oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Feb 7, 2022 1:21:27 GMT
Alberto
No wrath!
Obviously, the UK of GB & NI is an internationally recognised state. It is not, however, a wholly unitary state since various aspects of its governance vary between 3 different legal jurisdictions.
These are not a beneficent boon devolved from the UK Parliament, but fundamental aspects of the international Treaties that created the UK Union (Wales, I'm afraid is just an English territory by right of conquest, which the UK/English Parliament has seen fit to devolve some powers to).
Glad that you like Scotland, so wish (for some inexplicable reason) to see it continue to be incorporated into the same state as your polity. I'm puzzled as to why you dislike Isle of Man and the Channel Islands so much that you don't seem to want them in the club too.
As to your "but then presumably the same applies to the subdivisions of Scotland, who could wish to remain in the UK", I fear you don't understand how such matters work (and frankly are swallowing Unionist propaganda).
The 1707 Treaty of Union was between the sovereign states of Scotland and England. If that Treaty is annulled, then the borders of the two states remain unchanged [1]
Subsequently, should any part of Scotland, with some historical rights to independent status, wish to secede from that sovereign state and become an independent unit, logic would suggest that with popular support that should be granted.
The dubious aspect of your suggestion is that they would want to remain in the UK (you actually mean rejoin a diminished UK of E,W & NI?, or probably England).
As far as Shetland is concerned, their most advantageous position would be to get Faroese status within Scotland (their continental shelf rights would be lost if they were an English enclave)
I can fully understand why many folk in the Scottish Borders and Dumfries might not want an international boundary to their south, but it seems a tad arrogant to assume that they would want an international border to their north instead (as well as having to transition to English law and practice). No one has polled those in South Scotland as to this, so it seems rather lazy assumption that Borderers (who might prefer to be UK) would choose to be English not Scots if push came to shove.
It may come as a surprise to you, but these suggestions emanating from the south are hardly illuminating.
[1] To the great joy of Ireland, the Faroes and Iceland, as Rockall becomes an even more disputed territory!
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,590
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 7, 2022 1:40:57 GMT
pjw1961 "You are saying, quite correctly, that tribal societies were overridden by colonial exploitative powers (themselves "nation states" be it noted), but then also saying that the removal of those powers was a "nationalist" revolt. How can it be a "nationalist" revolt when there was no nation before the colonists arrived?"I know you are not trying to be rude, and neither am I, but you appear to be adopting a very "19th century European" concept of a "nation" and imposing it on different societies using different labels. Of course, the colonial units created by the colonial powers divided the previous governance units (call them anything you want, but "nation" is the translation commonly used by the Zulus for themselves) and split them across different territories (Rwanda is a perfect example). That was the essence of colonialism to divide and conquer. To deny that "nations" (want to try to provide a definition of that concept, beyond European assumptions?) existed prior to colonial rule is to display a deep ignorance of non-European societies. I didn't invent the term "post colonial nationalism". I simply used the term that is widely used to describe the struggle for freedom from colonial rule. It is a form of "nationalism" which you declared your opposition to along with any form of nationalism. I merely suggest that your particular use of the term is derived from a rather narrow, culturally derived interpretation which you then generalise inappropriately. If colonialism was brought down by nationalist revolts, as you suppose, the result would have been the creation of nations based on tribal areas - or as near as could be achieved, given that they actually overlap a lot in much of Africa (and Asia). This is not what happened at all. The boundaries the colonialists drew up were used to create what you would presumably regard as nation states given you believe they were achieved by nationalist revolts. Take Zimbabwe for example. Each of the main peoples in that ethnically divided area had its own separate armed force engaged in the liberation struggle against white minority rule. Once the Smith government was defeated the political representatives of the Shona people, as the largest tribe, eventually ended up oppressing the minority groups, especially their main rivals the Matabele. I suspect we would both agree that removing Smith's rule was worthwhile, but the creation of an artificial 'national' state and then the demand that everyone be loyal to its head of state just created another very unpleasant dictatorship. As to "nation state", it is indeed a western creation - that's the point. Like many other bad European ideas, attempts are made to apply it everywhere and dictators of every stripe love it. What better way to divide people than to say: "forget how much you have in common with those people over there. That doesn't matter because we are us and they are them and that's more important than what you have in common." That ultimately is a very bad idea and one I want nothing to do with. As a final note, I appreciate that Scottish Nationalists argue that their nationalism is non-aggressive, representing a threat to none as they have no territorial ambitions and merely wish to live independently of English interference. I accept and respect all that and as I have already said, Scottish independence is fine with me. But at the end of the day like all nationalism it is still based on "we are us and everybody else is them", and that is to me a deeply objectionable principle that I cannot support. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,590
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 7, 2022 1:47:24 GMT
pjw1961 "Italy is a nation state." Have you ever spoken to folk in Sicily or Südtirol? Italy is certainly a state. It has accumulated a number of other territories into itself, but the term "nation" is more an aspiration of the central elite rather than an actuality. Mazzini wrote many volumes trying to define the Italian nation through factors such as religion, language, diet, culture. None of them worked. In the end, he came up with the eminently sensible conclusion that "the nation of Italy consists of those who consider themselves to belong to it". That's my point. Italy is hugely diverse, but to jump on the 'mass conscript army/colonial power/fleet of ironclads' bandwagon it had to fashion itself into a "nation state" just as Germany did at much the same time. Mussolini of course subsequently doubled down on the nationalist bullshit. The era of so called "nation states" (and yes they are all faking it) has been the era of world wars. I would be happy to see them all collapse. I would also be happy to see more supra-national cooperation replacing state level actions. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,590
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 7, 2022 1:49:15 GMT
pjw1961 "The concept of a "nation state" as it is espoused by nationalists today, i.e one essentially based on language and shared culture"Thankfully, I have always considered the term "nation state" to be either tautological (as it might be for Iceland), or expansionist nationalism (as with Putin) or simply inaccurate. You appear to have a simplistic view of these strange creatures that you term "nationalists". Regardless of which country they live in, the demography of the state they live in, or their views on anything, they all share a single definition of a term that may well not use or believe in, but that you have kindly provided for them. What a mono-visual world you inhabit. (That's not rude, just an expression of incredulity). Oxford English Dictionary: "Nation state: a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent." |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Feb 7, 2022 2:19:32 GMT
pjw1961
"As to "nation state", it is indeed a western creation - that's the point."
No it's a particular creation of 19th and early 20th century European state expansionism. Your trying to export it to colonial territories is meaningless.
You may dislike the usage of "post colonial nationalism" in the Third World, because it doesn't match your Euro-centric conception of the term but folk are free to use terms in ways that match their perception of the world, and aren't tied into your very narrow and (to many) irrelevant definitions.
In Western common usage, I rather suspect that it is due to the need to differentiate between a state which is a sub unit of a Federal structure (as in the USA), and a state that is an independent, internationally recognised body.
To conflate that usage with a narrow definition of "nationalism" seems inappropriate and pointless.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Feb 7, 2022 2:34:16 GMT
pjw1961
So the OED doesn't consider Belgium to be a nation state? But it defines the UK of GB & NI as a nation state because the majority of its population live in the largest polity within that state and have some commonality based on a myth of common descent.
You are content for a state's legitimacy to be based upon the self perception of a polity covering 85% of its population? Now that's what I describe as the nasty side of nationalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on Feb 7, 2022 5:33:47 GMT
Yes of course as a democrat I agree. He won a huge victory in Dec 2019 and he therefore has legitimacy until the next election is called or one of the scenarios you describe above arises. I would just add however that I believe he is a corrupt liar and I will use my freedom of speech in a 'free' society to describe him as such. But that is of course the fiction that Johnson wants you to believe.
As we all know in truth his mandate as PM comes from commanding a majority in the Commons, not from the electorate ( did anyone in here have a ballot paper on which his name was printed ? )
In that sense he is no different from any other MP.
If he loses that majority in the Commons he loses his mandate to be PM.
You could like Rees Mogg, subscribe to the theory that we now have a de facto Presidential system, and Johnson won the election single handed and thus all the Conservatives in the Commons are there by dint of his great benificence.
That would of course mean that should Johnson resign then Rees Mogg would have lost his mandate as MP for North East Somerset and so should resign his seat and fight a by-election.
Somehow I don't see that happening
Yes I caveatd the legitimacy point by referring back in passing to 'the scenarios' Turk described. |
|
|
|
Post by jen on Feb 7, 2022 6:18:34 GMT
Then unsurprisingly we disagree. I see no contradiction if somebody considered right of centre is also a socialist. I think you are falling into the trap of assuming what my political orientation is. Just being an anti-fascist doesn't necessarily make one left wing. I agree that being anti-fascist doesn't make one left wing but to consider someone right of centre as a socialist is a bit bazar. Many people in the Lib. Dems consider themselves LOC but might puke at being called a socialist. The Lib Dems you mention are likely to accept the Daily Mail's (the newspaper that supported Hitler) definition of "socialist" rather than any of the various and diverse definitions that are used by academics. And to clarify, naturally I don't think all right of centre people are socialist (in fact it appears to be a dwindling minority of the whole as more and more reject the Enlightenment and the post-war consensus). But find it bizarre if you will, what do I care? |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Feb 7, 2022 6:53:09 GMT
Moby. I would certainly agree Johnson is a liar and certainly prone to gross exaggeration. Whether he is any more a liar or prone to exaggeration than any other Politician is a mute point. I have seen many Prime Ministers over the years and if you compare what they say to what actually happens there is often a huge disjoint . What marks Johnson out from all those other Prime Ministers is he is particularly inept at telling lies whilst others were rather good at it ,the question is does telling lies preclude you from being a politician because if it does the HoC would be a rather sparse place. After all the much touted party manifesto’s are largely works of fiction and one persons facts are another persons work of fiction especially when it comes to quoting statistics which politicians are particularly prone to do. If you take time to listen to politicians they are experts at bending the truth to fit there arguments , personally I think that this is just the cut and thrust of politics ,that’s not to say being truthful is by far the best policy especially as in Johnson’s case you get caught out. However I believe absolute truth is a rare commodity in politics and is mainly confined to those MP’s who don’t have ministerial positions or sit on committee’s the British adversarial system makes it very difficult to admit mistakes which in turn lead to lies and cover ups. . This is where we disagree I think. I take the general point about the difference between saying and doing in politics but Johnsons behaviour over his career is on a level I've not personally seen before and I'm no spring chicken either. I agree absolute truth is a rare commodity but that doesn't stop us from striving to be better and calling out lies when we encounter them and it starts at the top in any organisation. Failure to do this is a main cause of falling standards in our institutions. It leads to arrogance, corruption, lazy thinking and moral relativism. I mean....look at our Govmt to see what happens when standards slide. As part of my job I regularly went to Court as a professional witness under our adversarial system. I was always asked about my practice and whatever the consequences I told the truth. Sometimes this led to criticism from a Judge, Magistrate or Parole Panel but I was accountable for my practice in the same way that anyone in a leadership role should be. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,686
|
Post by steve on Feb 7, 2022 7:13:02 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,686
|
Post by steve on Feb 7, 2022 7:17:58 GMT
pjw1961 I really wouldn't bother trying to engage regarding your and my shared world views with some of our resident nationalists. They just don't get it and some seem to take it as a personal affront that we don't wish to be defined by our nationality rather than our shared humanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on Feb 7, 2022 7:19:40 GMT
My ideal would be a single world government to deal with macro issues such as climate change, but without any oppressive state apparatus such as armed forces and "secret services" at it disposal. Local affairs would be managed through locally elected assemblies at the lowest level possible with direct rather than representative democracy for major issues. So called "Nation states" - largely artificial creations of the period of Empire (c1500-1900CE) - would have no place at all. They are invariably geared for war and oppression of both their own people and others. Colonial oppression was of course wholly wrong and should never have happened in the first place. However, most post-colonial states are artificial creations - lines on maps drawn by Europeans - and many are highly oppressive of minorities within their borders. I would happily see them cease to exist to be replaced by the model above. Fundamentally human beings are human beings. Supposed "Nations" and nationalism are a way of dividing us against each other for the benefits of elites. I would argue that it's a fundamental human instinct to form groupings that evolve into states. It is but I think the point is we would do better if we controlled our instincts more. I get quite Welsh nat. at times and sometimes feel the place I come from has been the victim of years of economic extraction. Do I blame a national group though (English people) or an economic/political class? Would Wales be better off with more self determination or would the indifference/corruption at Westminster be transferred to the Senedd. I know from experience there is often little in common between Caerdydd and Wrecsam apart from a flag with a dragon on it. However I note with some admiration the journey Ireland is on? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,463
|
Post by Danny on Feb 7, 2022 7:24:59 GMT
@danny "Afraid I didnt see it- where is it?"Alec told you "back a page" Ah gotcha, thanks. A post linking a twitter story. Which is at least one down from an actual composed paper, would you say?
The chap on twitter says "5/n For example, all papers with modelled counterfactuals are excluded. Because this is the most common method used in infectious disease assessments, this has the practical impact of excluding most epidemiological research from the review"
This illustrates rather a fundamental difference getween the twitter guy and the paper writers. The approach taken in the paper is to seek out actual real world evidence of the severity of covid. They deliberately exclude every analysis which is based upon modelling. Modelling requires you to make assumtions about the severity of covid, even if these are hidden in the model. Its like saying I assume covid would have killed 5 million people had we done nothing, and look - we intervened so only 150,000 died. Wow we did so well!
They start arguing Prof Ferguson's model predicted x50 more deaths than actually occurred. So is the difference because of intervention, or because the model was wrong? looking through some 20,000 papers they only found about 30 which were based on real world data instead of modelling.
They also excluded papers based on official case numbers rather than death counts. On the grounds official case numbers are deeply problematic and usually based on a positive test result. So only people having a test can ever get counted, and that usually is limited by availability of testing not whether people are ill. If you remember back to the start of this epidemic, chinese reported having about 100 cases of covid, of who about 30 died. 30% mortality....utter bolloks. The reason most probably is because the only cases they knew of were the ones so bad they ended up in hospital. And then the world based a response upon numbers like this, just backing them off a bit. Well it turned out very different wiith most people always safe from severe disease right from the start.
Its crazy the world has gone off on a policy of lockdown when covid has never, ever, anywhere, created death on the scale being assumed in the modelling. A partial explanation is contained in what SAGE has always said, which is that the model they use is a 'worst credible case'. Its the worst they think could possibly happen. They never said they expected it to happen, just that it was the worst which could possibly happen - not least given their absence of real world data. What we have seen is the real danger of basing policy on a worst case scenario which it turns out never could have happened.
The economists paper highlights aaht if you excluded everything based upon modelling....theres very little real world published data left.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,686
|
Post by steve on Feb 7, 2022 7:26:58 GMT
moby I agree it's entirely possible for those in authority to be honest. There are however, occasions where people may need to be less than transparent in the public interest, or at least the public interest as they perceive it. The difference with Spaffer is that his persona is all about self gratification, power, sex, wealth, privileges,the absence of boundaries that apply to others. Lying is just the way he chooses to achieve and retain them. He is with out a doubt the most mendacious, venal and inadequate prime minister this country has been lumbered with since universal suffrage.
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Feb 7, 2022 8:20:58 GMT
The concept of a "nation state" as it is espoused by nationalists today, i.e one essentially based on language and shared culture, was meaningless in both the ancient world and the medieval world. If you had spoken to someone in England or Scotland in 1300 the concepts of loyalty to a liege monarch and/or "Christendom" and the church would have been their base position. They would have had no idea what was meant by a "nation state". The current concept appears in Western and Northern Europe from around 1500 with Spain, France, Portugal, England, Denmark, Sweden and only much, much later in central, southern and eastern Europe - really only in the 19th century in fact. The creation of supposed "nation states" (often embracing many minority groups) was all about military and economic power and empire building. I really wanted to keep out of it, but as people got engaged with the subject... First of all, I fully agree with your desire, but it has to come from the people, if it does, even if in fragments, it can be embraced politically, and who knows... But it has to come from them. It is also important that you (and someone else) pointed out that the concept of national state is pretty recent. But from this direct link cannot be made to political action (earlier sentence of mine). Secondly, Stalin's pamphlet on Marxism and the National Question is a pretty good one on the subject, especially if one combines it with his speech (Concerning the national.question in Yugoslavia in 1925). Thirdly, without structural changes of our democracy it will never become an issue. Look at Brexit! It is an unbelievably good example of the friction of politics, economics, culture and whatever. The only way it can happen is the breaking down of transmission mechanisms between these (probably triggered by the economy). It is u likely to happen any time soon. However, it can happen through responsible business, sustainable business, etc. just it is not communicated in that way. But it could be done. Hi @laszlo , like you I am trying not to get sucked into this one. But I do find it enlightening/fascinating that two of the current discussions on the board relate to the definitions of terms/labels that emanate from the c19 - socialism and nationalism / nation state.
Both are similar in that within them they can harbour a multitude of ideological sins and differences and to varying degrees exist/influence across the 'political spectrum , but in their 'purest' forms are diametrically opposed one being universal and inclusive (once class boundaries have been dissolved) the other inherently exclusive in nature.
Both often get confused, distorted and mingled with other notions particularly in relation to the state. For instance socialism is often confused with statism, and many struggle to accept ‘liberal’ versions of nationalism. However, it is important to note that one is primarily related to political economy and the other more so to identity.
However, the extent to which one adopts the terms as a self-descriptor I do believe that owes much more to self-identification rather than the adoption of specific policy positions. Attlee considered himself a socialist as did most of his cabinet, but many would argue that their policies fell well short of socialism. |
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Feb 7, 2022 8:34:38 GMT
All this discussion about the different kinds of nation / nation state / territory / country and so forth makes me wonder:
Who gets to decide when a piece of land is part of a particular country?
For example, there is the legal fiction that an embassy is a small enclave of its staff's country, within another country. Historically, vast tracts of land have been bought and sold to become part of other countries (like the Louisiana Purchase).
With some of the largest corporations having revenue larger than the GDP of some nations, what is to stop Microsoft or Meta or Weibo deciding to buy plots of land, and then declaring them to be "Part of the federation of Meta-land"?
All the "Ah, but that can't happen" is, I would contest, bunkum. Since it is magically ok for a country, why is it not ok for a corporation?
(Kim Stanley Robinson in his Mars trilogy touched upon the role of the transnational corporations, who actually ran things, leaving outmoded concepts such as countries to be mostly ceremonial)
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on Feb 7, 2022 8:38:19 GMT
pjw1961 I really wouldn't bother trying to engage regarding your and my shared world views with some of our resident nationalists. They just don't get it and some seem to take it as a personal affront that we don't wish to be defined by our nationality rather than our shared humanity. Part of the problem is trying to define 'nationality' you end up going down endless rabbit holes. It felt like we'd been transported back to 1848 last night. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Feb 7, 2022 8:44:05 GMT
pjw1961 I really wouldn't bother trying to engage regarding your and my shared world views with some of our resident nationalists. They just don't get it and some seem to take it as a personal affront that we don't wish to be defined by our nationality rather than our shared humanity. Part of the problem is trying to define 'nationality' you end up going down endless rabbit holes. It felt like we'd been transported back to 1848 last night. Reminds me of my 1963 GCE 'O' level course European History 1848 to 1914. It still resonates nearly 60 years on. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Feb 7, 2022 8:47:52 GMT
Part of the problem is trying to define 'nationality' you end up going down endless rabbit holes. It felt like we'd been transported back to 1848 last night. Reminds me of my 1963 GCE 'O' level course European History 1848 to 1914. It still resonates nearly 60 years on. I did that in 1970 only ours was 1848 to 1939 if I recall correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Feb 7, 2022 8:50:56 GMT
All this discussion about the different kinds of nation / nation state / territory / country and so forth makes me wonder: Who gets to decide when a piece of land is part of a particular country? For example, there is the legal fiction that an embassy is a small enclave of its staff's country, within another country. Historically, vast tracts of land have been bought and sold to become part of other countries (like the Louisiana Purchase). With some of the largest corporations having revenue larger than the GDP of some nations, what is to stop Microsoft or Meta or Weibo deciding to buy plots of land, and then declaring them to be "Part of the federation of Meta-land"? All the "Ah, but that can't happen" is, I would contest, bunkum. Since it is magically ok for a country, why is it not ok for a corporation? (Kim Stanley Robinson in his Mars trilogy touched upon the role of the transnational corporations, who actually ran things, leaving outmoded concepts such as countries to be mostly ceremonial) Yep but if there was a murder in the federation of Meta-Land what legal entity would preside over the trial? Corporations no matter how large are still subject to the law of the state and attempts to introduce structures from within will always be legally challenged; This is one of the reasons for breaking up multi nationals of course I acknowledge some states twist their laws, (e.g tax havens) to favour huge corporations....that's why whistle blowing is important! |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Feb 7, 2022 8:51:51 GMT
Reminds me of my 1963 GCE 'O' level course European History 1848 to 1914. It still resonates nearly 60 years on. I did that in 1970 only ours was 1848 to 1939 if I recall correctly. Ours chickened out just before WW1 but included the events building up to it, but 1848 was a really pivotal year. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Feb 7, 2022 8:56:19 GMT
moby I agree it's entirely possible for those in authority to be honest. There are however, occasions where people may need to be less than transparent in the public interest, or at least the public interest as they perceive it. Yes of course but a defence of Johnson using this argument is a total false equivalence as you say. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,686
|
Post by steve on Feb 7, 2022 9:00:11 GMT
moby Your comment about court evidence made me think about what people might consider a lie. Police officers in common with other " professional " witnesses routinely record evidence when it's fresh in their minds, the reason being many similar incidents are likely to have occurred before having to potentially give evidence. Unless the circumstances were particularly unusual you are unlikely to remember in detail months later when required to recount. I had an incident where I had assisted an officer off duty to arrest four young men of Chinese appearance for assault. It transpired they were related and genuinely appeared physically similar. I explained at the time to the arresting officer the importance of recording their appearance and clothing in detail. 9 months later we were called to their trial at crown court, I explained again to the junior officer the importance of his original evidence and also briefed the prosecution barrister and advised him not to ask for us to identify individuals. On entering the court the four defendants had dressed identically and had all had the same hair cuts,I frankly hadn't a clue which one was which. Our numb nuts barristers first question to me was " can you identify me x to the court" the answer was of course no , but I could of 9 months ago, which is what I just told you before giving evidence. Apparently he'd asked the same question to my junior colleague who had promptly with great confidence pointed at the wrong defendant and said "that's him" . Now was this a lie, technically possibly but was it done with intent or was it simply inexperience and a daft prick of a prosecuting barrister? Thinks are rarely entirely black and white.
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on Feb 7, 2022 9:12:42 GMT
moby Your comment about court evidence made me think about what people might consider a lie. Police officers in common with other " professional " witnesses routinely record evidence when it's fresh in their minds, the reason being many similar incidents are likely to have occurred before having to potentially give evidence. Unless the circumstances were par  ticularly unusual you are unlikely to remember in detail months later when required to recount. I had an incident where I had assisted an officer off duty to arrest four young men of Chinese appearance for assault. It transpired they were related and genuinely appeared physically similar. I explained at the time to the arresting officer the importance of recording their appearance and clothing in detail. 9 months later we were called to their trial at crown court, I explained again to the junior officer the importance of his original evidence and also briefed the prosecution barrister and advised him not to ask for us to identify individuals. On entering the court the four defendants had dressed identically and had all had the same hair cuts,I frankly hadn't a clue which one was which. Our numb nuts barristers first question to me was " can you identify me x to the court" the answer was of course no , but I could of 9 months ago, which is what I just told you before giving evidence. Apparently he'd asked the same question to my junior colleague who had promptly with great confidence pointed at the wrong defendant and said "that's him" . Now was this a lie, technically possibly but was it done with intent or was it simply inexperience and a daft prick of a prosecuting barrister? Thinks are rarely entirely black and white. Love that story. I used to encounter many similar situations...Highbury Corner MC, the old Clerkenwell MC, Tower Bridge MC, Wood Green CC, Southwark CC, Snaresbrook CC...we used check out which Judge we were appearing before because then you'd get a pretty good idea how sympathetic they'd be towards whatever agency you worked for. Parole panels are the most intense though.....on one just before I retired I was cross examined for 8 hours. Everything became really difficult after the Worboys case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2022 9:21:25 GMT
All this discussion about the different kinds of nation / nation state / territory / country and so forth makes me wonder: Who gets to decide when a piece of land is part of a particular country? For example, there is the legal fiction that an embassy is a small enclave of its staff's country, within another country. Historically, vast tracts of land have been bought and sold to become part of other countries (like the Louisiana Purchase). With some of the largest corporations having revenue larger than the GDP of some nations, what is to stop Microsoft or Meta or Weibo deciding to buy plots of land, and then declaring them to be "Part of the federation of Meta-land"? All the "Ah, but that can't happen" is, I would contest, bunkum. Since it is magically ok for a country, why is it not ok for a corporation? (Kim Stanley Robinson in his Mars trilogy touched upon the role of the transnational corporations, who actually ran things, leaving outmoded concepts such as countries to be mostly ceremonial) Yep but if there was a murder in the federation of Meta-Land what legal entity would preside over the trial? Corporations no matter how large are still subject to the law of the state and attempts to introduce structures from within will always be legally challenged; This is one of the reasons for breaking up multi nationals of course I acknowledge some states twist their laws, (e.g tax havens) to favour huge corporations....that's why whistle blowing is important! Oddly, Nevada offers "county rights" to tech companies if they move there (from California mainly), with their own elections and elected representatives. It went through last year. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Feb 7, 2022 9:43:37 GMT
Changing the subject completely, it's been a fabulous weekend watching the birds in and around our bird feeders. On the ground we've had a pheasant, blackbirds, chaffinches and sparrows (various), plus a pair of robins. On the hanging feeders a whole herd of goldfinches (7 the highest count), a nuthatch, several greenfinch, a brambling, starlings, loads of blue tits, coal tits and a lesser redpoll.
|
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Feb 7, 2022 9:49:00 GMT
Reminds me of my 1963 GCE 'O' level course European History 1848 to 1914. It still resonates nearly 60 years on. I did that in 1970 only ours was 1848 to 1939 if I recall correctly. I avoided history like the plague (it was all dates when I was studying it) but thought about a modern history option when I was in the 6th form. But at my school, Modern History stopped at 1918 |
|
|
|
Post by caroline on Feb 7, 2022 9:50:32 GMT
I agree that being anti-fascist doesn't make one left wing but to consider someone right of centre as a socialist is a bit bazar. Many people in the Lib. Dems consider themselves LOC but might puke at being called a socialist. The Lib Dems you mention are likely to accept the Daily Mail's (the newspaper that supported Hitler) definition of "socialist" rather than any of the various and diverse definitions that are used by academics. And to clarify, naturally I don't think all right of centre people are socialist (in fact it appears to be a dwindling minority of the whole as more and more reject the Enlightenment and the post-war consensus). But find it bizarre if you will, what do I care? Hi Jen I doubt if the Lib. Dems would accept the Daily Mail's definition of anything. Anyone left of Mussolini is a socialist in DM speak. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2022 10:06:18 GMT
Reflecting on recent discussions here and trying to come back to polling:- This YG survey indicates that the personal antipathy towards political opponents seen on these pages is far from unusual in western countries-Left being more inclined to dislike Right than the other way around. But when issues are considered, the differences fade:- www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/voters-in-west-divided-more-by-identity-than-issues-survey-findsOn identity and nationality, Pew have polled in US, Germany, France & UK. The criteria for "belonging" are topped by ability to speak the dominant language-more so in G/F than UK/US. Political orientation , and age dictates the degree to which perceptions of national identity are important. though national identity is becoming more inclusive in all four countries:- www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/05/05/1-national-identity/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2022 10:14:30 GMT
mercian leftieliberal and pjw1961 - "I'd quibble with your dates." Could be wrong here, but I think this is the first "quibble!" on UKPR2. Better call @crofty for and adjudication? Bearing in mind tht it's a waxing new moon, it could be a tight judgement. Quibble and Carp (my brilliant board game) is still available at most relevant dealers but can be obtained from me, directly, for ten quid, incl. p & p. |
|
ticularly unusual you are unlikely to remember in detail months later when required to recount.