Is it kicking off big time or is this just everyday stuff they deal with or a bit of both?

 

4 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

They really aren't, though

The burnley mon

Dunno everything he said, but didnt he say brits fighting for the IDF should be locked up

Thats anti Israel, not anti Jew but painted as 'another' anti semitic comment

Am i wrong

4 minutes ago, Casino said:

The burnley mon

Dunno everything he said, but didnt he say brits fighting for the IDF should be locked up

Thats anti Israel, not anti Jew but painted as 'another' anti semitic comment

Am i wrong

I'm not sure what that has to do with people being labelled an antisemite for merely highlighting how many children have been killed, but as far as I'm aware he hasn't actually been labelled an antisemite

Not by the Labour Party or the Jewish Labour Movement anyway

31 minutes ago, Casino said:

The burnley mon

Dunno everything he said, but didnt he say brits fighting for the IDF should be locked up

Thats anti Israel, not anti Jew but painted as 'another' anti semitic comment

Am i wrong

On that particular point, I think you're right.

However, that still represents a problem for Sir Kier, as it goes against or beyond what his/the party position is.

The leader has a difficult balancing act to perform, and he may feel clamping down now, will help prevent further troubles down the line.

Polls are often mentioned- then latest have shown a fairly sizeable drop for labour, that he won't want to see continue.

48 minutes ago, Casino said:

The burnley mon

Dunno everything he said, but didnt he say brits fighting for the IDF should be locked up

Thats anti Israel, not anti Jew but painted as 'another' anti semitic comment

Am i wrong

Was no different from Grant Shapps saying British folk who fought for Ukraine is illegal 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/09/it-is-to-join-fight-in-ukraine-grant-shapps-tells-uk-troops

After Liz Truss encouraged them to go 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/liz-truss-says-she-would-back-britons-going-to-ukraine-to-fight-russia

Edited February 14, 20242 yr by DirtySanchez

3 hours ago, Casino said:

careful, you'll be labelled an anti semite

 

I should be OK. I put my squishy down when I typed it.

13 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Was no different from Grant Shapps saying British folk who fought for Ukraine is illegal 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/09/it-is-to-join-fight-in-ukraine-grant-shapps-tells-uk-troops

After Liz Truss encouraged them to go 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/liz-truss-says-she-would-back-britons-going-to-ukraine-to-fight-russia

Shapes comments were addressed specifically to serving member of the British Army rather than the general public

6 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Shapes comments were addressed specifically to serving member of the British Army rather than the general public

Did you bother to read the article about Liz Truss?

Her comments appeared to run counter to advice on her department’s own website, which says those who travel to eastern Ukraine to “fight, or assist others engaged in the conflict” could be prosecuted on their return to the UK

14 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Shapes comments were addressed specifically to serving member of the British Army rather than the general public

Dominic Grieve, who was attorney general when David Cameron was prime minister, said that anyone going to fight in Ukraine would be in breach of a law passed in 1870 saying is illegal to enlist in a foreign army at war with a country at peace with the UK.

15 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Did you bother to read the article about Liz Truss?

Her comments appeared to run counter to advice on her department’s own website, which says those who travel to eastern Ukraine to “fight, or assist others engaged in the conflict” could be prosecuted on their return to the UK

Yes, it's contrary to advice but not necessarily the law

8 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Dominic Grieve, who was attorney general when David Cameron was prime minister, said that anyone going to fight in Ukraine would be in breach of a law passed in 1870 saying is illegal to enlist in a foreign army at war with a country at peace with the UK.

If that were the case, there'd have been no British volunteers in the Spanish Civil War

Just now, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Yes, it's contrary to advice but not necessarily the law

See Dominic Grieve 

2 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

If that were the case, there'd have been no British volunteers in the Spanish Civil War

George Orwell might have got away with it 

But making something illegal doesn't mean folk will obey it 

Otherwise we'd have no criminals

Just now, DirtySanchez said:

George Orwell might have got away with it 

But making something illegal doesn't mean folk will obey it 

Otherwise we'd have no criminals

How many of the 4,000 volunteers in the Spanish Civil War were prosecuted?

That's up to the law of the lab at the time 

It was illegal but I think our attentions might have been diverted in 1939

2 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

See Dominic Grieve 

A very interesting debate.

Greive was a bright, knowledgeable politician (and major remainer, but that's another story) and a lawyer too iirc.

However, it is also that case that other lawyers will have a different view to him.

I think trying to make an 1870 law stick, would be very tricky. In particular because it is very debatable that were are at peace with Russia.

Cyber warfare continually, and chemical and biological attacks on our soil, would give a defence a lot to go at.

Moreover, your article also says lower down, "might be breaking the law".

Really would be a grey area, and Shapps' warning was  just that- an indication to be careful. 

This man's comments are in a wholly different spirit.

Just now, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I think trying to make an 1870 law stick, would be very tricky. In particular because it is very debatable that were are at peace with Russia.

There's no doubt that legally we aren't at war with Russia

5 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

A very interesting debate.

Greive was a bright, knowledgeable politician (and major remainer, but that's another story) and a lawyer too iirc.

However, it is also that case that other lawyers will have a different view to him.

I think trying to make an 1870 law stick, would be very tricky. In particular because it is very debatable that were are at peace with Russia.

Cyber warfare continually, and chemical and biological attacks on our soil, would give a defence a lot to go at.

Moreover, your article also says lower down, "might be breaking the law".

Really would be a grey area, and Shapps' warning was  just that- an indication to be careful. 

This man's comments are in a wholly different spirit.

I must have missed the bit where we declared war on Russia.

 

2 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

There's no doubt that legally we aren't at war with Russia

 

1 minute ago, ZiggyStardust said:

I must have missed the bit where we declared war on Russia.

 

And bringing a remainer into it 

7 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

There's no doubt that legally we aren't at war with Russia

 

3 minutes ago, ZiggyStardust said:

I must have missed the bit where we declared war on Russia.

 

Missing the point.

The law isn't necessarily absolute, and, as explained, a good defence could make a strong case that someone going to fight for Ukraine, isn't fighting against someone we're "at peace" with.

It is the prosecution's job to prove someone going over there and fighting for Ukraine has broken the law, not the defence's otherwise.

Especially if the law is some outdated thing that is no longer up to scratch. Such things are covered by common law apparently, which means old laws that haven't been used for donkeys years aren't viable any more.

There are still some ancient laws on the books, and they're gradually repealed, but good luck trying to secure a prosecution with them.

26 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

 

Missing the point.

The law isn't necessarily absolute, and, as explained, a good defence could make a strong case that someone going to fight for Ukraine, isn't fighting against someone we're "at peace" with.

It is the prosecution's job to prove someone going over there and fighting for Ukraine has broken the law, not the defence's otherwise.

Especially if the law is some outdated thing that is no longer up to scratch. Such things are covered by common law apparently, which means old laws that haven't been used for donkeys years aren't viable any more.

There are still some ancient laws on the books, and they're gradually repealed, but good luck trying to secure a prosecution with them.

I'm not missing the point - I agree with you that in many respect we are at war with Russia, but the legal position is that we aren't and any argument on those grounds is doomed to fail

I'd also agree that the prospects of any prosecution under the quoted law would be practically nil

ITV news reports the Houthis would target UK mainland if it had the resources in retaliation for what Israel is doing in Palestinian.

Think it would be strategic attack Or they'd bomb the fuck out of everyone?

15 hours ago, Casino said:

careful, you'll be labelled an anti semite

Or a gullible fool if you believe a single thing that Hamas tells you.

12 hours ago, Zico said:

I think it's more the suggestion that Israel are doing it on purpose, don't give a fuck and to suggest they are up for a two state solution is utter nonsense 

That's when folk get their back up

Let them. The job has to be completed. No more 7th Octobers.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/15/huge-rise-in-antisemitic-abuse-in-uk-since-hamas-attack-says-charity

10 hours ago, wanderer1984 said:

ITV news reports the Houthis would target UK mainland if it had the resources in retaliation for what Israel is doing in Palestinian.

Think it would be strategic attack Or they'd bomb the fuck out of everyone?

I wouldn’t worry too much mate. Just petty talk.

 We’ll stop defending Israel further down the line anyway. Unless they get a government who commits to a two state solution. 

If the genocide case leads to something then we won’t be any position to call them an ally.