UK - England, Wales, N.Ireland, Scotland

[Dave from down under]

It is likely that the Public Order Bill will be challenged.

[Kriselda Gray]

Very Interesting. Thank you!

[Suranis]

Besides, as far as I am aware, people out on bail in the US can be fitted with Ankle bracelets without being convicted of anything.

[Gregg]

While introducing the bill, former Home Secretary Priti Patel said: “What we have seen in recent years is a rise in criminal, disruptive and self-defeating guerrilla tactics, carried out by a selfish few in the name of protest.

Well, they get to have an election in 2 years to run the Tories out.

But seriously, they don't have a First Amendment, even though they do have the above mentioned overly complicated to an American kind of protection. And in a few years, we might not have a First Amendment, either.

[raison de arizona]

Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak #BetweenTheScenes

[northland10]

Seems like it used to be that the ultra-wealthy just controlled everything from the shadows, think Koch brothers, etc. Now they just do it openly.

Ummm... Washington, Jefferson, Madison, T. Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.. These were not folks of limited means when they became president.

[raison de arizona]

Seems like it used to be that the ultra-wealthy just controlled everything from the shadows, think Koch brothers, etc. Now they just do it openly.

Ummm... Washington, Jefferson, Madison, T. Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.. These were not folks of limited means when they became president.

Good point.

[keith]

Seems like it used to be that the ultra-wealthy just controlled everything from the shadows, think Koch brothers, etc. Now they just do it openly.

Ummm... Washington, Jefferson, Madison, T. Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.. These were not folks of limited means when they became president.

But they werent Rothschilds were they?

[Gregg]

Seems like it used to be that the ultra-wealthy just controlled everything from the shadows, think Koch brothers, etc. Now they just do it openly.

Ummm... Washington, Jefferson, Madison, T. Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.. These were not folks of limited means when they became president.

But they werent Rothschilds were they?

Washington and maybe Joe Kennedy were in that kind of neighborhood.

[much ado]

I'm not sure that this is on topic, but, then again, I am not sure that it is not. British politics have always been a bit ... odd.

Anyway, this reminds me how much I liked the Blackadder series. I need to watch it again. Hugh Laurie is playing Prince Regent, the future King George IV.

Please let me know if I should stop doing this...

Sensible policies for a happier Britain



ETA: "It minds not me that you dress like a mad parrot and talk like a plate of beans negotiating their way out of a cow's digestive system!"

[Dave from down under]

I have a cunning plan....

there can never be enough Black Adder!

[tek]

I dunno, British politics reminds me more of Keeping Up Appearances

[RTH10260]

Boris Johnsons Titanic sinks

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt plans to scrap Boris Johnson's 'vanity' £250m national flagship
Jeremy Hunt plans to end the former Prime Minister's dream for a £250million ­national flagship for which the Ministry of Defence has spent nearly £2.5m on staff costs and consultants

ByNigel NelsonPolitical Editor
19:04, 22 Oct 2022

Jeremy Hunt is poised to scrap Boris Johnson ’s “vanity” yacht in his spending cuts.

The Chancellor plans to end the ex-PM’s dream for a £250million ­national flagship for which the Ministry of Defence has spent nearly £2.5m on staff costs and consultants.

Former Labour defence minister Kevan Jones tackled Defence Secretary Ben Wallace over whether the vessel would now go ahead.

Mr Wallace told him: “The MoD has not assumed any liability for costs incurred by bidders in the design competition. And no design or manufacturing contracts have been placed.”

Mr Jones said: “This complete waste of taxpayer money has obviously been sunk. And quite right, too.

“The Navy never wanted it in the first place and It was just one big Boris Johnson vanity project.” The only way the project may still stay afloat is if Mr Johnson makes an extraordinary comeback as Prime Minister.

Mr Johnson’s ambition was for it to “promote the best of British” by hosting diplomatic meetings when abroad and as a showcase for trade fairs.





https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... p-28299485

[Gregg]

Mr Johnson’s ambition was for it to “promote the best of British” by hosting diplomatic meetings when abroad and as a showcase for trade fairs.

Of course, His Majesty's Navy currently has no ships on which this could be done.

[RTH10260]

His Majesty's ship is back in the dock yard with engine troubles...

[RTH10260]

about the lady that has reached her Peter's Principles position when advising the government on legal issues and therefore was chosen to be a minister, and Sunak made the bad mistake to invite her back after she had to resign under Truss

[keith]

Ummm... Washington, Jefferson, Madison, T. Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.. These were not folks of limited means when they became president.

But they werent Rothschilds were they?

Washington and maybe Joe Kennedy were in that kind of neighborhood.

But they weren't Rothschilds. Nudge nudge wink wink.

[RTH10260]

UK police use of live facial recognition unlawful and unethical, report finds
Study says deployment of technology in public by Met and South Wales police failed to meet standards

Vikram Dodd Police and crime correspondent
Thu 27 Oct 2022 15.00 BST

Police should be banned from using live facial recognition technology in all public spaces because they are breaking ethical standards and human rights laws, a study has concluded.

LFR involves linking cameras to databases containing photos of people. Images from the cameras can then be checked against those photos to see if they match.

British police have experimented with the technology, believing it can help combat crime and terrorism. But in some cases, courts have found against the way police have used LFR, and how they have dealt with infringements of the privacy rights of people walking in the streets where the technology has been used. There are also concerns about racial bias.

The report, from the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, at the University of Cambridge, says LFR should be banned from use in streets, airports and any public spaces – the very areas where police believe it would be most valuable.



https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... e-study-uk

[Gregg]

His Majesty's ship is back in the dock yard with engine troubles...

Is that the only one he has?

[Gregg]

But they werent Rothschilds were they?

Washington and maybe Joe Kennedy were in that kind of neighborhood.

But they weren't Rothschilds. Nudge nudge wink wink.

Well, Germans didn't tattoo numbers on their wrists I guess.

OMG that lady on the telly trying to explain the ERG is priceless, she could work for Trump.

[Kriselda Gray]

OMG that lady on the telly trying to explain the ERG is priceless, she could work for Trump.

ERG? I tried to Google it, but there were multiple options...

[much ado]

OMG that lady on the telly trying to explain the ERG is priceless, she could work for Trump.

ERG? I tried to Google it, but there were multiple options...

It must be this European Research Group:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Research_Group

The European Research Group (ERG) is a research support group and caucus of Eurosceptic Conservative Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom.[1] The journalist Sebastian Payne described it in the Financial Times as "the most influential [research group] in recent political history".

ETA:

Funding

ERG subscriptions are taxpayer-funded through Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA)-funded pooled service within the formal IPSA Scheme of MPs' Business Costs and Expenses and is one of two such publicly funded pooled services maintained for Conservative MPs.

The ERG has drawn criticism for its lack of transparency regarding its use of public funds to carry out research. A 2017 report by openDemocracy found that more than a quarter of a million pounds had been claimed through MPs' official expenses since 2010, after which Labour MPs called for an inquiry to be carried out by the IPSA into the group's practices.[78] OpenDemocracy's September 2017 report commenced:

Taxpayers’ money is being used to fund an influential group of hard-line pro-Brexit Conservative MPs who are increasingly operating as a "party-within-a-party".[79]

In July 2019 a tribunal declared that the ERG's research must be made public.[80]

The ERG has also been funded by a secretive group called the Constitutional Research Council.[81]

[Kriselda Gray]

Thanks!

[RTH10260]

Billions in foreign aid never leaves Britain under Sunak rules – analysis
PM previously cut aid and allowed use of international development money for domestic purposes, such as housing Ukrainian refugees
Andrew Mitchell, who rebelled against Rishi Sunak’s aid cuts, has been appointed development minister by the new prime minister

Press Association
Sat 29 Oct 2022 02.50 BST

Britain is spending more of its international development budget at home than in poor developing countries, development experts have said.

A large proportion is being spent on housing refugees, mainly from Ukraine, according to the Centre for Global Development (CGD).

Rishi Sunak was criticised for slashing the foreign aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income when he was chancellor, as well as setting a precedent for letting the Home Office and other departments use the money, and stretching the rules on what can be counted as aid.

The UK aid budget is around £11bn, with about £4bn going to multilateral institutions including the World Bank.

Of the remaining £7bn, which is administered by the UK directly, more than half will be spent domestically in 2022, including about £3bn on housing refugees, according to CGD’s analysis.

While the UK is allowed to count refugee-hosting costs as official development assistance (ODA) under internationally agreed rules, it is one of only a few countries – and the only one in the G7 – to fund all the costs of Ukrainian refugees from its existing aid budget, the Washington and London-based thinktank said.

Ranil Dissanayake, a policy fellow at CGD, said: “The development budget – the pot of money we put aside to help the world’s poorest people – is being squeezed from every angle.

“Not only was it slashed by almost a third, Rishi Sunak then set a precedent as chancellor for letting other departments claim whatever they could back from this pot.




https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... s-analysis

[Volkonski]