Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

Will Alec Baldwin go to jail for the manslaughter of that lady on the filmset under American law or is it considered an industrial accident?

Doesnt seem like he's in trouble just yet. How do you kill someone with a prop gun that fires blanks?

Edit: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/prop-gun-using-blanks-still-052227936.html

"As for the question of criminal responsibility, that’s for law enforcement to investigate. But it must be noted that in the vast majority of cases, the person who pulled the trigger wasn’t remotely at fault. They were handed a prop and assured it would function normally — and it didn’t."

Guns dont kill people, rappers do.

[beninho]

More examples of the government just taking the piss out of us, holding parties fir 40+ guests, with secret Santa's and Christmas quiz, while others were fined. While Hancock was getting his mate a nice contract, but in the slept way possible.

[JAS]

More examples of the government just taking the piss out of us, holding parties fir 40+ guests, with secret Santa's and Christmas quiz, while others were fined. While Hancock was getting his mate a nice contract, but in the slept way possible.  

Kind of fascinating why this hasn't came out before now. Makes you think...who has turned?...and why??

[Duty281]

Never heard such a non-story in all my life.

[beninho]

What's the non story? The government doing what they told people not to do, and it would appear, likely broke the laws, or the dodgy dealings done to get a minister mate a nice payday?

[beninho]

More examples of the government just taking the piss out of us, holding parties fir 40+ guests, with secret Santa's and Christmas quiz, while others were fined. While Hancock was getting his mate a nice contract, but in the slept way possible.  

Kind of fascinating why this hasn't came out before now. Makes you think...who has turned?...and why??

Why, is because it seems people in power, have realised Johnson is a floundering idiot.

[McLaren]

Ben

What is the story, couldn't see it on the front page of the Guardian or BBC sites?

[beninho]

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1466346751418413058?t=xZvE8nK6i2Fb8n60Oqp9KA&s=19

[beninho]

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1466053273325129734?t=MduEx2PItgT34saoixAoXw&s=19

[McLaren]

Ben

Yet another action that would probably see the end of a PM in most other time periods. Unfortunately people just don't seem to care anymore.

[JAS]

More examples of the government just taking the piss out of us, holding parties fir 40+ guests, with secret Santa's and Christmas quiz, while others were fined. While Hancock was getting his mate a nice contract, but in the slept way possible.  

Kind of fascinating why this hasn't came out before now. Makes you think...who has turned?...and why??

Why, is because it seems people in power, have realised Johnson is a floundering idiot.

Must be fairly tricky being a Tory MP at the moment. There’s clearly a dissident bunch that want to do just enough to destabilise his leadership but without losing the party public support. Tricky balancing act that they clearly think they can pull off. History kind of agrees but it is a risk.

[beninho]

What makes ne laughter, is that all tge tory issues, the sleaze etc has spiralled from the Owen Paterson issue. Where the prominent tory on this board said why shoukd he care. If they had dealt with the properly, I don't think issues woukd be raised as much as they are. Now they are upsetting back benches with the no 2nd jobs issues, while stories about Cox and Jrm come out the woodwork.

Tory problems are always sleaze related.

[beninho]

https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1466494479142113282?t=uAiKpb5ClKI6l96ou2BJjg&s=19

A good explainer of the Christmas party nonsense

[JAS]

https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1466494479142113282?t=uAiKpb5ClKI6l96ou2BJjg&s=19

A good explainer of the Christmas party nonsense

Trouble is tho, sleaze WAS a big, unacceptable and indefensible issue in the 90s and it led to Blair being swept in by a landslide. This time round the sleaze is pretty much the same but the moral compass of the electorate has skewed somewhat such that many just turn a blind eye to it because they think it doesn't personally affect them. I think there's also a bit of woe betide us voting for a change to a party who's leader apparently carries a bit of disdain for his deputy who's a bit gobby and cant be sacked as deputy. The smart electorate clearly smell a rat there and think that the country would go to rack and ruin if such a dysfunctional regime were ever handed the reins of power. Far better to stick to lying public school boys running the show, they've helped themselves so cunningly for so long so surely at some point they'll help us too. British Electorate Logic 2021

[dynamark]

JAS I think you have it with second part of your post (a bit gobby is a understatement)At least the tories have shown they can run a booze up .Funny if it was such a serious issue it didnt really surface last year ,Sounds rather like few office folk breaking out a bottle after work .I have no idea how many work in Downing st but Id guess 100 plus and that was probably the one office that did need to function throughout. If correct it doesnt look good but hardly cause for a general election Ben.

[Soul Requiem]

https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1466494479142113282?t=uAiKpb5ClKI6l96ou2BJjg&s=19

A good explainer of the Christmas party nonsense

Trouble is tho, sleaze WAS a big, unacceptable and indefensible issue in the 90s and it led to Blair being swept in by a landslide. This time round the sleaze is pretty much the same but the moral compass of the electorate has skewed somewhat such that many just turn a blind eye to it because they think it doesn't personally affect them. I think there's also a bit of woe betide us voting for a change to a party who's leader apparently carries a bit of disdain for his deputy who's a bit gobby and cant be sacked as deputy. The smart electorate clearly smell a rat there and think that the country would go to rack and ruin if such a dysfunctional regime were ever handed the reins of power. Far better to stick to lying public school boys running the show, they've helped themselves so cunningly for so long so surely at some point they'll help us too. British Electorate Logic 2021

The classic 'I know better' post. Let's be honest here JAS you don't have a clue why most people vote Tory and feel the need to come out with this rubbish to make yourself feel better. It fails to recognise that every person has their own set of principles and priorities, some people will be bothered by the recent news and others won't.

Yes I do personally consider Rayner to be a major problem for the Labour Party.

[superflyweight]

JAS I think you have it with second part of your post (a bit gobby is a understatement)At least the tories have shown they can run a booze up .Funny if it was such a serious issue it didnt really surface last year ,Sounds rather like few office folk breaking out a bottle after work .I have no idea how many work in Downing st but Id guess 100 plus and that was probably the one office that did need to function throughout. If correct it doesnt look good but hardly cause for a general election Ben.

[beninho]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

[lostinwales]

Never heard such a non-story in all my life.

It is very dependent on how you judge the pandemic and how it has been (or should be) managed. I think it is understandable if the people who didn't see their relatives that Christmas (particularly the ones who died) and the people who were fined for socialising might be more than a little upset about this.

[JuliusHMarx]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

Many people in the UK don't care about human rights, especially for non-UK citizens.

[Soul Requiem]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

It's really very easy to understand. I find Rayner to be an intolerable loud mouth whilst I find myself unperturbed by either Rees-Mogg or Raab, it's called a difference of opinion, you might grasp that idea one day.

[superflyweight]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

It's really very easy to understand. I find Rayner to be an intolerable loud mouth whilst I find myself unperturbed by either Rees-Mogg or Raab, it's called a difference of opinion, you might grasp that idea one day.

Have you never wanted to kick Raab in the balls? Not even once?

I can't believe that of anyone. I bet even his own kids occasionally daydream of giving him a swift kick in the plums.

[McLaren]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

Many people in the UK don't care about human rights, especially for non-UK citizens.

I agree, and it answers the question asked above about why people vote Tory. I am almost certain that currently the majority of the Tory vote is a backlash against the progress for social justice that occurred under the last Labour period in power, and the "threat" of further progress for marginalized groups.

Dismissing a female politician as "annoying" is just part of the shtick.

The majority of people in the UK would prefer a dysfunctional government over one that might favor progressive policies.

[Soul Requiem]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

It's really very easy to understand. I find Rayner to be an intolerable loud mouth whilst I find myself unperturbed by either Rees-Mogg or Raab, it's called a difference of opinion, you might grasp that idea one day.

Have you never wanted to kick Raab in the balls?  Not even once?  

I can't believe that of anyone.  I bet even his own kids occasionally daydream of giving him a swift kick in the plums.  

Raab isn't someone i'm too bothered by, had you however mentioned Gove then yes I would agree.

Mac

Nonsense again. It's such a feeble argument, say anything negative about anyone that isn't a white male and it's because of their sex, race or sexuality, no she's just an annoying loud mouthed chav.

[superflyweight]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

It's really very easy to understand. I find Rayner to be an intolerable loud mouth whilst I find myself unperturbed by either Rees-Mogg or Raab, it's called a difference of opinion, you might grasp that idea one day.

Have you never wanted to kick Raab in the balls?  Not even once?  

I can't believe that of anyone.  I bet even his own kids occasionally daydream of giving him a swift kick in the plums.  

Raab isn't someone i'm too bothered by, had you however mentioned Gove then yes I would agree.

Mac

Nonsense again. It's such a feeble argument, say anything negative about anyone that isn't a white male and it's because of their sex, race or sexuality, no she's just an annoying loud mouthed chav.

I think it's because Raab was a lawyer at Linklaters and he reminds me of a lot of lawyers at Magic Circle firms who see confidence as a greater virtue than knowledge.

[beninho]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

It's really very easy to understand. I find Rayner to be an intolerable loud mouth whilst I find myself unperturbed by either Rees-Mogg or Raab, it's called a difference of opinion, you might grasp that idea one day.

I get it, I just don't understand it.

[Soul Requiem]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

It's really very easy to understand. I find Rayner to be an intolerable loud mouth whilst I find myself unperturbed by either Rees-Mogg or Raab, it's called a difference of opinion, you might grasp that idea one day.

I get it, I just don't understand it.

That would be an indicator of egocentrism then, reminds me of Piaget's three mountains problem.

[beninho]

There are plenty of things I cant understand, how soneone can be racist, how soneone can be a donestic abuser, how soneone can think people crossing the channel are illegal and how people can support boris johnson.

I am quite egocentric though.

[Duty281]

There are plenty of things I cant understand, how soneone can be racist, how soneone can be a donestic abuser, how soneone can think people crossing the channel are illegal and how people can support boris johnson.

I am quite egocentric though.

All of these things aren't difficult to understand.

[dynamark]

Ben I get most of that but I have no time for yer traveller types based on personal experience I would add( is that racist). I dont really support Boris but vote for his party,crossing the channel in an inflatable is defo illegal and I have never been a domestic abuser but my ex was a very nasty piece of work in truth.
We have the govt we have and we all need to get on work hard look after our families and be happy.My life will not change if the govt does.

[beninho]

There are plenty of things I cant understand, how soneone can be racist, how soneone can be a donestic abuser, how soneone can think people crossing the channel are illegal and how people can support boris johnson.

I am quite egocentric though.

All of these things aren't difficult to understand.

I guess if the answer is, because they are an bumhole, that's pretty easy yo understand. But I really can't get my head round why someone woukd be racist or homophobic, or why someone woukd beat up their partners. I find it hard to understand, do you find it easy to understand?

[beninho]

Ben I get most of that but I have no time for yer traveller types based on personal experience I would add( is that racist). I dont really support Boris but vote for his party,crossing the channel in an inflatable is defo illegal and I have never been a domestic abuser but my ex was a very nasty piece of work in truth.
We have the govt we have and we all need to get on work hard look after our families and be happy.My life will not change if the govt does.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

[JAS]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

It's really very easy to understand. I find Rayner to be an intolerable loud mouth whilst I find myself unperturbed by either Rees-Mogg or Raab, it's called a difference of opinion, you might grasp that idea one day.

Oddly, I don’t disagree with a lot of what she says but I do see her in the same sort of frame as Abbot & Corbyn i.e.  an electoral liability. The kind of character that if the right wing media set a trap, she’d jump in with 2 feet. I’d guess Starmer must find that incredibly frustrating.

Even more oddly she’s is a lot more representative of your average Brit than The right honourable member for the 18th century JRM. The fact that your average Brit would rather vote for JRM than gobby Angela suggests that we don’t really like ourselves as a Nation when we look in the mirror.

[Soul Requiem]

If you don't understand differing points of view, how can you begin to educate the bigots and racists?

[Duty281]

Ben I get most of that but I have no time for yer traveller types based on personal experience I would add( is that racist). I dont really support Boris but vote for his party,crossing the channel in an inflatable is defo illegal and I have never been a domestic abuser but my ex was a very nasty piece of work in truth.
We have the govt we have and we all need to get on work hard look after our families and be happy.My life will not change if the govt does.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

Non-UK citizens crossing the channel in the manner described is absolutely illegal under the Immigration Act 1971.

[Duty281]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

It's really very easy to understand. I find Rayner to be an intolerable loud mouth whilst I find myself unperturbed by either Rees-Mogg or Raab, it's called a difference of opinion, you might grasp that idea one day.

Oddly, I don’t disagree with a lot of what she says but I do see her in the same sort of frame as Abbot & Corbyn i.e.  an electoral liability. The kind of character that if the right wing media set a trap, she’d jump in with 2 feet. I’d guess Starmer must find that incredibly frustrating.

Even more oddly she’s is a lot more representative of your average Brit than The right honourable member for the 18th century JRM. The fact that your average Brit would rather vote for JRM than gobby Angela suggests that we don’t really like ourselves as a Nation when we look in the mirror.

No trap is required - just a few weeks ago Rayner had a few drinks and described the Tories as a 'bunch of scum'. She is in no way representative of the average Brit.

[JAS]

Rayner seems a bit annoying but deputy leader isn't much of a position. Though I don't understand how people can be turned off labour by her, but have no issues with Rees Mogg or Raab or actually a party who want to scrap human rights legislation.

It's really very easy to understand. I find Rayner to be an intolerable loud mouth whilst I find myself unperturbed by either Rees-Mogg or Raab, it's called a difference of opinion, you might grasp that idea one day.

Oddly, I don’t disagree with a lot of what she says but I do see her in the same sort of frame as Abbot & Corbyn i.e.  an electoral liability. The kind of character that if the right wing media set a trap, she’d jump in with 2 feet. I’d guess Starmer must find that incredibly frustrating.

Even more oddly she’s is a lot more representative of your average Brit than The right honourable member for the 18th century JRM. The fact that your average Brit would rather vote for JRM than gobby Angela suggests that we don’t really like ourselves as a Nation when we look in the mirror.

No trap is required - just a few weeks ago Rayner had a few drinks and described the Tories as a 'bunch of scum'. She is in no way representative of the average Brit.

As I said she is a liability and come an election campaign I’d bet the house on her being targetted to produce a gaff and I’d bet somebody else’s house she’ll oblige.

[JuliusHMarx]

Ben I get most of that but I have no time for yer traveller types based on personal experience I would add( is that racist). I dont really support Boris but vote for his party,crossing the channel in an inflatable is defo illegal and I have never been a domestic abuser but my ex was a very nasty piece of work in truth.
We have the govt we have and we all need to get on work hard look after our families and be happy.My life will not change if the govt does.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

Non-UK citizens crossing the channel in the manner described is absolutely illegal under the Immigration Act 1971.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

[Duty281]

Ben I get most of that but I have no time for yer traveller types based on personal experience I would add( is that racist). I dont really support Boris but vote for his party,crossing the channel in an inflatable is defo illegal and I have never been a domestic abuser but my ex was a very nasty piece of work in truth.
We have the govt we have and we all need to get on work hard look after our families and be happy.My life will not change if the govt does.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

Non-UK citizens crossing the channel in the manner described is absolutely illegal under the Immigration Act 1971.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

Crossing the channel in the manner described is illegal, as per the above act. If it weren't illegal people wouldn't need to claim asylum.

[beninho]

Ben I get most of that but I have no time for yer traveller types based on personal experience I would add( is that racist). I dont really support Boris but vote for his party,crossing the channel in an inflatable is defo illegal and I have never been a domestic abuser but my ex was a very nasty piece of work in truth.
We have the govt we have and we all need to get on work hard look after our families and be happy.My life will not change if the govt does.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

Non-UK citizens crossing the channel in the manner described is absolutely illegal under the Immigration Act 1971.

But, as I'm sure you are fully aware under various caselaws, any illegal act is covered by article 31 of the refugee convention. Which is why you don't see any arrested for claiming asylum after crossing the channel.

[Duty281]

Ben I get most of that but I have no time for yer traveller types based on personal experience I would add( is that racist). I dont really support Boris but vote for his party,crossing the channel in an inflatable is defo illegal and I have never been a domestic abuser but my ex was a very nasty piece of work in truth.
We have the govt we have and we all need to get on work hard look after our families and be happy.My life will not change if the govt does.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

Non-UK citizens crossing the channel in the manner described is absolutely illegal under the Immigration Act 1971.

But, as I'm sure you are fully aware under various caselaws, any illegal act is covered by article 31 of the refugee convention. Which is why you don't see any arrested for claiming asylum after crossing the channel.  

Actually, that isn't the reason why. The refugee convention that you're referring to makes reference to people crossing directly from places where their life or freedom is threatened (i.e. not France).

I'm not arguing about the rights of asylum, however, I'm simply pointing out that the sole act of crossing the channel is illegal in the manner described. That's why if an asylum application fails such people are legally bound to be removed from the U.K.

[beninho]

Now, I'm big on each to their own snd enjoy your sexual kinks, but a ww2 mortar shell up the bum. Not sold on that.

[JuliusHMarx]

Ben I get most of that but I have no time for yer traveller types based on personal experience I would add( is that racist). I dont really support Boris but vote for his party,crossing the channel in an inflatable is defo illegal and I have never been a domestic abuser but my ex was a very nasty piece of work in truth.
We have the govt we have and we all need to get on work hard look after our families and be happy.My life will not change if the govt does.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

Non-UK citizens crossing the channel in the manner described is absolutely illegal under the Immigration Act 1971.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

Crossing the channel in the manner described is illegal, as per the above act. If it weren't illegal people wouldn't need to claim asylum.

So do you agree that crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal? (Without changing the meaning to suit your terms.)

[Galted]

Now, I'm big on each to their own snd enjoy your sexual kinks, but a ww2 mortar shell up the bum. Not sold on that.

That would be one f*cking careful w*nk.

[beninho]

I think its basically, you can be an illegal entrant, but haven't acted illegally or unlawfully and aren't in any danger of prosecution. Seems to be vagaries with the laws, but also pretty heavily covered on case law, meaning its basically fine, as long as you claim asylum.0

[Duty281]

Ben I get most of that but I have no time for yer traveller types based on personal experience I would add( is that racist). I dont really support Boris but vote for his party,crossing the channel in an inflatable is defo illegal and I have never been a domestic abuser but my ex was a very nasty piece of work in truth.
We have the govt we have and we all need to get on work hard look after our families and be happy.My life will not change if the govt does.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

Non-UK citizens crossing the channel in the manner described is absolutely illegal under the Immigration Act 1971.

Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

Crossing the channel in the manner described is illegal, as per the above act. If it weren't illegal people wouldn't need to claim asylum.

So do you agree that crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal? (Without changing the meaning to suit your terms.)

I'm not changing the meaning, the original point was 'crossing the channel in an inflatable is defo illegal' and it is, otherwise there'd be no actual need to claim asylum.

[JuliusHMarx]

OK, I'll go with this statement - Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

[Duty281]

I think its basically, you can be an illegal entrant, but haven't acted illegally or unlawfully and aren't in any danger of prosecution. Seems to be vagaries with the laws, but also pretty heavily covered on case law, meaning its basically fine, as long as you claim asylum.0

Pretty much that, yes, and if an asylum application fails that person is deported/should be deported.

[Duty281]

OK, I'll go with this statement - Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not illegal.

It's an inaccurate statement as they're two slightly different things. Crossing the channel = illegal. Claiming asylum = legal.

You're putting the two together to try and make them both seem legal. If crossing the channel were legal then there'd effectively be no borders whatsoever.

[JuliusHMarx]

According to this - https://www.levinslaw.co.uk/dinghies-in-the-channel-illegal-entrants-and-immigration-offences/ - article 31 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees applies even to those who come from France. Any illegality is "because of the UK government’s failure to align our domestic law with our obligations under Article 31 of the Convention"

In any case, the good news is that no-one will be prosecuted simply for the act of coming to the UK in a dinghy and claiming asylum. Would you agree that is good news?

[Duty281]

According to this - https://www.levinslaw.co.uk/dinghies-in-the-channel-illegal-entrants-and-immigration-offences/ - article 31 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees applies even to those who come from France. Any illegality is "because of the UK government’s failure to align our domestic law with our obligations under Article 31 of the Convention"

In any case, the good news is that no-one will be prosecuted simply for the act of coming to the UK in a dinghy and claiming asylum. Would you agree that is good news?

Yes, that's good news, as long as due process is followed. Any failed asylum seekers should be removed, as should those who try to evade the authorities.

My main concern is that by accepting many asylum applications from those who have crossed over the channel illegally and dangerously, is that it encourages further dangerous such crossings - a sort of snowball effect which leads to more deaths and misery. The U.K. should try to process applications for asylum to the U.K. offshore (Calais?) rather than making it into a survival-of-the-fittest (and richest).

[Sponsored content]