ID cards are back on the agenda. The Sun calls it a “Green Card”, but it sounds a lot like we’ll be asked to carry our papers and show them on demand post Brexit. Home Secretary Amber Rudd says some sort of ID cars “would have to be introduced” to identify the 3 million EU nationals living in the UK. The Sun says the move would “almost certainly mean Brits on the Continent will have to carry ID cards where they go.”
“There will be a need to have some sort of documentation. We are not going to set it out yet. We are going to do it in a phased approach to ensure that we use all the technology advantages that we are increasingly able to harness to ensure that all immigration is carefully handled.”
This throws up a number of questions, of which these are just a few. Why do we need new forms of surveillance? Why do millions of law-abiding adults need to be monitored in an effort to prevent a few committing offences? Why do we need to show the authorities an ID card and prove our innocence? Why can’t we be private citizens unwilling to share everything with the State? And how does forcing us to carry ID card enable the government connect with the public?
It’s not about us. It’s about them trying to establish a role and sense of purpose, moving on from Tony Blair’s manta of ‘Join the debate’ and David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ to take on the role of overseers. No longer connected with the people they are supposed to represent, politicians now just want to watch us to learn what we want and thereby how best to control us. You can’t opt out of their Big Conversation’ because you’re being forced to take part. You are British not because you hold British values, rather because you forcibly carry an ID card. You’ve been defined by the Government you take everywhere with you.
It’s less worrying than it is pathetic. They don’t trust us. But they demand that we trust them.
Do you want the good news or the good news? Norbert Hofer, leader of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party, will not be the county’s next president. He polled less votes than Alexander Van der Bellen.
The Mail call it “humiliation” for Hofer, whose party, it reminds readers, was “formed by a former SS commander”. He was Anton Reinthaller, a former SS brigade leader and Nazi Minister of Agriculture, who formed the party in 1956. Lest you think having one old Nazi has leader an accident, Reinthaller was succeeded in 1958 by Friedrich Peter – another former SS member.
Anyhow, the Freedom Party didn’t loose by all that much; as the Mail says, “almost half the electorate, backed him”.
Is the Mail a tad disappointed?
Hofer wasn’t set to kick out immigrants. He was all set to give the European Union a kicking. Pity the spirit of the SS lost, right?
More on the Donald Trump Death Cult – an occasional look at media chatter on Trump’s demise. The Star being news that the US President-elect will “DIE ON THE JOB”. Jeff Farrell hears that that Trump is at “Significant risk” of dying – “if the workload as the next US president does not give him a heart attack, his missus could”.
This news comes from two medics.
First up is Dr Karen Morton, billed as a “cardiologist”. There is no word that she’s ever met Trump let alone treated him. But Dr Karen has seen enough to tells us that Melania Trump will “make certain demands as a young woman in her prime”. Lest you think Dr Karen is a ghoul, she adds, “Let’s hope he doesn’t die on the job.”
The second expert is Dr Patrick Heck. He’s quoted as having told a medial conference: “He [Trump] is surely at a significant risk of a heart attack”.
Over the Express, Dr Karen is no longer a cardiologist, but “Gynaecologist Dr Karen Morton, of Dr Mortons”.
Dr Morton’s is a private medial service. We were quoted a fee of £10 per minute to speak to a doctor, after registering. An email consultation will set us back £25. The receptionist told us that, to the best of her knowledge, Dr Morton has not treated Donald Trump, father to a young child who will be surely delighted to know that such fine minds are discussing his dad’s death in the media.
It’s all done in the best possible taste, of course.
This abusing of whites by whites is pathetic. The knowing used to be content with labelling a whole group of people ‘white trash’, sub-human rubbish identifiable by Londsale logos and slack-jaws. This hideous social racist term dehumanises a whole group of people as human dross – which is what Nazis and jihadis do.
Tired of outing the likes of Coleen Rooney as “a superchav” (Sunday Times) for having ideas above her station and appearing on the Vogue cover, branding Jade Goody “a vile, pig-ignorant, racist, bully consumed by envy of a woman of superior intelligence, beauty and class” (The Sun), belittling “Essex Man“ and giving Stephen Lawrence’s killers an excuse by calling their home town a “White Man’s Gulch”, an “E-reg Escort-land” (Daily Mirror) of uniformly hateful creatures, the new way for the right sort of whites to boost their self-esteem is to call out rich whites.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn lambasts Donald Trump and Nigel Farage as “rich, white, fake anti-elitists”.
There is no safe space to be white in public unless you are accusing other whites of some collective crime for which they should be ashamed. If you want to assure yourself that you’re the right kind of white, you can wear a safety pin on your clothes. Speaking to the BBC, Allison (she don’t want to give her full name), who seems to come up with the idea, opined: “If people wear the pin and support the campaign they are saying they are prepared to be part of the solution. It could be by confronting racist behaviour, or if that is not possible at least documenting it. More generally it is about reaching out to people and letting them know they are safe and welcome.”
It’s virtue signalling for people who have a pretty low view of humanity, who assume that only mentally negligible dupes and racists voted for Brexit or Trump. It’s long been assumed that you can spot by a bigot by their Klan hood, Nazi walk, raised jihadi finger or far-Left and far-Right politics. But stick on a safety pin and the pin heads position themselves in a moral station above all the non-pin wearers now cast as suspected bigots. Nazis made the Untermensch wear symbols to advertise their wrong-thinking and bad morals so their betters would know them; the new morally elite wear symbols to show their cultural superiority.
It’s weak to attack abuse an entire racial group. Debate and ridicule your enemies by all means. Name call if you like – but do try to be imaginative and gloriously bitchy. Just leave race and colour out of it. It makes you look like a snobby and envious twat.
After parking carefully you approached the front door, on which was posted a long handwritten list of house rules – No Long-Haired Lefties, No Tee Shirts, No Trainers, No CND-ers and so on. The Squire himself usually presided over his empire in 18th century style attire including knee breeches and an eye glass. He was spectacularly rude, usually for no good reason, and was prone to outrageous behaviour. He once poured the ice bucket down a customer’s trousers because his shirt had come untucked and he was therefore “undressed”. A large pair of scissors was kept behind the bar so he could snip off any ties which offended him. Should a customer not have parked sufficiently neatly, he would call out their number plates through a megaphone, demanding they adjust the vehicle now. The walls were adorned with large weapons which he sometimes used for chasing people out of the building.
Londoners will recall Soho’s Wong Kei, a restaurant famed for its surly staff. When the new owner promised to offer a more genteel dining experience, patrons complained. Andrew Lebentz wrote: “Please don’t make Wong Kei a polite place to eat – the best thing about it is the rude staff.” James Bollen added: “RIP London’s most masochistic dining experience in Chinatown.“ Even Daniel Luc, who too over the place in 2014, said: “Maybe there was an issue with rude staff 20 to 30 years ago, but I don’t think so any more. I don’t know whether that’s a good thing or not.”
So more power to Sophie Theallet, whose snootiness should have them flocking. She is now The Rudest Designer in the USA. She should put that on a T-shirt.
Big notes attract big criminals. The Indian government plans to thwart villains by doing away with larger bills. Politicians are upset:
The prime minister last week outlawed 500- and 1,000-rupee notes in a drive to rein in corruption and a shadow economy that accounts for a fifth of India’s $2.1tn gross domestic product.
In southern Spain I met a woman whose estranged husband funded her and their young son’s lifestyle with wads of 500 euro notes. I know this because when the lad flushed a clutch of them down the toilet, she wailed, “Those were for my new t***. ” Could she get more cash? Not easily. The husband, an ex-pat, earned his wedge doing a bit of this and bit of that. She’d have to wait and see.
In India another sort of t** gets the big notes:
With no state election funding, illicit cash is the lifeblood for political parties that collect money from candidates and businessmen, and then spend it on staging rallies, hiring helicopters and on “gifts” to win votes.
Spending on the Uttar Pradesh election is forecast to hit a record 40bn rupees ($590m), despite the cancellation of big denominations.
“We will have to plan the entire election strategy all over again,” said Pradeep Mathur, a senior Uttar Pradesh leader of the Congress opposition party that was trounced by the BJP in national elections in 2014.
Big notes are gong out of fashiin,
In 2000, Canada got rid of its $1,000 bills and Singapore called time in its $10,000 bills.
In April 2016, the BBC reported: “The European Central Bank (ECB) says it will no longer produce the €500 (£400; $575) note because of concerns it could facilitate illegal activities.”
Why? In 2010, we read:
After eight months of rigorous analysis of currency trading in the UK, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) has established that the 500 euro note is at the heart of money laundering. The reason is simple: it’s easier to shift.
Harvard brains have studied it in a reports called “Making it Harder for the Bad Guys: The Case for Eliminating High Denomination Notes”:
Our proposal is to eliminate high denomination, high value currency notes, such as the €500 note, the $100 bill, the CHF1,000 note and the £50 note. Such notes are the preferred payment mechanism of those pursuing illicit activities, given the anonymity and lack of transaction record they offer, and the relative ease with which they can be transported and moved. By eliminating high denomination, high value notes we would make life harder for those pursuing tax evasion, financial crime, terrorist finance and corruption. Without being able to use high denomination notes, those engaged in illicit activities – the “bad guys” of our title – would face higher costs and greater risks of detection. Eliminating high denomination notes would disrupt their “business models”.
Donald Trump continues to set the tabloid news agenda. (Well, that and the I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!).
The Mirror leads with Donal Trump’s “TV PLEDGE”. Ha, indeed. Everything we’ve seen of Trump has been a TV pledge. Even the people watching the live show should admit Trump’s words carry the legend “as seen on TV”.
“I Will Kick Out 3 Million Migrants,” runs the Trump telly pledge. The US President-elect will “deport or jail up to three million illegal immigrants”. Well, as soon as he gets a handle on the numbers, he can start building the prisons and fuelling the planes. Trump says it’s “probably two million, it could even be three million”. Why stop at three million? The answer could be because Trump understands media and that sound-bites are all. Save four million for a slow news day.
The Express hears the headline figure and muses on its front page: “Trump to kick out 3million migrants…Now Britons asks: can we do the same?” By Page 4 readers have an answer: “UK backing for Trump to deport migrants.”
The Express then produces a phone poll: “Should Britain now send home all illegal migrants?” Ah, not all migrants, as the front-page said. All illegal migrants. Having delivered a poll more loaded than Trump’s can of hair lacquer, heard from three UKIP voices and one Tory, we leave the Express and look at the Sun’s front page. We see Nigel Farage, retired and re-instated UKIP leader ad nauseam. Farage “humiliated” the Government by saying it was in the “national interest” for him to broker any post-Brexit trade deal with the US, says the Sun.
Which nation is unspecified, but given the calibre of Farage’s dream team – the “Brex Pistols” – we can’t rule out France.
On Page 4, the Sun reminds reader that Farage is not the country’s popularly elected leader. It says Theresa May – who isn’t either – is Primer Minister. May will deliver a speech in which she “promises to clamp down on rampant immigration”. She will do this by:
a) Building a wall.
b) Surrounding the country with water (see Ice Age-induced Brexit)
c) Saying it clearly.
d) See what Trump does.
It’s Trump and Farage on the Mail’s cover. It’s a terrific photo of the two men stood before Trump’s gold and diamond-encrusted front door. Over two pages, Andrew Pierce has the “riotous inside story” behind it. Farage and his four cohorts were “mesmerised” by Trump’s flat. One of them called a Renoir on a wall “magnificent”. Another called an Eros statue “striking”.
The United Kingdom is “At The Back of The Queue,” says the Daily Mirror. The front-page headline echoes the words of Barack Obama, who thoughtfully flew to the country to remind British citizens that a vote for Brexit would mean the country relegated to the foot of the international business league table. Vote for Brexit and British companies seeking to do business with the US would be behind Germany, France, Egypt and Chad. At first glance, then, the headline looks sarcastic.
So much for being at the back of that queue, Barack, with Donald Trump in charge, a man with solid links to the UK, we’ll be closer to the front.
But the Mirror is serious. It says that after becoming President-elect, Trump only called Theresa May after first speaking with nine world leaders.
We’re Number 10!
The UK got the call after Trump dialled Ireland, Egypt, India, Mexico, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Turkey and Israel. He then called the UK. Yes, that means that after Ireland, the UK is the second most important European Union nation in Trump’s pecking order – ahead for France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The Mirror calls this a “snub”. But isn’t it progress? In 2009, the Guardian reported: “Barack Obama snubs Gordon Brown over private talks – White House spurned five requests from PM’s aides for bilateral meeting.” The Telegraph noted: “Barack Obama rebuffs Gordon Brown as ‘special relationship’ sinks to new low.”
In other Special Relationship news, the Mail says May is Trump’s Tatcher.
And the Express says Trump will help the UK thrive after leaving the EU.
Having read in the tabloids that Trump is both dire and great for UK-US relations, the Mirror lists on Page 3 – after more headlines of doom (“A new danger for the world order”; “Poor start to Special Relationship”) “10 reasons Donald might not be all that bad”. That comes after Thursday’s front page which predicted a Trump-triggered armageddon.
At number 3, the Mirror notes:
“OK, so he didn’t get round to ringing Theresa May for a while. But his mother is Scottish. He has many business interests in the UK. And he;s a big fan of Brexit. He will probably want to hug us close”
And at Number 10: “”Starting WW3 is not in his interests.”
To recap: the Mirror hasn’t got a clue what a Trump Presidency means. But if it can scare the readers, why not?
When Barack Obama was elected US President in 2008, the news cycle was full of stories of his imminent assassination. We called it the Barack Obama Death Cult. Today we get a look at the assassination of President-elect Donald Trump. The Daily Star leads with news that “TRIUMP’S A DEAD MAN WALKING”.
Grassy Knoll writes in the Star of a “series of threats to gun him down”. Knoll, aka Ross Kaniuk, says would-be killers have made their threats on twitter. One tweeter notes;” My mum is talking about assassinating Donald Trump. Watch out guy my white suburban mother is coming for you.”
She’d best be slim, blonde and young if she wants to get close to The Don.
From the University of Michigan-Flint’s Trump-proof safe safe, we hear news from Virginia Tech. Students have received an email entitled “Support & Community Today”.
“Many in our community, and among us, are waking up with fear, anxiety, concern, questions, and confusion among many other emotions,” begins the missive. It notes that “not every member of our community has felt they belong. And today, this may feel almost insurmountable.”
And then it gets really creepy: “I want you to hear clearly that you are loved. You deserve wellness. You deserve to thrive. You deserve community.”
You’d think any college with such a low opinion of their low-esteem student body would be laughed at. “All of your emotions are real,” the email continues. “And your decision is yours.”
And on it goes.
At Stanford University – motto: “The wind of freedom blows (Die Luft der Freiheit weht) – more students are being offered refuges.
It’s Day 1 in the World According to Donald Trump and already his fellow reality TV stars are feeling the aftershock. President Trump’s catchphrase – “Grab her by the pussy” – is all over the Daily Star.
“Cami Lee sexually assaulted: Big Brother star molested as boyfriend slept beside her,” says the paper.
Like most of you, we too have no idea who Cami Lee is. Helpfully, she recognises this and introduces herself.
For those of you who don’t know me, I’m Cami Li, reporting live from Las Vegas. Think tatts, boobs, and more opinions than Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan put together.
Are her boobs larger than Morgan’s? Dunno. Is she tattier than Hopkins? Not sure? Is she cheaper to have write for your organ than both of them? Says Cami:
So, what could I possibly have to talk about? Well, a f*** load of s***.
If Cami is cheaper that Hopkins and Morgan, and paid by the word, swearing just cost her a couple of quid. She then goes into flashback mode. It’s a deeply unpleasant story.
I, for one, became more passionate about politics after these five (now infamous words) were splashed across the world, “grab her by the p****”.
Cami is in bed. A man is in her room. He is making unwelcome advances.
The freak of nature slips his hands under my jeans, caresses my butt, then tries to make his way to the motherland. He attempts to slide one finger, and for once, I am thankful I ate too much and am bloated with wine, as my jeans are too tight, with little room to move around.
Once he realises he wouldn’t get away with his perversion without waking me up, he retreats. While the ordeal may’ve lasted a few minutes, it has scarred me for an eternity.
After this alleged assault, Cami relates a bout of violence with the middle-aged “beast”. “My boyfriend punched him, knocked him to ground, then the door was slammed repeatedly,” she writes. “Open, close, open, close, open, close.” Next days the man seeks medical help for a broken eye-socket
Cami says she old the authorities but a lack of funds meant she was unable to pursue the matter further. “At that time in my life, I wasn’t financially able to retain a lawyer and fight this rich couple, so I had to hang my head in defeat and walk away,” she writes.
Cami concludes her tale:
Take a step back, look in the mirror, male or female, we’re the change the world needs to see. Women’s rights are human rights. There are too many Donald Trumps in this world.
In other unrelated news, we read that back in April,Daily Star owner Richard Desmond “cut his last remaining ties to the pornography industry, selling adult entertainment channels including Television X, Viewers’ Wives and Red Hot.”
Good for him. Those channels have not alway shown the good stuff.
A viewer of adult subscription channel Television X had complained after a baby’s legs were caught on camera for a few seconds in the background of a scene in which three women were simulating lesbian sex. The baby could also be heard out of shot, gurgling and crying, later in the scene, which was filmed in a bedroom for Television X’s Viewers’ Tapes programme.
The channel apologised.
This week you can watch on Channel X:
Sexual Predator: “Jay Romer came for the thrill of the hunt… to f*** his female prey. In his sexual underworld there are no rules, just his desire to ravage beautiful women… Through the urban London jungle Jason poses as a photographer to bang Michelle B. he acts as a barman to plough into Elizabeth Michelle Lawrence… He buries his thick **** into Evie’s tight hole while still looking for his next victim!“
Looks like women were victims before Trump came along.
Miley Cyrus has been crying. She’s upset with democracy and the choice made by tens of millions of people for allowing Donald Trump to become President of the USA. Other Americans are letting off fireworks and hoarding bottles for Mazel Tov cocktails should the street fighting demand it. As Miley Cyrus (singer; unelected) cries for a return to feudalism and monarchy – she should lament a Democrat Party too narrow and uninspiring to challenge Hillary Clinton; just as the weak GOP was too inept to stop Trump – Owen Jones is talking to Guardian readers about the horror of all that hope and change.
Donald Trump’s victory reflects a rightwing thriving in a vacuum. There must be a plan to counter that threat.
Well, yes. The Left is bereft of ideas and direction. It’s not all that into trusting people to forge their own paths and freedom of speech. The authoritative and censorious Left demands rules and laws to control people into doing ‘the right thing’.
Trump’s victory is one of the biggest calamities to befall the west and the effect is that every racist, woman-hater, homophobe and rightwing authoritarian feels vindicated.
After insulting everyone who voted for illiberal Trump and rejected enlightened Hillary Clinton – the woman seeking to “destroy” “bimbos” who accused her husband of sexual impropriety; who cheered for war; who played identity politics and lost to a man who played that game better; and who, yes, must certainly have been the victim of some degree misogyny in a country that likes its leading woman to be an unelected ‘Lady’ – packaging people in neat boxes and building a pyramid of desirables to deplorables – and lost – Jones suggests its time the Left wooed the people it’s portrayed as thick, racist and problems to be controlled and re-educated through therapeutic means.
Where to begin in bridging the chasm between the Left’s culturally superior elites and the people they deride? Get this for snooty:
Multiple factors explain this calamity. First: racism. The legacy of slavery means racism is written into the DNA of US society. The determined efforts by African Americans to claim their civil rights has been met with a vicious backlash. The exit polls suggest that Trump won a landslide among both male and female white non-graduates: only white women with degrees produced a majority for Hillary Clinton.
A vote for Trump is a vote for racism. Trump’s wife is an immigrant – and a female (she voted for him, right?) – over 30% of Latinos backed Trump – are they thick racists, too?
Centrists have an easy retort. OK, smug radical, if we’re not the answer, let’s hear you list the flourishing leftwing governments, describe how the left bridges its divide?
Stop portraying Trump voters as Untermensch.
And, of course, they have a point. The style and culture of the radical left is often shaped by university-educated young people (a group that includes me). They are a growing and diverse group; often they hail from modest backgrounds. But their priorities, their rhetoric and their outlook is often radically different to older working-class voters in small town England, France or the US. Both groups are critical to building a victorious electoral coalition, and yet they are, indeed, divided.
That must change. Unless the left is rooted in working-class communities – from the diverse boroughs of London to the ex-mill towns of the north, unless it speaks a language that resonates with those it once saw as its natural constituency, shorn of contempt for working-class values or priorities, then it has no political future.
And here’s the news: the things the knowing Left believe the working class care about are not what the working class care about. They want opportunity not patronage. They want freedom.
The Democratic electorate also believed that, with the election of an African-American President and the rise of marriage equality and other such markers, the culture wars were coming to a close. Trump began his campaign declaring Mexican immigrants to be “rapists”; he closed it with an anti-Semitic ad evoking “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; his own behavior made a mockery of the dignity of women and women’s bodies. And, when criticized for any of it, he batted it all away as “political correctness.” Surely such a cruel and retrograde figure could succeed among some voters, but how could he win?
They got lazy.
But what about women? In 2000, we were told that women feel uneasy about Hillary:
Mandy Grunwald—a consultant who worked closely with the Clintons in 1992, as media director of the campaign—notes that women in politics often make other women uncomfortable: “They feel threatened—they’re looking at a woman who is close to their age and has made totally different choices.” Hillary, she says, “forces them to ask questions about themselves and the choices they’ve made that they don’t necessarily want to ask.”
She forced them to wonder: is there only one woman the Democrat Party thinks good enough to be leader?
Maybe it’s just all about Hillary Clinton and what she epitomises? Let’s go back to 2000, when Peggy Noonan was making The Case Against Hillary Clinton. Daniel Finkelstein retells a moment from that book:
In January 2000 Hillary Clinton, First Lady of the United States of America, appeared on The Late Show and she did well. Laughing it up with the late-night TV host David Letterman she was relaxed and funny.
Then Letterman changed the subject. He was, he said, going to ask her some questions about New York. Since it was already clear she would be a candidate for the Senate for that state, she looked earnest. A mistake might cost her dear.
But she didn’t make a mistake. Sometimes she had to grope a little for an answer. Sometimes she pondered and appeared uncertain. But she didn’t make any errors. It was pretty impressive stuff. The next day, however, the reason for this straight-A performance became clear. She’d been given the questions in advance. The uncertainty had been an act.
Trust, eh. Hillary was neither worthy of trust not trusted the voters.
At the end, Trump, the Reality TV star, beat Hollywood Hillary.
To the University of Michigan-Flint, where fans of Hillary Clinton (who she?) can hide from the terrifying orange lunk (that’s President-elect Donald Trump) in a safe space. Counsellors are here to help.
The Washington Examiner has published an email it says was sent to students by Chancellor Susan Borrego, who noted:
“…there would be additional support for those traumatized by Donald Trump’s win. UM-Flint’s Ellen Bommarito LGBTQ Center, Women’s Educational Center and Intercultural Center will provide ‘safe spaces’ for anyone suffering from election loss… counseling is available.”
Counsellors for Trump! From the Rust Belt to the Trust (Conveyor) Belt, the therapy industries continue to boom under Donald. Your jobs are safe!
In addition, next Tuesday the “Diversity Council” will hold a “Post-Election Conversation.”
If that doesn’t make your spine shudder, you can pop along and have a diverse conversation with like minds. Who knows, Hillary Clinton might be in there, too.
According to the Safe Space Network: “A Safe Space is a place where anyone can relax and be able to fully express, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, religious affiliation, age or physical or mental ability.”
It’s an expansion of the golf club mentality, but one where every group gets their own room.
David Cohen notices that the media got it all wrong on Donald Trump:
As someone who has given decades to the media life, may I just say what a disgraceful job my fellow Scribes and Pharisees in the biz did this year. Rather than trying to explain, understand or sensitively report on the Trump uprising, they ran and ran and ran with a narrative based on their own set view. Now they stand revealed as total chumps. So really, if any soul-searching is to be done, it ought to start with this crowd of mountebanks.
Still wondering why Ukip is so reluctant to let go of Nigel Farage? The Herald reports:
Ukip leadership hopeful Suzanne Evans has suggested judges should face the prospect of being sacked by MPs in the wake of the Article 50 case in the High Court.
Ukip wants politicians to have control over the judges? What lunacy.
She warned about judges increasingly intervening in political decisions and suggested the judiciary should face being grilled by a Commons select committee with the power to recommend sacking them.
What a terrible idea. An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy.
The fundamental concept of judicial independence came into being in England and Wales in 1701 with the enactment of the Act of Settlement. This statute formally recognised the principles of security of judicial tenure by establishing that High Court Judges and Lords Justice of Appeal hold office during good behaviour. Appropriate and formal mechanisms had to be in place before a judge could be removed.
Before 1701 senior judges held office at the sovereign’s pleasure and there are many examples of judges being removed from office for failing to decide cases in accordance with the wishes of the King or Queen. Since the Act of Settlement it has only been possible to remove a senior judge from office through an Address to the Queen agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
But, yeah, better to let the MPs decide on their own who is fit to uphold the law as they see it. We trust our MPs implicitly, don’t we? That question to you, Nigel Farage.
I will only accept Brexit on MY terms says Jeremy Corbyn as he tells Theresa May he’ll force a spring election if she doesn’t agree
Brave, isn’t he. Trouble is, of course, that Corbyn’s terms are not worth a jot because Labour will be thrashed in a General Election.
The BBC adds:
Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would block the triggering of Article 50 if Mrs May did not guarantee access to the single market.
So we get a General Election. May wins a landslide. Labour get a new leader. The country gets an effective opposition. The will of the people is done and the country leaves the EU. As May writes in the Telegraph:“The people made their choice, and did so decisively. It is the responsibility of government to carry out their instruction in full.”
Jeremy Corbyn gives Theresa May ultimatum: Agree to Labour’s Brexit terms or I’ll force election in spring
Corbyn says access to the single market should be a red line for the Government.
He says: “Sorry, but we live in a democracy and the Government has to be responsive to Parliament. It’s not my timetable so it’s up to her to respond.”
Mr Corbyn’s bottom lines are:
UK access to 500 million customers in Europe’s single market.
No watering down of EU workplace rights.
Guarantees on safeguarding consumers and the environment.
Pledges on Britain picking up the tab for any EU capital investment lost by Brexit
Government has to be responsive to Parliament. And Parliament has to be responsive to the will of the people. We voted to leave the EU.
The idea bveing that don’t vote and get Predient Trump. Do vote and gt PResident CLinbton. Or, better, yet, just take a bus and tell the driver to take you back in time to when the US President had gravitas and the people’s trust.
The ruling on article 50 is a huge opportunity. It would not be anti-democratic to try to stop what many other countries see as economic suicide.
It would not be undemocratic to prevent a democratic vote. Got it?
Stephen Phillips,Tory MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has stepped aside. In an open letter he writes:
The campaign to give parliament the right to determine our future relationship with the EU is not about reversing the referendum result. Nor is it about subverting the will of the British people, or having a second bite of the cherry. It’s about the sovereignty that I and others cherish, a sovereignty that resides principally in the House of Commons and in its ability, when given the opportunity, to inform and direct the government of the day.
And did you get that, peeps? Westminster gets to make the final decision on Brexit. Parliamentary sovereignty was earned the hard way to ensure the will of the people won the day. Parliament should not be bound by the rule of the monarch. Parliament should support and ensure the will of the people. If MPs now subvert the vote, what purpose do they serve?
Do you trust MPs, like Paul Flynn (Labour MP for Newport W), who opined, “The Brexit vote deserves the same respect as Boaty McBoatface…
The Brexit vote deserves the same respect as the vote which chose to name a state-of-the art ship Boaty McBoatface (it was named RRS Sir David Attenborough instead).
Ah, TV’s Voice of God, Sir David, who opined:
The veteran broadcaster, 90, said the decision about the future of the UK should have been left to MPs who could have voted on behalf of the electorate. Attenborough said allowing the public to vote on the monumental decision earlier this year has created a “mess”. In an interview with Emily Maitlis for Radio Times he said: “I mean, that’s why we’re in the mess we are with Brexit, is it not?
“Do we really want to live by this kind of referendum?”
Nick Clegg is a LibDem MP. You need to carry that idea in your head as Clegg talks about Brexit in the Guardian:
Melton Mowbray pork pies, stilton cheese and British-made chocolate such as Cadbury’s could be under threat from Brexit, the former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has warned.
Speaking to a food and drink industry conference on the impact of leaving the European Union, Clegg said it was possible that European rivals would start producing lookalikes to British foodstuffs if they lost the legal protection from imitation offered by EU rules.
The French will start producing fake bars of sugar-rich CHOMP in a devious Brexit-fed plot to wean their population off delicious chocolate and onto junk food. Bulgarians will be free to make blue cheeses and serve them in bell-shaped pots.
It’s carnage, readers!
“Outside the EU they won’t enjoy the appellation bestowed on those products and I would have thought other countries would take advantage of that pretty quickly and put products into the European market that directly rival those protected brands,” Clegg said.
And sell them to, what, holidays Brits? Maybe Bulgarians can cook up a Marmite copy and sell it back to us cheaper.
The wife of the Deputy Director of the FBI got a wad of campaign donations from Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.
The embattled director of the FBI has been accused of covering up evidence of Donald Trump’s links to Russia while inflicting severe damage on Hillary Clinton, as Democrats hit back in a growing scandal involving her email server.
Having links to Russia is a crime?
Harry Reid, the Democrat leader of the Senate, accused James Comey of “a disturbing double standard” and, in a remarkably forthright letter, said he regretted supporting a man who he once believed was “a principled public servant.”
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and several conservative attorneys and legal scholars held a private forum last month in which they harshly criticized FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation just eight days before Comey sent a letter to Congress announcing his bombshell decision to review new emails in the probe. The event, billed as a discussion on “The Law after Comey’s decision,” featured several speakers including Mukasey, who served in the George W. Bush administration, hammering Comey over the legal precedent he set in concluding the email probe three months ago without charging Clinton with a crime.
FBI Director James Comey stressed in his letter to Congress Friday that investigators don’t know how significant the new emails may be. But even if they don’t implicate the Democratic presidential nominee, their mere existence could call into question testimony Abedin gave months ago about the email system.
FBI records reflect that she told investigators “that she lost most of her old emails as a result of the transition.”
During a June 28, 2016 deposition with the conservative Judicial Watch, Abedin also swore she looked for and turned over all devices she thought contained government work to the State Department.
“I looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned – returned – gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents,” Abedin said. “And gave them devices and paper.”
Why would she have 600,000 emails on a compute she shared with her dick pics husband?
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
Let us turn the magnifying glass on them for a change, by sorting through the hacked personal emails of John Podesta, who has been a Washington power broker for decades….
I think the WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper reaches of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and majesty.
So the FBI has found more emails from Hillary Clinton’s secret server. Apparently 1,000-odd emails were found as part of the Anthony Weiner investigation.
Emails, eh. You can accidentally (on purpose) wipe your own emails but the trouble is if they were sent, then they sit on the recipients server; if you received them, they’re on the sender’s electronic log book. These emails were on Weiner’s laptop.
Mrs Weiner, Huma Abedin, works for Hillary. She and Anthony are estranged.
What have the FBI found?
Mrs Clinton was supposed to have handed over all evidence relating to her use of a private email server – something she instigated in 2009, when she was appointed secretary of state. The Weiner investigation shows she did not.
Career politician misspeaks the truth. Read all about it!
In a letter to Congress, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said the emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, which law enforcement officials said was an F.B.I. investigation into illicit text messages from Mr. Weiner to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. Mr. Weiner, a former Democratic congressman from New York, is married to Huma Abedin, the top aide.
The Guardian says the emails have nothing to do with Clinton:
Anthony Weiner takes center stage in presidential race about men’s sex lives
About men’s sex lives? Or about a woman who wants to be President lying?
It remains to be seen just what is in the emails, although whether Hillary sent emails with confidential content herself, or directed, or simply allowed her closest aide, Huma Abedin to forward such emails to her outside unsecured email address (where they subsequently ended up on Anthony Weiner’s notebook), is what this latest case will be all about and how it will be defended and prosecuted in the media, by the water coolers and perhaps, in court.
Howie Carr considers the (lack of) evidence in the Boston Herald:
Before he toppled over from the vapors, Paul Krugman called to cancel his nomination of FBI Director James Comey for next spring’s Profiles in Courage award for having the “courage” to broom the obstruction-of-justice rap against Hillary Clinton.
I’m not a big James Comey fan, to say the least. My feeling is, if you want to hide something real good, just stick it in one of his law books. He’s proven he’ll leave no stone unturned, except the one Hillary Clinton is hiding under.
But let’s be real. A bottom feeder like Comey would never have taken this high-stakes gamble if there were any way he could have kept sweeping the dirty laundry under the rug.
What they’ve already turned up from Carlos Danger’s cellphones obviously ain’t about yoga schedules and Chelsea’s wedding plans. Of all people, Comey knows what happens if you take a shot at these people and miss. Ken Starr, anyone?
As he says: “I Did Not Have Classified Relations With That Woman, Mrs Clinton.”
Even a fool like Trump can milk this.
Expect to hear more of Trump’s words two months ago:
“I only worry for the country in that Hillary Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told?”
Why did the Democrats go with Clinton? It looks like a massive error.