Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
on the basis that...That's got to be illegal.
on the basis that...That's got to be illegal.
on the basis that...
but you don't actually know what they voted on. the relevant section of the government motion which was defeated:Parliament voted against allowing British troops to join the attack on Syria.
i would expect the government to argue that the involvement of seconded british personnel is not 'direct british involvement' and therefore ok. but i am still confused why you believe it to be illegal, given that to be illegal a law must be broken. i do not know of any law which has been broken, so although this may have been against the will of parliament as expressed two years ago, i am not yet persuaded it is illegal.Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and, whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;
Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and notes that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and
Notes that this Resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.
but you don't actually know what they voted on.
why not read my post you dull cunt?I just said what they voted on. What's wrong with you?
why not read my post you dull cunt?
you seem quite willing to score pathetic points on all manner of threads so i don't know how you determine this one to be different. but i would be grateful if you could answer the question instead of prevaricating.Because you edited after I replied, as you know. This isn't really the thread to be trying to score such pathetic points on.
i would be grateful if you could answer the question instead of prevaricating.
what is the basis for your claim it is illegal: what law has been broken?What's your question?
I am not so sure. Intra EU migrants are an issue for the EU debate certainly but while in the EU there is nothing we can do about that except perhaps limit their ability to immediately claim benefits.If the government do a U-turn then it will be a huge boon for the campaign to leave the EU and for right of the Conservatives parties. Having been told repeatedly 'there is no money left', and TINA on austerity many people have actually come to believe it. If you add very publicly providing additional funding for refugees that is going to make a lot of those people very, very angry.
parliament voted against direct british involvement in an attack on syria. i expect the government to argue the use of the odd seconded pilot is indirect involvement. but i ask again, what law would have been broken?Parliament voted against allowing British troops to join the attack on Syria.
what is the basis for your claim it is illegal
This is the main part of the motionI just said what they voted on. What's wrong with you?
parliament voted against direct british involvement in an attack on syria. i expect the government to argue the use of the odd seconded pilot is indirect involvement.
Migrants from outside the EU, from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea etc are a slightly different issue and speak to the UK's level of compassion for those in desperate situations. At the moment we are doing nothing except bombing, Germany has played a generous hand taking so many and now it is up to the rest of the EU members to decide what they think is a fair response to that, an EU judgement notwithstanding. So far Cameron is not being generous but after his statements on immigration he may be in a cul de sac.
This is the main part of the motion
That this House:
Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;
Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;
if i smack you then i can be charged under a range of statutes. which statute are you arguing was broken? i agree that it is against the will of parliament, i think it is deplorable, but i do not see how you can say 'it is illegal' unless you can point to a statute which has been broken, and which provides a remedy for its flouting. what law is it against? who would be charged and haled before a court for this? what sentence would a court hand out? it's all very well to witter 'it's illegal' but i don't see you pointing to what actual crime has been committed.It's military action taken in defiance of Parliament. As I just said.
I doubt if you specifically said refugees people would agree, which is why they are lumping them under the term migrants.Opinion polls pretty consistently show that British people believe that we take in too many refugees, that may be changing fast but somehow I doubt it and I suspect that this volte face by the media which has done so much to inject toxicity into attitudes toward refugees will be very temporary.
yes, i entirely agree. but you've adduced no evidence it is in fact a crime. the way the motion was worded, and the reason i quoted it, was - i think - designed so this sort of indirect involvement wouldn't ever be brought to parliament anyway and therefore hasn't been voted down. if raf planes bombed damascus, that would be direct involvement. if one member of a plane's crew is british, and they have been seconded to the usaf, i suspect as i've said the government would say that's indirect, it's not something the mod in fact ordered.And that motion was defeated. Therefore, Parliament voted that the situation in Syria did not require a British military response. Now it appears that the government has initiated such a response anyway. The British people should be outraged over this flagrant violation of their democratically expressed will.
if i smack you then i can be charged under a range of statutes. which statute are you arguing was broken? i agree that it is against the will of parliament, i think it is deplorable, but i do not see how you can say 'it is illegal' unless you can point to a statute which has been broken, and which provides a remedy for its flouting. what law is it against? who would be charged and haled before a court for this? what sentence would a court hand out? it's all very well to witter 'it's illegal' but i don't see you pointing to what actual crime has been committed.
i am not nit-picking - to say something is illegal is to say (in the uk) it is against criminal law. all i have said is a) what law are you saying it's against?; b) i don't think the government believe what has happened is against the will of parliament, as they would argue (though i would not) that this is indirect involvement, and c) going against the will of parliament is not, to the best of my knowledge, a crime when no actual law appears to have been broken. it's all very well you insisting it's illegal: but that's not worth the pixels it's written in.Oh piss off you ludicrous pedant. Your government is bombing people in open violation of the people's will. Your nit-picking response to this situation is utterly pathetic.
it's all very well you insisting it's illegal: but that's not worth the pixels it's written in.
the thing is that iraq was very definitely against international law - waging aggressive war a war crime since nuremberg. dwyer basing his claim of illegality on going against the will of parliament, which i am not aware to be an actual crime.Yes, like Iraq or the Kosovo war or.. ad infinitum
i am not nit-picking - to say something is illegal is to say (in the uk) it is against criminal law. all i have said is a) what law are you saying it's against?; b) i don't think the government believe what has happened is against the will of parliament, as they would argue (though i would not) that this is indirect involvement, and c) going against the will of parliament is not, to the best of my knowledge, a crime when no actual law appears to have been broken. it's all very well you insisting it's illegal: but that's not worth the pixels it's written in.
slowly drifting away, facedown and motionless, from the pier.Idiot.
Anyway, this is getting away from the topic of refugees and should probably be in the Syria thread. But let's hope we see Cameron in the dock alongside Blair one of these days.
After the distressing images from yesterday I've set up a standing order with moas.eu. They're an NGO operating a rescue boat in the med and have to date rescued 3,000 people at sea.
how strange. and unwelcome.I nearly did some stuff with them a year or so ago, but I was put off by the quite strong religious tone (Catholic) and the confused position where anyone they helped at sea they then reported to the authorities.
how strange. and unwelcome.