Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

Started by Josquius, February 20, 2016, 07:46:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

How would you vote on Britain remaining in the EU?

British- Remain
12 (12%)
British - Leave
7 (7%)
Other European - Remain
21 (21%)
Other European - Leave
6 (6%)
ROTW - Remain
34 (34%)
ROTW - Leave
20 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 98

Jacob

Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 03:27:26 PMI hate any hint of fascism creeping into our country. Yes, that is certainly true. 

I'd certainly take a Liberal government over Fascism.

I'd also take a Conservative government over Fascism, if it was the Liberals who were careening into the arms of Fascists.

Though, historically, the rise of Fascists and right wing dictators appear to have been enabled by conservatives and national conservatives in most of the examples I'm familiar with.

Barrister

Quote from: Jacob on Today at 05:30:11 PMThough, historically, the rise of Fascists and right wing dictators appear to have been enabled by conservatives and national conservatives in most of the examples I'm familiar with.

That's pretty much a matter of definition though isn't it?

There's no shortage of left-wing authoritarians and dictators around the world and throughout history, from Chavez, Castro, Mugabe, Mao, Stalin and the like.  They may often share a number of characteristics with ring-wing dictators and authoritarians (so-called "horseshoe theory".)

But because they're from the left they would get called socialists or communists, and never fascists.

I've long ago given up on the "but the Nazis were really left-wingers - their name was even National Socialists".  It carries too much of an element of "no true Scotsmen"-type analysis, and ignores the historical fact that Mussolini and Hitler were broadly creatures of the political right (even though Mussolini's early days were as a socialist).

But don't make the mistake of thinking that makes the political left nothing but virtuous and pure.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Sheilbh

Quote from: garbon on Today at 05:26:17 PMI think it sounds like the Met was playing fast and loose with Operation Assure/Onyx. Rowley was trying to clean up the force however he could without the government giving him proper powers to do so. I think he's whining now to try to jar them into action.

It feels to me like they did a messy job of trying to line him up for departure. I started reading part of the judgment and it looks like there were numerous mistakes/errors in the process - including in the facts relied on for removing his vetting.  Repeatedly the allegations that were made against him were not substantiated and/or dropped by CPS and he was actually even promoted during the period in question.

Now where there is smoke, there is probably fire, but feels like the Met botched it and the government has botched it by not yet updating the regulations on what the Met can do.
Interesting - thanks. I think you could be right this is Rowley trying to force the government's hand given that repeated Home Secretaries have backed what he's been trying to do with this (as has Sadiq) since 2022. But apparently none of them have actually changed the law so the police chiefs have that power - and I remember posting about Rowley complaining about his hands being tied a couple of years ago so I suspect he probably just tried to go ahead knowing it was possibly arguable at court in order to force the government to actually do something.

From my read I'm not so convinced on people - or the CPS - dropping cases given the really bad statistics on that here. I think less than 5% of rape reports to police end in someone being prosecuted, the conviction rate is even worse. It does feel like there's a pattern of concerns when you've got two women alleging rape, others indecent exposure, domestic abuse, inappropriate touching making women feel unsafe and complaints from the public. As you say if nothing else, definitely a "where there's smoke" situation.

I'm less convinced by the judgement particularly the "anomalous" situation she finds that there is a legal requirement for police officers to hold vetting clearance but withdrawal of vetting clearance is not lawful grounds for dismissal of a police officer. Also I think the obiter dicta that the way a police force could dismiss someone for failing to disclose something material for their vetting clearance is by withdrawing it and dismissing them (as withdrawing of vetting amounts to gross misconduct) makes sense to me - and I'm not convinced she's right on that. And I broadly agree with the College of Policing argument that vetting is an administrative/management procedure rather than a hearing that engages Article 6 rights to a fair trial. I'm more convinced by the third ground.

I suppose underpinning this is that I think the fact of allegations or complaints by members of the public and other police officers is a relevant factor in whether someone should be considered vetted as appropriate to have the trust and legal powers of a police officer. I don't think they necessarily have to go all the way of either the officer accepting the allegations/complaints, or formal proceedings making findings.
Let's bomb Russia!

garbon

My other thought is that if you are going to dismiss someone because you think they are a danger to others, pursue that route. Don't go admin procedure to remove vetting and then oh we can declare you fit for dismissal by reason of gross incompetence as we won't let you access necessary systems without vetting. Oh and you've no right to any hearing on this until up for dismissal hearing. And nothing you can really do at that hearing as vetting decision is set in stone by then.

Feels all bureaucracy stacking the deck against you in a very unfair manner.

But this might be connected to need for more powers given to Met?
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Jacob

Quote from: Barrister on Today at 05:37:18 PMThat's pretty much a matter of definition though isn't it?

There's no shortage of left-wing authoritarians and dictators around the world and throughout history, from Chavez, Castro, Mugabe, Mao, Stalin and the like.  They may often share a number of characteristics with ring-wing dictators and authoritarians (so-called "horseshoe theory".)

But because they're from the left they would get called socialists or communists, and never fascists.

I've long ago given up on the "but the Nazis were really left-wingers - their name was even National Socialists".  It carries too much of an element of "no true Scotsmen"-type analysis, and ignores the historical fact that Mussolini and Hitler were broadly creatures of the political right (even though Mussolini's early days were as a socialist).

But don't make the mistake of thinking that makes the political left nothing but virtuous and pure.

You are right, that when left wing dictators come in their path may be eased by non-dictatorially inclined leftists who support them "for the revolution" or "for the working class" and so on.

But we are not facing the threat of a leftist dictatorship. We're facing the threat of Fascism. As such, I think it would behoove conservatives who value democracy and freedom to examine their positions and ensure they're not chasing a few extra points in the democratic contest by facilitating a Fascist takeover.