evidence for this. The only thing we know for certain is that the deportation of those here legally was never a policy.
Read any book on British governance. Policy is a matter for the government; implementation for the public service.
That only works if the public service follows the policy.
To anyone who actually WORKS in the public service, the suggestion that the public service might somehow sneakily go rogue and the politicians not notice is fucking hilarious.
Some of those arguing against you are equally wrong, though. Just for different reasons.
Comments
It would involve rusty farm implements and the creation of new bodily orifices, I imagine.
Only in the sense of stinking like an overripe camembert studded with chunks of durian and topped with surströmming
How clever of you.
We're approaching ThomasDF levels here.
I remember hearing Mr Campolo say exactly that - at the Christian Resources Exhibition opening some years ago. It impressed me, and many others.
Yikes--you said The Name!
{Puts on helmet; scampers into hole with books, food, pillows, and blankets, and a whole lotta flashlights; and pulls cover over the hole.}
(Which is unusual for one of my rants...)
But an odd thought has struck me that I should probably thank A Shropshire Town for confirming my point so eloquently. As long as enough voters are prepared to overlook or excuse or whatever-the-hell he/she is doing in order to rationalise such evils as the Windrush scandal then there is no accountability to our government and our democracy is failing in the most basic terms.
The government enacted The Hostile Environment because they simply did not care about the 'collateral damage' measured in real people's ruined lives that it would cause. They were able to get away with it because it seems that too many of us don't care either.
AFZ
Is he your hero ?
SEE?
As a matter of principle. I cast no nasturtiums.
What kind of policy could they have established that a man who had arrived with a lawfully issued visa could have had it cancelled, be arrested in the course of an obvious psychiatric episode, and be handed into immigration custody only to be dead six days later of starvation and dehydration, untended and naked in a filthy cell with no mattress or bedding?
How fortunate those people must be if the delay between death and inquest means they have moved away from having to give answer for their leadership and the culture of inhumane unconcern their policies fostered.
Oh my country!
Come the Revolution (O! Soon, O Lord, soon!) maybe the same treatment will be meted out to those responsible for such cruel degradation.
Ok Telford the policy may not have been to deport innocent people (though that is questionable) but the consequence was to do just that. The consequences show that the original was flawed. It doesn’t matter what the aim was. If people are treated unlawfully (which they were) and the government was warned this would happen (which they were) then the policy should have not continued. The policy is at fault. The policy was brought by ministers.
I cannot be much clearer. Are you going to argue properly or just make statements?
Place your bets...
The current evidence is that Home office personnel are a law unto themselves and I therefore blame them
<citation needed>
Just what is that "current evidence". To devise such a policy is not the function of the public service and most certainly something that they would not do. What the public service did do was to implement the political decision taken by the relevant minister, or very likely given the ramifications of the policy, made by Cabinet.
What is your evidence for this. The only thing we know for certain is that the deportation of those here legally was never a policy.
The evidence is that whenever these incompetents are criticised they complain that they are bullied.
It's my opinion. Am I not allowed an opinion ?
I base my opinion on the fact that they acted contrary to official government policy.
Read any book on British governance. Policy is a matter for the government; implementation for the public service.
No, what we know has been summarised for you very clearly by @alienfromzog. It’s your choice to put your fingers in your ears and go ‘la la la’.
I have no idea what you are on about. Is this your standard response to anyone who does not agree with you ?
That only works if the public service follows the policy.
No. That is not the only thing we know for certain. The fact that it appears to be all you know is because you have chosen to be ignorant and refuse to even consider the huge amount of other information out there.
Secondly, your position is astoundingly simplistic and absolves the democratically elected government from any responsibility for anything.
These two things together is why I asked you if were being deliberately stupid. Ignorance of basic facts and logical fallacies.... Not to mention a complete absence of empathy for the victims. This is what allows democratic governments to behave so badly; people like you.
What evidence?
AFZ
As you would expect from Toynbee, it's part polemic but she's right that Cameron and May and Johnson have faced no democratic accountability for the vandalism of our public sector because it's gone largely unnoticed by most of the public.
As with Windrush, the victims have been largely invisible to the public at large. She obviously believes this is about to change. I am not so sure but it proves my wider point that our democracy is completely failing to hold anybody to account.
AFZ
True.
Mark Blyth's otherwise outstanding book on Austerity (Austerity, the history of a dangerous idea) concludes that governments cannot pursue such foolish, self-destructive policies in democracies for very long because the public would not allow them to do so. 2010-20 in the UK at least shows this isn't true. If your propaganda is good enough, you can get away with inflicting all sorts on people.
AFZ
Your opinion is worthless - no, actually, worth less than worthless, it sucks harder than a supermassive black hole - if your 'fact' is something you made up to help you sleep better at night.
I'll let you know when you've recrossed the event horizon back into normal space where the rest of us are.
Or it proves that a significant percentage of the population either agrees with or is indifferent towards the policy in question.
That’s the problem with democracy - if a lot of people disagree with you then you’re not going to get what you want. That’s as true for questions like “who should have the right to live here” as it is for any other questions.
As a certain Mr Hitler found out - for a while, anyway...
Yes I think people forget that the Weimar Republic was actually a functioning democracy until about 1931... (1933 was the Enabling Law IIRC). Democracy is far more fragile than we think.
AFZ
Not evidence at all.
Bullying in the workplace is a serious matter. If tryout argument is that they try to cover up wrong stuff by complaining that, then go bury your head back in the sand. You have still not given evidence whatsoever. Opinion is not evidence.
Functioning is probably stretching it a bit. The Nazis were able to point at a thoroughly chaotic decade and blame liberal democracy for it. Where most democratic societies differ is in having a few decades of pretty stable democratic governance to weigh in the balance against any potential chaos. They also have the warning from history. It's right to be vigilant but we're not as vulnerable as Weimar was. There were also vulnerabilities built into the system in Weimar, such as the low threshold for entry into parliament that meant the coalition governments often were as weak as propaganda claimed. Most PR systems now have a higher threshold for that reason.
Thanks for that
It's a fair point. I think that the vulnerabilities in the current Anglosphere are more subtle but also dangerous for that reason. US politics was corrupted by big money at least 3 decades ago. That's before we get to Trump's dismantling of the republic.
In the UK, it's complicated but there is a constituency who believe their vote counts for nothing and they never benefit regardless. Some of these people voted for Brexit...
AFZ
To anyone who actually WORKS in the public service, the suggestion that the public service might somehow sneakily go rogue and the politicians not notice is fucking hilarious.
Some of those arguing against you are equally wrong, though. Just for different reasons.