Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Good Brexit news for France – Britain’s blue passports will be

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 21 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Good Brexit news for France – Britain’s blue passports will be made there not in the UK

Breaking – those "iconic" new British blue passports? The French will be making them. UK firm De La Rue loses contract to Paris security giant Gemalto;https://t.co/dvGyhsOfOY

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    Sacre bleu.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 191
    To be fair they probably thought De La Rue must be french as well given the name.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,435
    the De denotes nobility anyway (IIRC)
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,806
    “De la Rue” is a U.K. firm? Were they trying to blend in? ;)
  • After the betraying the fishermen this is clearly a Vichy Government.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,864
    De La Rue?

    Sounds a little "French" to me :lol:
  • Scott_P said:
    Well the government/EU procurement rules won't allow it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860

    De La Rue?

    Sounds a little "French" to me :lol:

    They should rebrand with a British name like Lily Savage.
  • De La Rue?

    Sounds a little "French" to me :lol:

    From the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,864

    De La Rue?

    Sounds a little "French" to me :lol:

    From the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
    They should have chosen a more British-sounding name, and besides, Guernsey isn't part of the UK.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,938

    Scott_P said:
    Well the government/EU procurement rules won't allow it.
    Yes, those EU procurement rules that are definitely adhered to fairly in all member states...
  • De La Rue?

    Sounds a little "French" to me :lol:

    From the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
    They should have chosen a more British-sounding name, and besides, Guernsey isn't part of the UK.
    Yup, they should have gone for Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

    Can't get more British than that.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    edited March 21
    Zuckerberg statement....

    https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104712037900071

    Cliff notes - this academic was naughty and didn’t play nice...the company didn’t play nice..in the future we will ask app developers more questions to ensure they are nice with your data..

    One total horseshit thing in the statement is saying that app developers will lose access if they are inactive or misbehave, but by that stage they could have still harvests it all and copied it. There is nothing Facebook can do about that if they continue to provide user data to third parties.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,607
    edited March 21
    Scott_P said:
    If I were in the stock market business right now, I would be shorting Boeing and buying Airbus. I foresee a number of Boeing orders from Chinese airlines being cancelled in the next few weeks.

    (It might also be worth looking at Rolls Royce, who will be a beneficiary of any move away from GE in the engines business.)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,194
    edited March 21
    To discusss this issue seriously there is a trade off between:

    1) Getting the lowest price and best contract

    2) The overall financial effect to the government

    3) Doing the best for the economy

    I've no idea about the financial details in the manufacture of passports but what should be taken into account is where the income and corporation taxes resulting from the contract are paid and secondly the more general effect of whereabouts the employment and company income will be spent.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,864

    De La Rue?

    Sounds a little "French" to me :lol:

    From the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
    They should have chosen a more British-sounding name, and besides, Guernsey isn't part of the UK.
    Yup, they should have gone for Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

    Can't get more British than that.
    That's why they changed it to "Windsor" in 1917, silly!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425
    FPT
    DavidL said:

    When I was driving to Edinburgh this morning Facebook was being debated on R5. An 18 year old pretty much said “I can use the platform of Facebook for whatever I like and they can use the data I put on it for whatever they like. That’s the deal and why it’s free.”

    She and pretty much everyone else under about 35 seemed totally unconcerned.

    There's a lot of implied trust in that equation, which is where Facebook will come unstuck. Facebook using our personal data "for whatever they like" nevertheless has to be acceptable to us, even if the whatever is undefined and we have no control over it. Facebook has legal obligations to look after that data, as well as being trusted by its users to do so.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675

    De La Rue?

    Sounds a little "French" to me :lol:

    From the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
    They should have chosen a more British-sounding name, and besides, Guernsey isn't part of the UK.
    Yup, they should have gone for Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

    Can't get more British than that.
    That's why they changed it to "Windsor" in 1917, silly!
    I think TSE probably knew that Sunil :wink:
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,194
    So why does one tweet mention 'Paris security giant Gemalto' and another say 'Dutch company' ?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 660
    FPT

    @oxfordsimon

    It is the laziness of it that gets me!

    You read the article, I read the article, it took barely 2 minutes to click through and read!

    Whilst they shouldn't take too long about it, it is better that they do it right. This isn't as serious as a criminal trial but the consequences are still pretty serious to they should have all the facts and allow the defendant a chance to present their case as well.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,607

    So why does one tweet mention 'Paris security giant Gemalto' and another say 'Dutch company' ?

    I think the company is technically Dutch (it's an NV), but the vast bulk of operations are in France. (It's largely the former Gemplus).
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675
    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    If I were in the stock market business right now, I would be shorting Boeing and buying Airbus. I foresee a number of Boeing orders from Chinese airlines being cancelled in the next few weeks.

    (It might also be worth looking at Rolls Royce, who will be a beneficiary of any move away from GE in the engines business.)
    I would love to see Trump explaining away that kind of move from the Chinese.
  • So why does one tweet mention 'Paris security giant Gemalto' and another say 'Dutch company' ?

    It's a Franco-Netherland company, listed in both Paris and Amsterdam
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    edited March 21
    Amusing, but anyone who gets genuinely mad about such a thing would be a right wally.

    Though frankly a whole lot about the passports made people look like wallys. From those who cared so much about the colour anyway, to those who leapt on the claims it would cost huge amounts to change the colour to blue (mistaking the contract cost that would be up anyway for the switching colour cost). Even more than most things Brexit it seems to make people lose their heads.
    Scott_P said:
    Back pain treatment is useless is a much bigger story. I need to start sitting with better posture.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,864

    De La Rue?

    Sounds a little "French" to me :lol:

    From the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
    They should have chosen a more British-sounding name, and besides, Guernsey isn't part of the UK.
    Yup, they should have gone for Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

    Can't get more British than that.
    That's why they changed it to "Windsor" in 1917, silly!
    I think TSE probably knew that Sunil :wink:
    Probably not I fancy ;)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,607

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    If I were in the stock market business right now, I would be shorting Boeing and buying Airbus. I foresee a number of Boeing orders from Chinese airlines being cancelled in the next few weeks.

    (It might also be worth looking at Rolls Royce, who will be a beneficiary of any move away from GE in the engines business.)
    I would love to see Trump explaining away that kind of move from the Chinese.
    They'll do it very quietly, because they don't want Trump to "lose face". Essentially, they want the CEOs of big American exporters complaining to Trump about the business they're losing.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,194

    So why does one tweet mention 'Paris security giant Gemalto' and another say 'Dutch company' ?

    It's a Franco-Netherland company, listed in both Paris and Amsterdam
    Thanks.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425
    On the French British passports thing.... Mrs May did promise a red white and blue Brexit

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,864
    With apologies to Suggs and Madness:

    "Chez-nous
    Dans le milieu de la rue"
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545

    FPT

    @oxfordsimon

    It is the laziness of it that gets me!

    You read the article, I read the article, it took barely 2 minutes to click through and read!

    Whilst they shouldn't take too long about it, it is better that they do it right. This isn't as serious as a criminal trial but the consequences are still pretty serious to they should have all the facts and allow the defendant a chance to present their case as well.

    Hopkins had the whip removed on 2nd November. It was referred up to the NCC in January. There is no sense that the hearings are imminent - given that the process has still yet to be fully explained to the relevant parties.

    There are two complainants and one accused. Whilst they need to do it right, they also need to act in a timely fashion. And it certainly seems as if they are failing to do this.

    All political parties should have a clear process with an ideal outline time scale. I fail to see how letting this enter the 6th month is acceptable for either side. Really complex cases with multiple complainants or complicated evidence chains might require more time - but that doesn't seem to be the case with Hopkins. There is enough evidence already in the public domain that needs to be answered.

    Labour also should not be handling this using an internally elected body like the NCC. It should be handled by outside experts. Otherwise the process will always be tainted.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,806
    Why in heavens name can't May get rid of Boris?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    edited March 21
    A quick roll back from the severity of her initial threat, I notice
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,012

    Scott_P said:
    Well the government/EU procurement rules won't allow it.
    They will in future if we are outside the single market. Can't the current procurement contract using red passports just be extended for a couple of years a bit in the meantime to avoid the need to retender? I would rather have a British produced red passport anyday to a French produced blue one.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,194
    rcs1000 said:
    I imagine a few lawyers are reading that story with interest.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    edited March 21
    alex. said:

    Why in heavens name can't May get rid of Boris?

    Because he would never go quietly, and even if he were only to be able to take a few more MPs or voters with him (in the sense of making them her opponents), it would be too much for given her parliamentary position already.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,194

    FPT

    @oxfordsimon

    It is the laziness of it that gets me!

    You read the article, I read the article, it took barely 2 minutes to click through and read!

    Whilst they shouldn't take too long about it, it is better that they do it right. This isn't as serious as a criminal trial but the consequences are still pretty serious to they should have all the facts and allow the defendant a chance to present their case as well.

    Hopkins had the whip removed on 2nd November. It was referred up to the NCC in January. There is no sense that the hearings are imminent - given that the process has still yet to be fully explained to the relevant parties.

    There are two complainants and one accused. Whilst they need to do it right, they also need to act in a timely fashion. And it certainly seems as if they are failing to do this.

    All political parties should have a clear process with an ideal outline time scale. I fail to see how letting this enter the 6th month is acceptable for either side. Really complex cases with multiple complainants or complicated evidence chains might require more time - but that doesn't seem to be the case with Hopkins. There is enough evidence already in the public domain that needs to be answered.

    Labour also should not be handling this using an internally elected body like the NCC. It should be handled by outside experts. Otherwise the process will always be tainted.
    Do we know if plod has shown any interest in the Bex Bailey Labour rape accusation ?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,864
    FF43 said:

    On the French British passports thing.... Mrs May did promise a red white and blue Brexit

    Dutch?
    Luxembourg?
    Russian?
    US?
    Thai?
    Croatian?
    Serb?
    Czech?
    Slovak?
    Slovene?
    Paraguayan?
    Norwegian?
    Icelandic?
  • Scott_P said:
    Well the government/EU procurement rules won't allow it.
    They will in future if we are outside the single market. Can't the current procurement contract using red passports just be extended for a couple of years a bit in the meantime to avoid the need to retender? I would rather have a British produced red passport anyday to a French produced blue one.

    The inference is obvious.

    We're going to be closely aligned to the single market and the rules therein post Brexit.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,806
    kle4 said:

    alex. said:

    Why in heavens name can't May get rid of Boris?

    Because he would never go quietly, and even if he were only to be able to take a few more MPs or voters with him (in the sense of making them her opponents), it would be too much for given her parliamentary position already.
    Well I know that's the conventionally accepted prevailing opinion, but still...
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,806
    edited March 21

    Scott_P said:
    Well the government/EU procurement rules won't allow it.
    They will in future if we are outside the single market. Can't the current procurement contract using red passports just be extended for a couple of years a bit in the meantime to avoid the need to retender? I would rather have a British produced red passport anyday to a French produced blue one.

    The inference is obvious.

    We're going to be closely aligned to the single market and the rules therein post Brexit.
    Aren't most of the EU procurement rules something that the UK Govt are responsible for (strongly advocating)? Why would they relax them significantly post Brexit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    alex. said:

    kle4 said:

    alex. said:

    Why in heavens name can't May get rid of Boris?

    Because he would never go quietly, and even if he were only to be able to take a few more MPs or voters with him (in the sense of making them her opponents), it would be too much for given her parliamentary position already.
    Well I know that's the conventionally accepted prevailing opinion, but still...
    Oh, she probably should have done it awhile ago and called his bluff, but missed opportunities I suppose.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,607

    Scott_P said:
    Well the government/EU procurement rules won't allow it.
    They will in future if we are outside the single market. Can't the current procurement contract using red passports just be extended for a couple of years a bit in the meantime to avoid the need to retender? I would rather have a British produced red passport anyday to a French produced blue one.

    The FTAs we sign will almost all include public procurement rules, so it's not clear that we will be able to discriminate much post Brexit.

    But in any case, the government should be seeking the best value for money, not the local solution. Using public procurement as a tool of economic development tends to end up with enormously wasteful projects.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,284
    edited March 21
    alex. said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well the government/EU procurement rules won't allow it.
    They will in future if we are outside the single market. Can't the current procurement contract using red passports just be extended for a couple of years a bit in the meantime to avoid the need to retender? I would rather have a British produced red passport anyday to a French produced blue one.

    The inference is obvious.

    We're going to be closely aligned to the single market and the rules therein post Brexit.
    Aren't most of the EU procurement rules something that the UK Govt are responsible for (strongly advocating)? Why would they relax them significantly post Brexit.
    Yup.

    As for relaxing them, there's some Brexiteers who think those rules mean we can't perform economic nationalism.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,907

    So why does one tweet mention 'Paris security giant Gemalto' and another say 'Dutch company' ?

    The same reason Unilever is about to become Dutch.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 309
    kle4 said:

    alex. said:

    Why in heavens name can't May get rid of Boris?

    Because he would never go quietly, and even if he were only to be able to take a few more MPs or voters with him (in the sense of making them her opponents), it would be too much for given her parliamentary position already.
    I dont sense that Boris has the support of significant swathes of MPs, I suspect he would be disappointed if there were to be a vote, there has been little in his tenure as Foreign secretary that he has impressed many in the UK, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee has proved a better fit for the role.....for me BJ's stock is dwindling
  • Awb683Awb683 Posts: 21
    As long as we get them who cares where they are made.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545
    Awb683 said:

    As long as we get them who cares where they are made.

    Precisely

    And if they are cheaper, wouldn't it be great to take a few quid off the cost of the passport - a Brexit Bonus!!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,670

    kle4 said:

    alex. said:

    Why in heavens name can't May get rid of Boris?

    Because he would never go quietly, and even if he were only to be able to take a few more MPs or voters with him (in the sense of making them her opponents), it would be too much for given her parliamentary position already.
    I dont sense that Boris has the support of significant swathes of MPs, I suspect he would be disappointed if there were to be a vote, there has been little in his tenure as Foreign secretary that he has impressed many in the UK, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee has proved a better fit for the role.....for me BJ's stock is dwindling
    As someone else said in here, he's the world's highest paid children's entertainer.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 660

    FPT

    @oxfordsimon

    It is the laziness of it that gets me!

    You read the article, I read the article, it took barely 2 minutes to click through and read!

    Whilst they shouldn't take too long about it, it is better that they do it right. This isn't as serious as a criminal trial but the consequences are still pretty serious to they should have all the facts and allow the defendant a chance to present their case as well.

    Hopkins had the whip removed on 2nd November. It was referred up to the NCC in January. There is no sense that the hearings are imminent - given that the process has still yet to be fully explained to the relevant parties.

    There are two complainants and one accused. Whilst they need to do it right, they also need to act in a timely fashion. And it certainly seems as if they are failing to do this.

    All political parties should have a clear process with an ideal outline time scale. I fail to see how letting this enter the 6th month is acceptable for either side. Really complex cases with multiple complainants or complicated evidence chains might require more time - but that doesn't seem to be the case with Hopkins. There is enough evidence already in the public domain that needs to be answered.

    Labour also should not be handling this using an internally elected body like the NCC. It should be handled by outside experts. Otherwise the process will always be tainted.
    6 months is too long, my guess is from the sounds of it they either didn't have the procedures in place, or with all the events over the last year or so they decided they need to be replaced. I guess similarly with the Conservatives. My assumption wouldn't be that either is going out their way to do things badly but trying to do things right.

    Often court cases can take a long time to start, obviously this isn't as serious but it is still pretty serious. What I am trying to get it is better they do it properly and take longer than they should than try and rush it through and either not give the defendant a real chance or not take the accusations seriously enough.

    I'm sure plenty of people would be rightly annoyed if Labour had rushed the thing found Hopkins innocent and the victims hadn't had their justice if he was guilty. It would probably generate a lot less negative headline but if Hopkins is innocent, something we shouldn't discount as at least a possibility, and we rushed the thing and kicked him out then that too would be a grave injustice.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    Awb683 said:

    As long as we get them who cares where they are made.

    Well, quite. And god forbid, it might turn out all sorts of iconic things are actually already made overseas or by contractors based overseas, we don't want to start a slippery slope there!

    Night all.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    alex. said:

    Why in heavens name can't May get rid of Boris?

    Because he would never go quietly, and even if he were only to be able to take a few more MPs or voters with him (in the sense of making them her opponents), it would be too much for given her parliamentary position already.
    I dont sense that Boris has the support of significant swathes of MPs, I suspect he would be disappointed if there were to be a vote, there has been little in his tenure as Foreign secretary that he has impressed many in the UK, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee has proved a better fit for the role.....for me BJ's stock is dwindling
    As someone else said in here, he's the world's highest paid children's entertainer.
    As good a joke as that is, I am sure there are probably plenty of children's entertainers in the world who do get paid more than him.

    I have no sense of how many MPs are behind him, but it would only take a handful, plus he can no doubt cause quite the ruckus by himself.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545

    FPT

    @oxfordsimon

    It is the laziness of it that gets me!

    You read the article, I read the article, it took barely 2 minutes to click through and read!

    Whilst they shouldn't take too long about it, it is better that they do it right. This isn't as serious as a criminal trial but the consequences are still pretty serious to they should have all the facts and allow the defendant a chance to present their case as well.

    Hopkins had the whip removed on 2nd November. It was referred up to the NCC in January.

    There are two complainants and one accused. Whilst they need to do it right, they also need to act in a timely fashion. And it certainly seems as if they are failing to do this.

    All political parties should have a clear process with an ideal outline time scale. I fail to see how letting this enter the 6th month is acceptable for either side. Really complex cases with multiple complainants or complicated evidence chains might require more time - but that doesn't seem to be the case with Hopkins. There is enough evidence already in the public domain that needs to be answered.

    Labour also should not be handling this using an internally elected body like the NCC. It should be handled by outside experts. Otherwise the process will always be tainted.
    6 months is too long, my guess is from the sounds of it they either didn't have the procedures in place, or with all the events over the last year or so they decided they need to be replaced. I guess similarly with the Conservatives. My assumption wouldn't be that either is going out their way to do things badly but trying to do things right.

    Often court cases can take a long time to start, obviously this isn't as serious but it is still pretty serious. What I am trying to get it is better they do it properly and take longer than they should than try and rush it through and either not give the defendant a real chance or not take the accusations seriously enough.

    I'm sure plenty of people would be rightly annoyed if Labour had rushed the thing found Hopkins innocent and the victims hadn't had their justice if he was guilty. It would probably generate a lot less negative headline but if Hopkins is innocent, something we shouldn't discount as at least a possibility, and we rushed the thing and kicked him out then that too would be a grave injustice.
    It is interesting to note that Labour in their communications have described it as 'prosecuting' Hopkins - which is very strong language.

    But the pace just fits into the pattern of tardiness surrounding the Labour hierarchy on these sensitive matters. It doesn't make for a good look.

    And the least said about the way Vaz has manipulated the parliamentary investigation into his behaviour, the better. Again, not a good look.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179

    FPT

    @oxfordsimon

    It is the laziness of it that gets me!

    You read the article, I read the article, it took barely 2 minutes to click through and read!

    Whilst they shouldn't take too long about it, it is better that they do it right. This isn't as serious as a criminal trial but the consequences are still pretty serious to they should have all the facts and allow the defendant a chance to present their case as well.

    Hopkins had the whip removed on 2nd November. It was referred up to the NCC in January. There is no sense that the hearings are imminent - given that the process has still yet to be fully explained to the relevant parties.

    There are two complainants and one accused. Whilst they need to do it right, they also need to act in a timely fashion. And it certainly seems as if they are failing to do this.

    All political parties should have a clear process with an ideal outline time scale. I fail to see how letting this enter the 6th month is acceptable for either side. Really complex cases with multiple complainants or complicated evidence chains might require more time - but that doesn't seem to be the case with Hopkins. There is enough evidence already in the public domain that needs to be answered.

    Labour also should not be handling this using an internally elected body like the NCC. It should be handled by outside experts. Otherwise the process will always be tainted.
    6 months is too long, my guess is from the sounds of it they either didn't have the procedures in place, or with all the events over the last year or so they decided they need to be replaced. I guess similarly with the Conservatives. My assumption wouldn't be that either is going out their way to do things badly but trying to do things right.

    Often court cases can take a long time to start, obviously this isn't as serious but it is still pretty serious. What I am trying to get it is better they do it properly and take longer than they should than try and rush it through and either not give the defendant a real chance or not take the accusations seriously enough.

    I'm sure plenty of people would be rightly annoyed if Labour had rushed the thing found Hopkins innocent and the victims hadn't had their justice if he was guilty. It would probably generate a lot less negative headline but if Hopkins is innocent, something we shouldn't discount as at least a possibility, and we rushed the thing and kicked him out then that too would be a grave injustice.
    Labour should not be involved - this should go before an independent assessor

    And I say the same must apply to all parties
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,804

    FPT

    @oxfordsimon

    It is the laziness of it that gets me!

    You read the article, I read the article, it took barely 2 minutes to click through and read!

    Whilst they shouldn't take too long about it, it is better that they do it right. This isn't as serious as a criminal trial but the consequences are still pretty serious to they should have all the facts and allow the defendant a chance to present their case as well.

    Hopkins had the whip removed on 2nd November. It was referred up to the NCC in January. There is no sense that the hearings are imminent - given that the process has still yet to be fully explained to the relevant parties.

    There are two complainants and one accused. Whilst they need to do it right, they also need to act in a timely fashion. And it certainly seems as if they are failing to do this.

    All political parties should have a clear process with an ideal outline time scale. I fail to see how letting this enter the 6th month is acceptable for either side. Really complex cases with multiple complainants or complicated evidence chains might require more time - but that doesn't seem to be the case with Hopkins. There is enough evidence already in the public domain that needs to be answered.

    Labour also should not be handling this using an internally elected body like the NCC. It should be handled by outside experts. Otherwise the process will always be tainted.
    6 months is too long, my guess is from the sounds of it they either didn't have the procedures in place, or with all the events over the last year or so they decided they need to be replaced. I guess similarly with the Conservatives. My assumption wouldn't be that either is going out their way to do things badly but trying to do things right.

    Often court cases can take a long time to start, obviously this isn't as serious but it is still pretty serious. What I am trying to get it is better they do it properly and take longer than they should than try and rush it through and either not give the defendant a real chance or not take the accusations seriously enough.

    I'm sure plenty of people would be rightly annoyed if Labour had rushed the thing found Hopkins innocent and the victims hadn't had their justice if he was guilty. It would probably generate a lot less negative headline but if Hopkins is innocent, something we shouldn't discount as at least a possibility, and we rushed the thing and kicked him out then that too would be a grave injustice.
    Labour should not be involved - this should go before an independent assessor

    And I say the same must apply to all parties
    +1.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 660
    @kle4

    Well Trump comes to mind...

    FPT

    Hopkins had the whip removed on 2nd November. It was referred up to the NCC in January. There is no sense that the hearings are imminent - given that the process has still yet to be fully explained to the relevant parties.

    There are two complainants and one accused. Whilst they need to do it right, they also need to act in a timely fashion. And it certainly seems as if they are failing to do this.

    All political parties should have a clear process with an ideal outline time scale. I fail to see how letting this enter the 6th month is acceptable for either side. Really complex cases with multiple complainants or complicated evidence chains might require more time - but that doesn't seem to be the case with Hopkins. There is enough evidence already in the public domain that needs to be answered.

    Labour also should not be handling this using an internally elected body like the NCC. It should be handled by outside experts. Otherwise the process will always be tainted.
    6 months is too long, my guess is from the sounds of it they either didn't have the procedures in place, or with all the events over the last year or so they decided they need to be replaced. I guess similarly with the Conservatives. My assumption wouldn't be that either is going out their way to do things badly but trying to do things right.

    Often court cases can take a long time to start, obviously this isn't as serious but it is still pretty serious. What I am trying to get it is better they do it properly and take longer than they should than try and rush it through and either not give the defendant a real chance or not take the accusations seriously enough.

    I'm sure plenty of people would be rightly annoyed if Labour had rushed the thing found Hopkins innocent and the victims hadn't had their justice if he was guilty. It would probably generate a lot less negative headline but if Hopkins is innocent, something we shouldn't discount as at least a possibility, and we rushed the thing and kicked him out then that too would be a grave injustice.
    Labour should not be involved - this should go before an independent assessor

    And I say the same must apply to all parties
    That would be my preference. Could have something similar to the Westminster setup Theresa May was talking about but for the wider party structures as well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    Floater said:
    If we had a tough on crime, pro stop and search, '3 strikes and you're out' Tory Mayor like Rudy Giuliani was in NYC something might be done about it!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,607
    That's properly bonkers, that is.

    Children ask childish questions, shocker.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545
    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:
    If we had a tough on crime, pro stop and search, '3 strikes and you're out' Tory Mayor like Rudy Giuliani was in NYC something might be done about it!
    But that would be racist....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465
    Remoaners getting upset that we will still be trading with the Franco-Dutch after Brexit?
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 309
    Coming back to the Blue/Black passports...I always wondered if it had been unveiled say at the start of June 2016 by the REMAIN campaign that UK had won the right to go back to blue passports (not true but a lot of claims were made) whether that would have made any difference to the the vote....? I dont know....
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 309
    rcs1000 said:

    That's properly bonkers, that is.

    Children ask childish questions, shocker.
    I think the Welsh UKIP membership would come out with some corkers, let alone 9 year olds....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:
    If we had a tough on crime, pro stop and search, '3 strikes and you're out' Tory Mayor like Rudy Giuliani was in NYC something might be done about it!
    But that would be racist....
    Well the US criminal justice system is famously so, with working class black americans getting long sentences for possession while white middle class kids getting rehab.

    Of all the Criminal Justice systems in the democratic world to choose from, the USA is possibly the worst for outcomes and also most expensive. Notably also not very good at deterring crime either.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860

    Coming back to the Blue/Black passports...I always wondered if it had been unveiled say at the start of June 2016 by the REMAIN campaign that UK had won the right to go back to blue passports (not true but a lot of claims were made) whether that would have made any difference to the the vote....? I dont know....

    It would have been hard to counter as it would have forced Brexiteers to claim we always had the right to change the colour of our passports.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:
    If we had a tough on crime, pro stop and search, '3 strikes and you're out' Tory Mayor like Rudy Giuliani was in NYC something might be done about it!
    But that would be racist....
    Well the US criminal justice system is famously so, with working class black americans getting long sentences for possession while white middle class kids getting rehab.

    Of all the Criminal Justice systems in the democratic world to choose from, the USA is possibly the worst for outcomes and also most expensive. Notably also not very good at deterring crime either.
    But how do you tackle a major source of black on black violence - which all too often involves knives - without some form of focus on the likely perpetrators?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    edited March 22
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:
    If we had a tough on crime, pro stop and search, '3 strikes and you're out' Tory Mayor like Rudy Giuliani was in NYC something might be done about it!
    But that would be racist....
    Well the US criminal justice system is famously so, with working class black americans getting long sentences for possession while white middle class kids getting rehab.

    Of all the Criminal Justice systems in the democratic world to choose from, the USA is possibly the worst for outcomes and also most expensive. Notably also not very good at deterring crime either.
    Since Giuliani became Mayor the murder rate in NYC has plummeted from 2000 a year in 1990 to 335 a year. London with a similar population of 8 million is now a more dangerous city than NYC with 6 times more burglaries and 3 times more rapes and a murder rate difference which has narrowed dramatically
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/london-now-dangerous-new-york-crime-stats-suggest/.

    In the 1970s and 1980s by contrast NYC was undoubtedly the crime capital of the western world.

    Not all rich white kids get off either
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/prominent-attorney-son-convicted-raping-student-slept-article-1.3795156
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:
    If we had a tough on crime, pro stop and search, '3 strikes and you're out' Tory Mayor like Rudy Giuliani was in NYC something might be done about it!
    But that would be racist....
    Well the US criminal justice system is famously so, with working class black americans getting long sentences for possession while white middle class kids getting rehab.

    Of all the Criminal Justice systems in the democratic world to choose from, the USA is possibly the worst for outcomes and also most expensive. Notably also not very good at deterring crime either.
    But how do you tackle a major source of black on black violence - which all too often involves knives - without some form of focus on the likely perpetrators?
    As Mrs May has pointed out, Black defendents get longer sentances than white ones. It is not my party saying this, it is the government, and one with a PM who spent 6 years at the Home Office.

    If you want to be tough on crime, you need to be tough on the causes of crime, as someone nearly said.

  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:
    If we had a tough on crime, pro stop and search, '3 strikes and you're out' Tory Mayor like Rudy Giuliani was in NYC something might be done about it!
    But that would be racist....
    Well the US criminal justice system is famously so, with working class black americans getting long sentences for possession while white middle class kids getting rehab.

    Of all the Criminal Justice systems in the democratic world to choose from, the USA is possibly the worst for outcomes and also most expensive. Notably also not very good at deterring crime either.
    it's a difficult gig though
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 678
    Brexit.

    You have to laugh.

    We will look back in years to come...

    A bunch of eloquent xenophobes convinced a wafer-think majority of the country to vote for it while the mother of all rainstorms was falling on London, and they won – just!

    No-one had the first fucking idea what they wanted from it. The prime minister was clueless, and resigned. Theresa May arrived and hated on Europe, before granting its every wish.

    David Davis began as a testosterone-fuelled eurosceptic, ended as the junior partner in a bromance with Michael Barnier. The French made a crust on making blue passports, while no-one laid a single brick building customs controls.

    Did anyone really think it was worth it?

    We laughed. We cried. Them were the days.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    edited March 22
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:
    If we had a tough on crime, pro stop and search, '3 strikes and you're out' Tory Mayor like Rudy Giuliani was in NYC something might be done about it!
    But that would be racist....
    Well the US criminal justice system is famously so, with working class black americans getting long sentences for possession while white middle class kids getting rehab.

    Of all the Criminal Justice systems in the democratic world to choose from, the USA is possibly the worst for outcomes and also most expensive. Notably also not very good at deterring crime either.
    But how do you tackle a major source of black on black violence - which all too often involves knives - without some form of focus on the likely perpetrators?
    As Mrs May has pointed out, Black defendents get longer sentances than white ones. It is not my party saying this, it is the government, and one with a PM who spent 6 years at the Home Office.

    If you want to be tough on crime, you need to be tough on the causes of crime, as someone nearly said.

    46% of knife crimes in London are committed by black men (black males make up just 12% of the London male population), yes we need to ensure all offenders are dealt with but the evidence suggests it is the black male community in the capital where the problem is greatest
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7856404/Police-statistics-shed-fresh-light-on-link-between-crime-and-race.html
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:
    If we had a tough on crime, pro stop and search, '3 strikes and you're out' Tory Mayor like Rudy Giuliani was in NYC something might be done about it!
    But that would be racist....
    Well the US criminal justice system is famously so, with working class black americans getting long sentences for possession while white middle class kids getting rehab.

    Of all the Criminal Justice systems in the democratic world to choose from, the USA is possibly the worst for outcomes and also most expensive. Notably also not very good at deterring crime either.
    But how do you tackle a major source of black on black violence - which all too often involves knives - without some form of focus on the likely perpetrators?
    As Mrs May has pointed out, Black defendents get longer sentances than white ones. It is not my party saying this, it is the government, and one with a PM who spent 6 years at the Home Office.

    If you want to be tough on crime, you need to be tough on the causes of crime, as someone nearly said.

    You are not responding to the point I am making.

    There is a serious level of knife crime - particularly within the black community. The only way to tackle that is to focus on the perpetrators. To do that - even with the best of intentions - can easily be painted as a racist decision. Even though it is aimed at reducing the number of black victims.

    In the case of London knife crime, you need to be tough on those who carry knives.

    There are no easy answers within the criminal justice system. But the police should be free to target perpetrators of violence no matter their colour. What happens after that is a subject for another discussion.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    Anazina said:

    Brexit.

    You have to laugh.

    We will look back in years to come...

    A bunch of eloquent xenophobes convinced a wafer-think majority of the country to vote for it while the mother of all rainstorms was falling on London, and they won – just!

    No-one had the first fucking idea what they wanted from it. The prime minister was clueless, and resigned. Theresa May arrived and hated on Europe, before granting its every wish.

    David Davis began as a testosterone-fuelled eurosceptic, ended as the junior partner in a bromance with Michael Barnier. The French made a crust on making blue passports, while no-one laid a single brick building customs controls.

    Did anyone really think it was worth it?

    We laughed. We cried. Them were the days.

    We ended free movement though after the transition and restored the sovereignty of Parliament
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    What we aren’t talking about nz vs England in the cricket...it like we have had 4 solid months of cricket from down under already.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited March 22
    I wish I could watch the cricket like people were able to do until the early 1990s. Nice to hear Aggers back on TMS though.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545
    Anazina said:

    Brexit.

    A bunch of eloquent xenophobes convinced a wafer-think majority of the country to vote for it while the mother of all rainstorms was falling on London, and they won – just!

    1.26 million votes isn't wafer thin. And trying to pretend otherwise is just deluding yourself.

    London still delivered a 70% turnout - are you trying to claim that Leave managed to arrange a storm to keep Remain voters at home?

    I don't get why some people fixate on the size of the majority. It was beyond dispute a win for Leave. That result having been delivered, it was incumbent on our political class to deliver on that.

    Rather than going over events of 2 years ago, the focus should be the future. We don't have any other choice.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    AndyJS said:

    I wish I could watch the cricket like people were able to do until the early 1990s. Nice to hear Aggers back on TMS though.

    I don't think when BBC had the rights to cricket they showed overseas tests live. I seemed to remember it was only when Sky got the rights that it became the norm.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    Well this is going well....
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited March 22

    AndyJS said:

    I wish I could watch the cricket like people were able to do until the early 1990s. Nice to hear Aggers back on TMS though.

    I don't think when BBC had the rights to cricket they showed overseas tests live. I seemed to remember it was only when Sky got the rights that it became the norm.
    They did occasionally show live action. See Michael Buerk's comment at 21 mins 12 secs on this video:

  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 357
    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    Brexit.

    You have to laugh.

    We will look back in years to come...

    A bunch of eloquent xenophobes convinced a wafer-think majority of the country to vote for it while the mother of all rainstorms was falling on London, and they won – just!

    No-one had the first fucking idea what they wanted from it. The prime minister was clueless, and resigned. Theresa May arrived and hated on Europe, before granting its every wish.

    David Davis began as a testosterone-fuelled eurosceptic, ended as the junior partner in a bromance with Michael Barnier. The French made a crust on making blue passports, while no-one laid a single brick building customs controls.

    Did anyone really think it was worth it?

    We laughed. We cried. Them were the days.

    We ended free movement though after the transition and restored the sovereignty of Parliament
    HYUFD

    You keep saying (endlessly) that free movement will be ended after Brexit (now the transition). Seriously? May has conceded on every red line she has set so far. We will end up conceding something that is slightly different from FM but essentially much the same - the key point is that it will be negotiated away as part of a trade deal so that the UK will NOT be able to change the rules again without the trade deal unravelling. So basically we will regain control only to hand it over again with no realistic possibility that it can be changed in the future - what chances any Government trying to renegotiate the Brexit deal in the future? Just the same is going to happen to fishing after the transition.

    You need to prepare yourself for disappointment.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    Two day test anybody?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited March 22
    England on course for their lowest ever score in 141 years of test cricket if they carry on like this.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,524
    England 18-6!

    Odds are interesting:

    NZ 1.37
    Eng 6.8
    Draw 7.4
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,607
    @archer101au:

    Tell me, when you're down the pub with your friends, do you continually tell them how how evil the EU are?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited March 22
    What on earth is going on with England in Auckland? Maybe they're just exhausted after a long tour. 23 for 7.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    They won't be needing the floodlights much at this rate...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    MikeL said:

    England 18-6!

    Odds are interesting:

    NZ 1.37
    Eng 6.8
    Draw 7.4

    Free money on New Zealand in my opinion. I can't see them losing from here, unless the weather forecast is bad.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    Another one bites the dust. 23 for 8.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,607
    AndyJS said:

    England on course for their lowest ever score in 141 years of test cricket if they carry on like this.

    The lowest England score in test cricket was 45 against Australia in 1886.

    We won that match.

    Just saying.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    I thought England were bad against Australia, but....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,607

    Anazina said:

    Brexit.

    A bunch of eloquent xenophobes convinced a wafer-think majority of the country to vote for it while the mother of all rainstorms was falling on London, and they won – just!

    1.26 million votes isn't wafer thin. And trying to pretend otherwise is just deluding yourself.

    London still delivered a 70% turnout - are you trying to claim that Leave managed to arrange a storm to keep Remain voters at home?

    I don't get why some people fixate on the size of the majority. It was beyond dispute a win for Leave. That result having been delivered, it was incumbent on our political class to deliver on that.

    Rather than going over events of 2 years ago, the focus should be the future. We don't have any other choice.
    +1.

    It's important to remember that Leave got almost 10% more votes than Remain. That's millions of votes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,607
    Jimmy Anderson highest scorer in the innings?
This discussion has been closed.