Mandy Lifeboats

20 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Birmingham City FC

I take it back. 

The latest episode is hilarious. 

My city council was outright tory controlled 4 years ago. 

Now they only have ONE councillor and are the fourth biggest party.  

Birmingham City FC

9 minutes ago, limpid said:

Well those will not be counted according to the reporting officers rep at my polling station.

If they wanted to rig something, they could have posted them a couple of days before and then there wouldn't be a stupid form to fill in.

Correct.  They will not be counted under the current rules.  

By the way...

What do you mean by "Repoting Officer"?  My council don't have that named role? 

1 hour ago, limpid said:

I don't understand why almost everyone doesn't have a postal vote. https://www.gov.uk/apply-postal-vote

However, if you do, note that you now have to fill in a pointless form if you hand in your sealed vote at a polling station (which has always been allowed). There is no possible reason for this other than an excuse to disallow them.

I am 50/50 on this one. 

The majority of people did use the vote correctly. 

But it did find it a little strange when people I knew were party agents were bringing in dozens of postal votes throughout the day.  It did make me wonder if the voters concerned were aware of what was happening in their name. 

6 minutes ago, Genie said:

 

Nobody will be buying that and deciding to vote Tory because of it.

 

Some people still think Brexit was a success and Boris was a nice bloke doing the best he could. 

30 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

It would have saved everyone's time and money if they held it yesterday along with the local elections and crime commissioners. 

But his whole tenure is based upon sending an asylum seeker to Rwanda. 

We are literally waiting for 1 person to be deported in order to meet a political promise.  

What a joke. 

A lot of the Tory representatives seemed to accept they are going to take a real hammering at the next election.  But they are using it as an opportunity to show they are rebuilding the party and are good bets for future nominations. 

The Liberals are back to their decades long mindset.  They don't stand a chance but just want to achieve enough to be the third largest party. 

Labour representatives are chomping at the bit.  They are either with Starmer or accept that he's their man whether they like him or not.  Many clearly don't.  

I worked the elections yesterday and got the chance to chat to representatives from most of the major parties.  No-one was senior enough to have insider information but everyone is gearing up for October.  

The 6 weeks holidays are a terrible time to hold an election.  Its difficult to get polling staff and campaign staff. A large percentage of the electorate is away from home and probably will not vote.  For that reason I would rule out August.  

I have worked a winter election.  Its grim.  Snowfall or heavy rain cuts the turnout massively, especially with the pensioner electorate.  As they tend to be a higher percentage of Tory voters I would rule out November and December. 

My guess would be June (if there is a Tory civil war) or October. 

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

I've been reading about magic mushrooms as a healing agent for a range of mental health conditions and even chronic pain. 

There are grow kits available online that look pretty easy to use. 

Something to consider for people who are feeling hopeless, or just feeling down

Or get medical treatment which is regulated, tested and has accurately described benefits and side effects. 

22 minutes ago, il_serpente said:

I can think of a lot of humiliating things to get arrested for, but having to admit you wanted McDonald's so badly that it got you arrested is on another level.

Pulling up in a space next to a marked Police car made me laugh.  

I bet they choked on their doughnuts. 

8 hours ago, bickster said:

Definitely those electric scooters, people in Liverpool have been prosecuted on them

I was in court (on a professional basis) and a young lad was being prosecuted in the same court for drink driving on a mobility scooter. 

He'd got drunk and fancied a McDonald's before bed.  He hopped on his mom's mobility scooter and drove along the footpath to McDonald's where he parked next to a Police car.  The two officers were having a snack and got their easiest arrest of the night. 

His defence was:   It's not a car.  I was on the path.   McDonald's is private land.  

He was very wrong. 

2 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

I was awoken by a copper in the wee hours once in Plymouth while sleeping in my car and told exactly this. I'd put my keys in the boot though and that was enough to pacify the situation to a more reasonable 'carry on then but technically I could still do you if you can gain access to them'

I wonder if the same laws apply to @Seat68 (or other motorhomers) and his motorhome? I mean it's kind of the point there isn't it? Are they technically breaking the law to be drunk in a layby or (like me in the 90's) a council owned car park?

The law is there to prevent drink drivers.  Its a little perverse to require the Police to watch you drive off and stop you when that action could harm someone. 

To answer your question - the law relates to the "road".  A road is defined as an area where the public and their vehicles are normally allowed.  Being drunk in a lay-by or a car park is breaking the law.  A campsite where you have to book and/or pay an entrance fee would normally be excluded from that definition.  But if you are drunk and drive into someone on a campsite I would expect the local Police to arrest you and let a court decide. 

In the UK you don't even have to be drive to be arrested for drink driving.  Just being in charge of a vehicle might be enough. 

Please just win.  

@Panto_Villan

I don't necessarily agree but it's great to hear a rationale standpoint. 

The attack on an aid convoy is a small,  clear and distinct event.  I agree with you. 

The event that sparked this discussion was the death of a young girl due to the lack of medical care due to a destroyed hospital.  That's less clear. Especially as its quite believeable that Hamas shelters its military in and around hospitals. 

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

I think it depends on how wide you go. Israel flattened a hospital, a war crime, and as a consequence a child dies as they had no access to healthcare (or even food and water) - I'm blaming Israel for that war crime and the subsequent death. I would blame Hamas for Oct 7th, another war crime. Is there blame to be shared in either instance? If there is then that's not easy to say. On the overall conflict,  there is blame on many sides. 

Here is the flaw to your argument. 

Hamas didn't just wake up and start a war on 7 October.  They did it as retaliation for various acts by Israel.  They did it due to a false sense that they were defending their country and their people.  They felt it was necessary and proportionate. They were provoked by x, y and z.  

Israel did not wake up and decide to flatten hospitals. They did it as retaliation for various acts by Hamas  They did it due to a false sense that they were defending their country and their people. They felt it was necessary and proportionate. They were provoked by x, y and z. 

Assigning sole blame assumes single events are not connected.  They are.  

18 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'd go both sides - but I"m not sure it's a very direct comparison.

If the IRA were to launch an attack on Belfast, killing several hundred people, and in response the UK government were to bomb then demolish most of Dublin and blockade the Republic of Ireland to the point of starvation, destroying any infrastructure and killing tens of thousands, would you say that the two groups responsible were the British and the Irish?

To my knowledge the Irish state and the IRA were 2 completely disconnected organisations.  Therefore the UK would be entirely to blame.  

But replace "IRA" with "Regular Irish Army" and its a different matter. 

My standpoint is simple - there is blame on both sides. 

I don't understand how anyone can come to any other conclusion?

42 minutes ago, Jareth said:

If you commit a war crime - are you able to defend that action by saying it was self defence, i.e. it was provoked and blame should be shared? 

You are good at posing futher questions.  But not as good as answering them. 

The law of warfare is incredible complicated and specialised. I have no idea whether that's a legitimate defence.  I suspect (but do not know) that it is. 

But let's get back to my question to you.  In the scenario I outline who is to blame (in your opinion). 

1. Ireland alone.  They pulled the trigger. 

2. Both sides. 

1 minute ago, Jareth said:

Pretty sure levelling multiple hospitals is a war crime. 

Is it?  You learn something new every day. 

So you would agree that Ireland would be committing a war crime and the UK would be completely blameless?  

21 minutes ago, Chindie said:

If you provoke someone, you carry some responsibility for there being a reaction, but you aren't entirely responsible for the reaction, and the provocation isn't a carte blanche justification for whatever that reaction entails. 

Israel have committed crimes in Gaza, and there's not a world in which that's justified, or is to be laid at the feet of anyone else. They didn't need to flatten Gaza, they didn't need to kill so many people with abandon, they didn't need to bring an already battered population to the edge. But they wanted to. They wanted to punish Gaza and they wanted to justify further power and land grabs, they wanted to get rid of more Palestinians and they wanted to erase more of Palestine.

Thank you for some sanity.  

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

Israel has a powerful modern army and modern munitions - yet it has somehow annihilated civilians on a breathtaking scale, also targeting and executing British aid workers and many others. These crimes, including intentional famine currently afflicting Gaza, are Israel's fault. Oct 7th = Hamas' fault. I'm blaming whoever is pulling the trigger. 

It's 2035 and the UK is shelling Ireland using artillery placed on a hospital roof just over the Northern Ireland border.   After 400 Irish deaths the artillery piece is destroyed along with the maternity unit.  Who is responsible for the dead babies? 

Your answer - Ireland

My answer - UK and Ireland

Can't you see how perverse your logic is?  

On 28/04/2024 at 12:00, Jareth said:

Well I think that is what they're saying - to stop, pronto. I've admitted I blame Israel for the current situation, they are in charge and have all of the power and decision making yet there is famine in Gaza - that's some biblical punishment going on. I probably take it for granted that it is understood that Hamas/Iran are shits of the highest order, the world needs to get rid ASAP, it's the collateral damage to civilians that irks me personally, and it appears intentional - that's why I blame Israel. 

It's bizarre to blame Israel when it's so obviously a complex situation where all are to blame.  

Hamas are hiding amongst the civilian population.  Hamas are using humanitarian supplies for their military.  Hamas are holding hostages in civilian areas. Hamas could surrender. Hamas could give up the hostages.  Hamas could stop smuggling weapons into the area.  

Hamas wanted a war. They got it.  Now they are punishing their own people by prolonging a war that they never stood a chance of winning.  

6 hours ago, Jareth said:

A little girl died today from heat exhaustion, in Gaza. Had she a hospital to attend she may still be alive. Every single death is a tragedy, and there is only one hawkish country responsible. Israel. 

No.  

There is blame on all sides. 

Hamas and Iran also killed her. 

I now await the aggressive and virtuous replies that avoid any rational discussion and completely ignore the bit of my post where I describe the Israel government a disgrace.