UK legal head resigns

Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: UK legal head resigns

Re: UK legal head resigns

by orathaic » Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:22 am

According to some, things are much worse than the media is letting on:
https://twitter.com/castlvillageman/sta ... 04230?s=20
Irishmonk wrote: 1.England has made laws that reject the treaties it engaged in.
2. It has made law to use military on its streets.
3. It has made law that trade deals require no vote and can only be seen 5 years after enaction.

4. I has enacted laws that break devolution.
5. It has made law to allow military freedom from law.
6. It has made law to allow domestic intelligence to be unaccountable to parliament and law

7. It has announced its desire to repudiate the convention of rights.

8 would/could/will be even worse
And yet the british allow it.
At least the french had La résistance.

Britain is sleepwalking into a dark place and, as all the times in the past, only outsiders see it clearly.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by orathaic » Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:01 pm

@Jamie, will France hand Normandy back to the UK? I'm not sure how this deal works...

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Jamiet99uk » Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:11 pm

No, Kent is being made part of France.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by orathaic » Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:22 am

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54260470

New 'passport' control to be introduced (for lorries) in Kent.
seems they will also use the army to enforce, presumably because they don't have enough customs agents... I don't know.the article was buried pretty deep. (this is joining this thread, because the illegal actions are about not having any border within the UK, apparently Kent is being given independence?)

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Jamiet99uk » Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:51 pm

Octavious wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:26 am
I am also somewhat amazed by how you now see the rule of law as all important, and yet only a few weeks ago you were celebrating BLM breaking public safety laws in the height of a pandemic. It appears to be remarkably inconsistent.
I believe you are mischaracterising this. I support the BLM movement. Peaceful civil disobedience is sometimes a justified form of protest. That such actions carry a risk of arrest is a component of their power. I also saw some BLM demonstrations which took place in a socially-distanced, mask-clad fashion.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by flash2015 » Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:25 am

Octavious wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:59 pm
Oh, for God's sake. Jamie is concerned by the oppression and exploitation of the working class and most vulnerable members of society by a ruthless self serving elite. International reputation and future trade deals are not immediate priorities. Breaking international law is a symptom of the disease, but not in itself the defining issue. They are bad, but only in the sense that hair loss when you have cancer is bad. The cancer itself is far worse.
I don't understand this response. I am not sure what argument you think I am making.

Again, I was only concerned with your **specific claim** of "left wing doublethink" "that the UK has declined to international insignificance, and also that the entire world is waiting with baited breath". That is all.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Octavious » Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:26 am

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am
In this thread you have expressed support for his actions
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am
applauded him for being a liar,
Not applauded, but acknowledged the obvious truth that the ability to deceive is an important one for any leader to have.
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am
and argued that his thread to violate international law is of little importance
I've argued that it is of far less importance than actually breaking it, and that breaking it isn't going to happen. If he does break it I imagine that the consequences would be significant, but how significant is not at all clear.

I am also somewhat amazed by how you now see the rule of law as all important, and yet only a few weeks ago you were celebrating BLM breaking public safety laws in the height of a pandemic. It appears to be remarkably inconsistent.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Jamiet99uk » Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:45 am

*his threat

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Jamiet99uk » Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am

In that case, Octavious, you're partly right about me, but not completely.

Yes, I am deeply concerned about the corrupt, exploitative, grasping "elite"... if you can call such in-bred, fish-lipped, webbed-fingered vermin an "elite", but whatever they are, their selfish defence of the privileges of their group, and their deep, entitled, self-serving corruption, and the enormous damage it is doing to this country, is my main concern.

However, pissing all over the concept of the rule of law, while it may be a symptom of how very bad things currently are, is more than a side issue. It is a very fundamental violation of one of the foundation stones of civilised society. The importance of the rule of law was recognised by Aristotle, by John Locke, by Montesquieu, and by the founding fathers of the United States. In the UK it may be considered one of the absolute cornerstones of of the British constitution, dating back, some might say, to Magna Carta. The principle of the rule of law holds that the law applies to all members of society equally, that the government must have a lawful basis for all that it does, and, internationally, that the government will seek to honour its treaty obligations.

I would have thought that a centre-right liberal democrat former conservative, which I think is what you claim to be, would be appalled, chilled, horrified by the casual violation of such a keystone of our civilisation.

Boris Johnson does not care for the rule of law. He couldn't give a shit about it. In this thread you have expressed support for his actions, applauded him for being a liar, and argued that his thread to violate international law is of little importance. So apparently, you don't give a shit about it either.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Octavious » Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:14 pm

No mockery. Unless I've completely misread you over the past few years that's a fair representation of what you believe. It's not a belief I share, obviously, but it's one I can respect in the sense that it stems from a desire to make the world a better place (at the risk of sounding a little twee).

I don't think you're a bad person. I just think the fundamental assumptions you base your politics on are way off.

I also know full well that the feeling doesn't work both ways and you see me as some sort of protonazi. Such is life :p.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Jamiet99uk » Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:46 pm

Octavious wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:59 pm
Oh, for God's sake. Jamie is concerned by the oppression and exploitation of the working class and most vulnerable members of society by a ruthless self serving elite. International reputation and future trade deals are not immediate priorities. Breaking international law is a symptom of the disease, but not in itself the defining issue. They are bad, but only in the sense that hair loss when you have cancer is bad. The cancer itself is far worse.
I can't tell if you're mocking me or not.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Octavious » Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:04 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:58 pm
There are two parts to the argument - why the Tories are doing it and what the potential international ramifications to the UK of breaking or threatening to break the agreements are.
The Tories are doing it to gain the best possible trade deal and so they are seen by the electorate to have tried everything possible in order to get the best possible trade deal.

The implications will be negligible because they won't actually break the law, and ultimately nobody gives a damn about someone not breaking a trade law. Nations push the boundaries of international agreements pretty much constantly.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Octavious » Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:59 pm

Oh, for God's sake. Jamie is concerned by the oppression and exploitation of the working class and most vulnerable members of society by a ruthless self serving elite. International reputation and future trade deals are not immediate priorities. Breaking international law is a symptom of the disease, but not in itself the defining issue. They are bad, but only in the sense that hair loss when you have cancer is bad. The cancer itself is far worse.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by flash2015 » Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:58 pm

Octavious wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:38 pm
flash2015 wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:16 pm
At least to my understanding, they are arguing that breaking international agreements may have repercussions down the line for Britain (e.g. like a potential future trade deal with the US...or with other countries) and even threatening to break agreements as a form of negotiating brinkmanship may potentially hurt future trade negotiations...which I believe is a reasonable argument. Though again, I don't really believe Boris will actually go through with it...and I believe the brinkmanship given the importance of the agreement (the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner) may be worth the potential future cost.
I'm not arguing against that because I don't disagree with it. I said much the same way back at the start of page 2. I am not going to write a counterargument to what I agree with. :razz:

But to say that that is what Jamie is arguing is ridiculous. Jamie is arguing that the Tories are doing it as part of an evil plot to benefit themselves and subdue the masses, and in doing so are gleefully going around breaking laws. You can tell that this is what Jamie thinks because this is what he writes. It is not misrepresenting him because they are the words he uses.
There are two parts to the argument - why the Tories are doing it and what the potential international ramifications to the UK of breaking or threatening to break the agreements are.

I wasn't actually clarifying Jamie's opinion on the why Tories are doing it part. I know that it is Jamie's opinion that they are primarily doing it for nefarious reasons and I disagree with that assessment.

I though was only commenting on why the UK needs to care when they choose to break or threaten to break international agreements. So you actually agree with me on the fact that UK needs to care because it is comparatively weak? Why didn't you actually say it so I can be clear what you actually disagree on? e.g. "I agree with you on the weak part and that is a reason why the UK needs to care...but I disagree that the UK was ever strong...I am arguing that Jamiet is going further and instead saying X on the repercussions of breaking/threatening to break international agreeements". At least it would be clearer to me what exactly you are arguing.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by flash2015 » Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:31 pm

@Jamiet, are you concerned though that it just makes the UK "look bad" or are you concerned because it may have repercussions for future international agreements?

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Jamiet99uk » Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:09 pm

Octavious wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:38 pm
flash2015 wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:16 pm
At least to my understanding, they are arguing that breaking international agreements may have repercussions down the line for Britain (e.g. like a potential future trade deal with the US...or with other countries) and even threatening to break agreements as a form of negotiating brinkmanship may potentially hurt future trade negotiations...which I believe is a reasonable argument. Though again, I don't really believe Boris will actually go through with it...and I believe the brinkmanship given the importance of the agreement (the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner) may be worth the potential future cost.
I'm not arguing against that because I don't disagree with it. I said much the same way back at the start of page 2. I am not going to write a counterargument to what I agree with. :razz:

But to say that that is what Jamie is arguing is ridiculous. Jamie is arguing that the Tories are doing it as part of an evil plot to benefit themselves and subdue the masses, and in doing so are gleefully going around breaking laws. You can tell that this is what Jamie thinks because this is what he writes. It is not misrepresenting him because they are the words he uses.
Octavious is correct.
That is my position.
That is what I am witnessing.

In support of this position I will say again, I am a Government procurement officer. I am aware, as I said before, of specific instances of Government ministers over-ruling their procurement officials to unlawfully award lucrative contracts to their friends. Levels of corruption and graft in Government not seen in decades.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Octavious » Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:42 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:16 pm
Rather than addressing their specific argument you instead created a strawman and said they argued "that the entire world is waiting with baited breath to see whether we might consider breaching some of the minutiae of trade law", that essentially England can't do anything wrong here because "everyone is watching" (some sort of embarrassment argument?)
No I didn't.

Read it again, and really concentrate this time :smirk:

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Octavious » Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:38 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:16 pm
At least to my understanding, they are arguing that breaking international agreements may have repercussions down the line for Britain (e.g. like a potential future trade deal with the US...or with other countries) and even threatening to break agreements as a form of negotiating brinkmanship may potentially hurt future trade negotiations...which I believe is a reasonable argument. Though again, I don't really believe Boris will actually go through with it...and I believe the brinkmanship given the importance of the agreement (the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner) may be worth the potential future cost.
I'm not arguing against that because I don't disagree with it. I said much the same way back at the start of page 2. I am not going to write a counterargument to what I agree with. :razz:

But to say that that is what Jamie is arguing is ridiculous. Jamie is arguing that the Tories are doing it as part of an evil plot to benefit themselves and subdue the masses, and in doing so are gleefully going around breaking laws. You can tell that this is what Jamie thinks because this is what he writes. It is not misrepresenting him because they are the words he uses.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by flash2015 » Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:16 pm

Octavious wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:05 pm
They are different arguments. I responded, funnily enough, to the one you actually made.

Now, if I was being unkind I'd mention that the UK's requirement to take the views of other nations seriously has very little to do with whether said nations have any interest in what the UK does, and so it was actually you who sidetracked the point. But I didn't do that. Instead I tried to answer your sidetracked question in good faith and for my trouble got a load of grief because you forgot what you'd actually asked and took offence.

This is why trying to have a serious discussion with you is such hard work. You're all over the place.
The most annoying thing about you is you like to play argument games rather than actually having a discussion. I didn't expect you (I guess I should have though) to go off on this tangent so I did clarify in the following post:
flash2015 wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:02 pm
It is weird you fixated on that...when that is a side note to my real point - that it cares about what other countries think because it is weak, not because it is strong.
You are misrepresenting what Jamie and orathaic are arguing. At least to my understanding, they are arguing that breaking international agreements may have repercussions down the line for Britain (e.g. like a potential future trade deal with the US...or with other countries) and even threatening to break agreements as a form of negotiating brinkmanship may potentially hurt future trade negotiations...which I believe is a reasonable argument. Though again, I don't really believe Boris will actually go through with it...and I believe the brinkmanship given the importance of the agreement (the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner) may be worth the potential future cost.

Rather than addressing their specific argument you instead created a strawman and said they argued "that the entire world is waiting with baited breath to see whether we might consider breaching some of the minutiae of trade law", that essentially England can't do anything wrong here because "everyone is watching" (some sort of embarrassment argument?)...and labeled this strawman argument "left wing doublethink" because labels are much easier for you than actually engaging. I tried to actually bring the thread back on track...and of course you derailed it again as you always do.

Re: UK legal head resigns

by Octavious » Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:05 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:32 pm
Did you not read? My point was that countries that are weak need to worry about what other countries think, strong countries can do what they like. I wasn't arguing that ONLY countries that were once strong and now weak have to care what others think.
I did read, which is the problem. You said
flash2015 wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:56 pm
I thought the UK needs to care about what others think specifically because it doesn't have the power it once had
What you didn't say was this
notflash2015 wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:56 pm
I thought the UK needs to care about what others think specifically because it is a relatively weak nation that can't simply railroad other nations into toing the line
They are different arguments. I responded, funnily enough, to the one you actually made.

Now, if I was being unkind I'd mention that the UK's requirement to take the views of other nations seriously has very little to do with whether said nations have any interest in what the UK does, and so it was actually you who sidetracked the point. But I didn't do that. Instead I tried to answer your sidetracked question in good faith and for my trouble got a load of grief because you forgot what you'd actually asked and took offence.

This is why trying to have a serious discussion with you is such hard work. You're all over the place.

Top