Korat-Farang.com

In Britain these days . . . .

Roger · 178 · 23894

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online jungle

  • KFers in Korat
  • Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 300
Hi Roger By the media I take it you mean those being critical of Suella ?
The media sadly has always head sway over events I agree but keep in mind there are many influences in the media left and right and not as some stupid Americans would have you believe one single conspiracy
Please for the love of god can Britain not go down the same road as American

Apart from that
I can’t really see it as a “ witch hunt “ ( trump phrasing ? ) as so many were calling for her sacking including members of her own party !
My understanding is she was asked by the office of number 10 to change her comments about police bias
She ignored that and published against the PM wishes
What’s the PM supposed to do if he can’t control a minister?

Suella accused her own police force WITHOUT EVIDENCE of being bias against right wing protesters
Undermining the force in public and attacking police impartiality and independence ( ok HS we will now change how we do things seen as how you have told us of in public) NFL
What was she trying to achieve here ? calm the situation down ?
As HS she could call the commissioner to meeting issue memos even call an inquiry but no she went public making unsubstantiated claims as she has done before ( multiculturalism has failed/etc )
She went on to call the 300,000 mostly peaceful protesters marching for a ceasefire HATE marches for what reasons ? What was she trying to achieve here …to calm the situation? Excite feeble minds
Dose she not understand democracy even if you disagree with someone they still have the right to protest
What was she trying to do Roger ? Clam things down with talk that the police don’t like the right wing  counter protesters? That the pro ceasefire protesters are hateful people against or society , was she calming things down ? exciting feeble minds ?
The police had a difficult day but IMO did well .Should be noted most of the violence to the police came from ……the Tommy Robinson and football supporter types of groups RW


You may think Suella has done good trying with immigration but she new she was throwing that out the window with this planed stunt
She doesn’t care for the  immigration problem or peace in the streets or the nation as a whole  she knew she would likely get sacked ,this is just populist political propaganda
Suella is building a base of supporters and may well take on Sunak at some point
With this type of MAGA like populism the UK will end up fighting the same cesspool that the Americans are now battling
Suella is best buried and with a stake through her heart

Opps and James Cleverly is her replacement
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/13/james-cleverly-appointed-home-secretary-in-cabinet-reshuffle


Online caller

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 2540
It's quite simple to me, as CEO she should be setting an example and not offering titbits to media buddies. The subsequent information released about mocking comments about Farage by whoevers bank staff did so, suggests controls were lax. They clearly never realised such information could be legally disclosed upon request.

But my main point was really regarding the apology by the ICO to Dame Alison saying they were investigating her, when they were actually investigating the bank - perhaps tthey should fine themselves for disclosing incorrect information - and that whether it was her personally, or the bank, is really irrelevant, as they would all be bound by the same rules.

As for the legality of Coutts cancelling Farage, literally, I'm not really questioning that, but rather why they were losing money over what was a healthy back balance. I have no idea how banks make money, apart from charges we are all familiar with. I also wondered whether the remit for high street banks, differs to 'private' banks, as following the logic of Coutts argument, all banks could cancel clients by the 1000's  for not being 'profitable'.

As an aside, DP has been regulated in the UK since 1984, and was added to and amended in accordance with subsequent EU laws. The current regs have subsequently been amended to remove references to the EU and are now wholly contained within UK law.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2023, 01:25:22 PM by caller »


Online jungle

  • KFers in Korat
  • Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 300
I don't see DA as offering her media buddy's titbits as much as trying to combat Farages comments
She was foolish in doing so I  think
I would agree  that the bank may not have been aware that internal messages were liable to being requested all quite embarrassing for them
But I guess it's difficult to stop staff taking personally on company time and systems
Just look at the difficulty the last home secretary had with personal opinions on world wide public media :0/

As for the commercial viability of farage as i said I think it just a legal reason dump farage by bank policy
Coutts had the minim listed in their contract
High st has rules but I don't remember seeing a minimum limit for general accounts


Online jivvy

  • KFers in Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 3074
Whether you Like her or Loathe her one has to admit she has more guts than the rest of Parliament put together, especiallt the existing 2 main party leaders.
Nb .Roger and Jungle I have not posted this to join one of your endless debates, to old to play those games. ;D ???

Suella Braverman has accused Rishi Sunak of “betrayal” over a promise to stop small boat crossings in an incendiary letter after being sacked as home secretary.

In a broadside aimed at the prime minister, she accused him of having “manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver” on key policies, and said his “distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so”.

She said Mr Sunak had not lived up to his promise to do “whatever it takes” to stop small boat crossings by failing to override human rights concerns about the Rwanda plan.

Mrs Braverman, one of the leading figures on the right of the Tory party, urged Mr Sunak to “change course urgently”, telling him he has led the Conservatives to “record election defeats” and that his “resets have failed and we are running out of time”.
Suella Braverman has accused Rishi Sunak of “betrayal” in her resignation letter (Getty Images)
Suella Braverman has accused Rishi Sunak of “betrayal” in her resignation letter (Getty Images)

Take a look at the full letter below:

Dear Prime Minister,

Thank you for your phone call yesterday morning in which you asked me to leave Government. While disappointing, this is for the best.

It has been my privilege to serve as Home Secretary and deliver on what the British people have sent us to Westminster to do. I want to thank all of those civil servants, police, Border Force officers and security professionals with whom I have worked and whose dedication to public safety is exemplary.

I am proud of what we achieved together: delivering on our manifesto pledge to recruit 20,000 new police officers and enacting new laws such as the Public Order Act 2023 and the National Security Act 2023. I also led a programme on reform: on anti-social behaviour, police dismissals and standards, reasonable lines of enquiry, grooming gangs, knife crime, non-crime hate incidents and rape and serious sexual offences. And I am proud of the strategic changes that I was delivering to Prevent, Contest, serious organised crime and fraud. I am sure that this work will continue with the new ministerial team.

As you know, I accepted your offer to serve as Home Secretary in October 2022 on certain conditions. Despite you having been rejected by a majority of Party members during the summer leadership contest and thus having no personal mandate to be Prime Minister, I agreed to support you because of the firm assurances you gave me on key policy priorities. Those were, among other things:

1. Reduce overall legal migration as set out in the 2019 manifesto through, inter alia, reforming the international students route and increasing salary thresholds on work visas;

2. Include specific ‘notwithstanding clauses’ into new legislation to stop the boats, i.e. exclude the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act and other international law that had thus far obstructed progress on this issue;

3. Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable;

4. Issue unequivocal statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces, and empowers parents to know what is being taught to their children.

This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign. I trusted you. It is generally agreed that my support was a pivotal factor in winning the leadership contest and thus enabling you to become Prime Minister.

For a year, as Home Secretary I have sent numerous letters to you on the key subjects contained in our agreement, made requests to discuss them with you and your team, and put forward proposals on how we might deliver these goals. I worked up the legal advice, policy detail and action to take on these issues. This was often met with equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest.

You have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver on every single one of these key policies. Either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so. Or, as I must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises.

These are not just pet interests of mine. They are what we promised the British people in our 2019 manifesto which led to a landslide victory. They are what people voted for in the 2016 Brexit Referendum.

Our deal was no mere promise over dinner, to be discarded when convenient and denied when challenged.

I was clear from day one that if you did not wish to leave the ECHR, the way to securely and swiftly deliver our Rwanda partnership would be to block off the ECHR, the HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK. Our deal expressly referenced ‘notwithstanding clauses’ to that effect.

Your rejection of this path was not merely a betrayal of our agreement, but a betrayal of your promise to the nation that you would do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats.

At every stage of litigation I cautioned you and your team against assuming we would win. I repeatedly urged you to take legislative measures that would better secure us against the possibility of defeat. You ignored these arguments. You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. This irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position.

If we lose in the Supreme Court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one. Worse than this, your magical thinking — believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion — has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible ‘Plan B’. I wrote to you on multiple occasions setting out what a credible Plan B would entail, and making clear that unless you pursue these proposals, in the event of defeat, there is no hope of flights this side of an election. I received no reply from you.

I can only surmise that this is because you have no appetite for doing what is necessary, and therefore no real intention of fulfilling your pledge to the British people.

If, on the other hand, we win in the Supreme Court, because of the compromises that you insisted on in the Illegal Migration Act, the Government will struggle to deliver our Rwanda partnership in the way that the public expects. The Act is far from secure against legal challenge. People will not be removed as swiftly as I originally proposed. The average claimant will be entitled to months of process, challenge, and appeal. Your insistence that Rule 39 indications are binding in international law – against the views of leading lawyers, as set out in the House of Lords will leave us vulnerable to being thwarted yet again by the Strasbourg Court.

Another cause for disappointment – and the context for my recent article in The Times – has been your failure to rise to the challenge posed by the increasingly vicious antisemitism and extremism displayed on our streets since Hamas’s terrorist atrocities of 7th October.

I have become hoarse urging you to consider legislation to ban the hate marches and help stem the rising tide of racism, intimidation and terrorist glorification threatening community cohesion. Britain is at a turning point in our history and faces a threat of radicalisation and extremism in a way not seen for 20 years. I regret to say that your response has been uncertain, weak, and lacking in the qualities of leadership that this country needs. Rather than fully acknowledge the severity of this threat, your team disagreed with me for weeks that the law needed changing.

As on so many other issues, you sought to put off tough decisions in order to minimise political risk to yourself. In doing so, you have increased the very real risk these marches present to everyone else.

In October of last year you were given an opportunity to lead our country. It is a privilege to serve and one we should not take for granted. Service requires bravery and thinking of the common good. It is not about occupying the office as an end in itself.

Someone needs to be honest: your plan is not working, we have endured record election defeats, your resets have failed and we are running out of time. You need to change course urgently.

I may not have always found the right words, but I have always striven to give voice to the quiet majority that supported us in 2019. I have endeavoured to be honest and true to the people who put us in these privileged positions.

I will, of course, continue to support the Government in pursuit of policies which align with an authentic conservative agenda.

Sincerely,

Suella Braverman

Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP

Member of Parliament for Fareham
One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.”
- Socrates


Online caller

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 2540
I don't see DA as offering her media buddy's titbits as much as trying to combat Farages comments

Which is exactly what I said and she had no right to do. That's what disclosure rules are for. They have a press office to deal with such matters and woe betide any staff going to the media direct, without first going through their press office. Thhey would have probably advised the CEO to keep her mouth shut. 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2023, 09:20:32 AM by caller »


Online caller

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 2540
As a general aside about the media. I can't believe how awful it has become. I didn't realise how dreadful Sky has become. The beeb unspeakable, The Guardian too biaised. There's not much left. I will continue to take refuge in The Times,  where calm, sensible reporting holds sway. When Braverman was sacked, it wasn't even the main headline, a sub-headline stated 'Braverman departs'.


Online jungle

  • KFers in Korat
  • Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 300
Jivvy not so sure about Suellas guts but definitely more front than Blackpool
I'm sure she will be challenging Sunak when they are   in the opposition
You may like her but to me she's a dangerous populist politician who more or less undermined her own police force and told the mob they were being persecuted
 Wants power even if it's by division


Online jungle

  • KFers in Korat
  • Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 300
Caller I agree with you mate on DA should have shut up left it to the press office she panicked?
Like I said foolish in doing so
 Good point on the Media it's hard to find decent reporting
For the days of  going to a paper or TV Chanel are over 
I just look over lots of different sources  then Google for more info if I want it
Nice understament from the Times
Braverman departs 5555


Online Roger

  • .
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *********
    • Posts: 6012
Caller in reply to your 166 - IMO the DT carries a wide range of views covering criticism of and sometimes support for the Govt. so you can get balanced coverage though I wouldn't say of DT, 'calm, sensible reporting holds sway'. I don't have access to the 'Times' or the 'Indy' but I'd guess they are much the same. Generally I think we have to be careful about rejecting mainstream media too widely - 'present company accepted' but for some, it's become a fashion and a resort for those of jaundiced appetite who wish to score points without sorting their way through MSM views of different angles - a new sort of oneupmanship and a way of self-elevation.

I agree with you about the BBC who seem to have an agenda on everything and Sky News is awful too.

Jungle please what is 5555 and who is DA?

Jivvy good to see you posting and I agree with you that Suella is much 'braver' than most - I am sorry to see her go. Immigration must be controlled in the UK (and wider Europe) where numbers are much too high and SB seemed to me the UK's best hope. We'll see.

Re. the 'games' you mention, I try hard not to play actually. My own view is to keep it short, where possible - something I read by Robert Townsend many years ago - he was the CEO inspiration behind the rise of 'Avis' who pushed Hertz hard for prominence in car hire in the 1960's, using the 'We Try Harder' slogan. One of the propositions in his book, 'Up the Organisation' was that he wouldn't read any memo from his Team that was longer than one half page of A4 - great. Often I stop replying here because each hasty reply from Jungle seems to bring at least 5 new points into play and if I keep replying, it sort of excludes the possibility of other views coming in.

Thanks for the full script of that letter - crikey does she (SB) bear a grudge? YES and quite rightly I guess - I wonder what her majority is in Fareham? I'm sad to see her go.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2023, 05:41:49 AM by Roger »
''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online Roger

  • .
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *********
    • Posts: 6012
Here's a bit from the DT - interesting . . .

"Crucially, derogating from the ECHR – something Sunak now appears to be promising – would not be enough to allow Rwanda. We would have to quit or derogate from all of the other treaties mentioned by the Supreme Court, as well as changing oodles of domestic legislation. Will Sunak be willing and politically able to do this, especially given the fury it will provoke among the “sensibles”?
 
There is a greater question: do we believe in nation states, or do we prefer global technocratic governance? Do we believe that democracies have the right to control their borders and decide who is allowed to enter, or do we believe in largely or entirely open borders? The non-refoulement principle made sense in the aftermath of the Second World War. For all its pretensions of universality, it only really applied to Europe . . . "

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/15/only-bonfire-human-rights-law-can-save-the-tories-from/

I thought this was a well informed piece of writing - many points new to me  ::)
''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online Roger

  • .
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *********
    • Posts: 6012
I sometimes enjoy Wednesday's PMQ's. It's just MO but I think the PM often handles it well and particularly so yesterday. The routine baying is a shame but the 'to and fro' IS worth the watch IMO

Much better than watching someone ranting away untested on the social media etc.

https://youtu.be/LGYZzENsfes
''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online caller

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 2540
Roger, the Independent is awful. Truly the pits.

The Telegraph can shriek a bit, but generally it's fine. But if I have to buy a quality paper, I simply prefer the Times. As I don't want to pay for two. The Times reminds me of a prosecuting lawyer at Court, where if the defendent is pleading guilty, but unrepresented, will have a chat with him/her, and deliver his explanation / mitigation to the Court. As such I find the Times nicely balanced. 

As for the judgement on Rwanda yesterday, no-one was expecting a Government victory, but at least to be given some slack, some 'wiggle-room'. They weren't, which is good news, as they now know what they need to do. As that ruling effectivelly states that if a Country is committed to Intenational Law, it is basically impossible to control it's borders. I would imagine the rest of Europe would be casting a nervy eye over the judgement as several EU countries have been looking at similar solutions. Others like France, are seeking support to by-pass the ECHR, but now the UN's version has been cited as well, they might need to look again.

In short, the rule of law on HR/immigration internationally, is no longer fit for purpose, first created in 51, then updated in 67 and 84. It bears no relation to the modern World and migration in the here and now. So either someone stands up to lead a move to change it, maybe the UN itself (hah), or the UK at least, changes it's own laws to by-pass the bits they don't like.  Good luck with that.

I bet all of the UK political parties are reviewing all their plans on immigration based on this ruling, as it's clearly ludicrous that abiding by such international laws renders sovereign law ineffective.

I suspect we might see in the UK, the creation of what in effect, would be an anti-immigration party. In the EU, similar, or more traditional right wing parties, have turned politics upside down across the continent. The last Dutch Goverment collapsed due to proposed changes to immigration rules, the election next week should be interesting, as immigration is cited as one of the main concerns for the Dutch people, but as it usually takes them 3-months or so to agree a new coalition, don't hold your breath for an outright result.

As an aside, I was interested to learn that monthly food inflation in the Netherlands was at about 20% in January and is now hovering at about 10%. One of the things that gripes me about bias in the UK media, is that it's too often portrayed that our problems are unique, caused by UK Government policy, whereas, more often, it's similar all over.



Online jungle

  • KFers in Korat
  • Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 300
Roger apologies for the acronym DA = Dame Alison
Apologies also for 555 as well I thought it was common knowledge in Thailand 5 in Thai is pronounced Ha it’s easier to type 5 than Lol or ha ha I’m lazy I guess :0)

Roger I’m Perplexed as to what you mean by this

“Generally I think we have to be careful about rejecting mainstream media too widely - 'present company accepted' but for some, it's become a fashion and a resort for those of jaundiced appetite who wish to score points without sorting their way through MSM views of different angles - a new sort of oneupmanship and a way of self-elevation.”

Once again apologies to all if I add to much
Jivvy is welcome to call it a game I consider it debate ,I enjoy it and consider it a bit of a hobby so games not to far of the mark :0)
In my defense often  there are excerpts from news articles added to the post  of which can be considered inaccurate or misleading/misrepresented or lacking context ,if they are posted I’m only replying to what’s been presented
The excerpts may cover 5 points I reply to 5 :0)
 But hey if blame is to be apportioned feel 55555

Regards the media my thoughts are a small part of the problem is that opinion pieces and reporting get mixed up to often especially in the tabloids

Caller Would it be to wild to hope that with immigration now being such a big issue across Europe and the even the US that there now is the overall will to again review and change some of the international rulings and laws ?



Online Roger

  • .
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *********
    • Posts: 6012
Hey Jungle - 5555 get it hahahaha.

I agree its not a game but from the heart !

Also agree the tabloids are largely rubbish and IMO best for entertainment only though just sometimes, they do get right to the point ! The Times is good apparently and the DT OK. Indy and 'I' used to be OK - I don't see them now. So MSM should not be totally scorned as it is.

Jungle, your posting has been great for K-F but sometimes you rattle back so fast, if I reply straightaway it's then moved on before others get a chance - that's all . . . ATB
''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online Roger

  • .
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *********
    • Posts: 6012
Caller thanks for your 172. I'm sort of locked into my DT subs now but at the next hiccup - I might change to the Times. Thanks also for your insights on the immigration law conundrum - informative.

You say, "we might see in the UK, the creation of what in effect, would be an anti-immigration party" - if so this Party would IMO, win the next election in the UK hands down (BUT how could they avoid embracing the NF nutters). It seems to me to be natural ground for the Tories MMmmm

Jungle I see your point to Caller - "there now is the overall will to again review and change some of the international rulings and laws ?" IMO yes there is - but will it take forever  :P



''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online jungle

  • KFers in Korat
  • Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 300
Roger yes i imagine it will take time to change international law and national law so best start now in a bipartisan  agreement.The other option to withdraw from international agreements would lead to other problems further down the road
I think caller brought up the fact the French just went against a ECHR ruling and just ended up paying  a fine  that didn’t destroy the rule of law


Online caller

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 2540
I think caller brought up the fact the French just went against a ECHR ruling and just ended up paying  a fine  that didn’t destroy the rule of law

Not yet. They are proposing to. But they need to get it passed through Parliament first, and such proposals clearly won't be supported by the left, so they need to court the right. That should be interesting. It might not destroy the rule of law, but certainly circumnavigate it. If they get the support of Parliament and then other Countries follow their example, it will render the current laws unworkable. But the problem is the Rwandan ruling didn't just rely of ECHR, but also UNHR (effectivelly). It also stated there are domestic laws that could prevent the UK sending people to Rwanda, but it didn't use them in their findings. So the Fraench plan would fall foul of the UN as well.

Basically, most Countries will have similar laws to the UK, as ours would have been drafted with ECHR in mind, when we were a member. So everyone is in the same boat. The Dutch issue that brought the Government down was slightly different, as it was to do with preventing or delaying family members joining the men who had travelled alone initially, as we all witness.


Online jungle

  • KFers in Korat
  • Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 300