Interesting, although Cummings' views are a bit naive (hoping that Brexit will be an impetus for radically reforming the British state). Obviously not a psychologist.
Looks like nothing more than a heading, not a statement of fact. Obviously without seeing the rest it's a bit hard to judge. I assume the DM were spinning it as a good thing though, im'grunts leaving allowing for a utopia of unicorns, better paid and more jobs? Disclaimer - I've not clicked the DM link, I don't really want to touch it with 10ft barge pole for fear of catching Suvwrentea Fever. Edit: Guardian version here.
I suspect that it is a statement to the press. The DM seems to focus on the "gaffe" by Jeremy Hunt rather than comment on the contents. But the comments section seems to think that once the 'immigrunts' have gone home, NHS hospitals and health centres will be spacious oases of restored calm and plenty, where doctors and nurses float unhurried through suddenly near-vacant wards and corridors in diaphanous white gowns, lavishing their now abundant loving care on the few British patients that occasionally grace these institutions with their scarce presence. Other interesting tidbits in the notes: 10,700 (9%) of NHS doctors are EU immigrants; 62,000 (19%) of NHS nurses are EU immigrants. ****, even I didn't know it was that many!
All I know, If i carried a work press release or a contract, folded, and not in a file, I'd get done for breaching confidentiality and data protection. He's been a civil servant for long enough its has to be done on purpose.
Naah, I'm with Mankz on this one --it was done on purpose. He is applying pressure on government. And he is not going to be sacked for it --nobody wants to take on the poisoned chalice that is Health.
Good to read the whole thing and not the partisan views of a newspaper, thanks. It's probably not a good idea for me to derail the thread so I've moved my reply to the Brexit thread.
Don't worry, we'll easily replace the evil darkies in the NHS with locals, oh wait no, we won't: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...st-crisis-haemorrhaging-doctors-a7679166.html https://www.theguardian.com/educati...lications-slump-after-nhs-bursaries-abolished
I'm sure I've seen something like this somewhere before... Oh yes, that's right, it was in an episode of The Thick of It. "Quiet bat-people" (EDIT: Season 4 Episode 2): Life imitating art... or something like that...
The whole way Malcolm Tucker's career ends is due to a leak enquiry because he purposefully displayed information out of a folder that also had a man's NHS no. on it. That series was simply art imitating life, it's gone on for years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...d-file-jeremy-corbyn-amid-concerns-ira-links/ A conspiracy involving talking about one person's actions? I am saying he was on the side of an IRA victory until that became impossible, like most IRA people and associates they stopped being persons of interest after the GFA. The facts are clear in him supporting one side in political support and in terms of supporting their causes, that he even shared a platform with a terrorist wanted on extradition to the UK. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/labour-party-knew-corbyn-made-leader-now-country-knows/# You wont believe he is what he clearly is no matter what, there'll always be some excuse. Framing things in terms of oppressed and oppressor and the calls to reverse something fixed in history to people who are dead is marxian (or nearly so). This is not justice, traditional justice says that as a natural born citizen (or acquired in many cases) you get a say in where your nation goes. It has nothing to do with timescales, if the scots, for example, say they want to go guess what they go and if the republicans want unification then convince people of it. But don't go telling me that stripping the majority of people of their say in self determination and determining the future of their nation by a minority on the basis of perceived oppression and possible ancestral dispossession is justice, it isn't.
Self determination of areas that EU have competences over. There are some practical problems that can solve, it is also a matter of principles and values not always raw pragmatism. We are still leaving so this is yet to be resolved. Regardless in taking any role in self determination means taking control over things which means there are opportunities to fail as well as to succeed, the point is a choice to do so. But it still doesn't point to disaster or lack of necessity ( if we only did the necessary roles of the state we'd have a much smaller one BTW and little utility for such an organisation as the EU) Don't really care what he has to say, you never do until it makes you feel good. She doesn't have the power in her own party to get involved like she wanted to. Being prepared not to accept any ridiculous suggestion I have no issue with, that is necessary in this process. Lord bridges is an Eu advocate and junior ministers aren't all that important. Negotiation objectives: End ECJ jurisdiction over UK matters, Leave single market, customs union, soft a border as possible with NI, reasonable settlement of financial obligations, possible transition arrangements to a FTA deal. Economic impact assessment pointless, it will never reflect reality anyway. Read on WTO and it should be fairly easy to use the current EU schedule and amend the quotas to reflect our size without too much negotiation then start negotiating the removal of tariffs on the schedule that don't do anything for the UK (i.e. most of them). We already have a national agency for every european agency there is[1]. One of the prime mechanisms of the EU's working is to create regulations and laws that nations themselves have to enact while someone oversees them, an eu agency, thereby exporting the majority of the costs of EU legislation onto national governments. We have customs control for the trade we have with the rest of the world at 47% of imports and around 55% of exports. Immigration rules will have to be decided when we know what arrangement we have with the EU but assuming the end of free movement it will have to be whatever we have with with everyone else until of course we democratically decide to change it. 50+ FTA option 1 grandfathering is possible and I think it is likely we'd want to renegotiate anyway. The many documents... doesn't sound bureaucratic at all. I've read them. All framed in "despite brexit*" because they run counter to the whole Armageddon scenario. *if you want the bad news in the UK search Brexit, if you want the good news search despite brexit No the retention of "rights" of UK and EU citizens is free movement by the back door and there is no reason for the UK offer not to be accepted. How isn't it? And there is no remains to be seen, it aint going to happen. Firstly it is not paranoid, it should be a genuine concern for any voter and would be if you simply didn't like his politics. You do realise it is not really a benefit of the doubt sot of job, that of being PM of the UK, it's not like the Americans who can actually stop the president from doing much. He is hard left, he is a marxist, he hasn't seen an anti western/anti british/ anti Israel group he doesn't like, he has more dangerous people in mcdonnel and milne around him. He has made clear his stances on many things that he has never changed and I have stated that those things are dangerous and why, that isn't paranoia. If you want paranoia you should check out some of the things you think about politicians you simply don't like with less evidence. He will ruin the economy. Every policy is much worse than current policies, such that they are. and that is while he has to be moderate, wait until he gets the candidates that are favourable to him. [1] UK regulatory bodies we already have them: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/medicines-and-healthcare-products-regulatory-agency http://www.hse.gov.uk/strategy/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgo7-hPXw1AIV7r3tCh1x-w6kEAAYASAAEgJO1fD_BwE https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office https://www.food.gov.uk/ https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/health-protection-agency https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Guide-to-aviation/Aviation-safety/ https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/maritime-and-coastguard-agency https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/marine-fisheries-agency http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/default.aspx https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-border-agency Part of me hopes he gets in with a huge majority of hard left MPs just so it can be seen what he'd be like. I find the tone of this conversation rather ridiculous and near contemptible. I'm not arguing conspiracies but raising concerns over his past causes, motivations, alliances and his ideology. Again it is not a benefit of the doubt job, there's more here than there is on trump-russia. And just on policy alone he could be argued out of ever being PM, politically this is the better option because his policies are terrible and commemorating murderers (and the litany of other crap, seriously a dissertation length peice could be written for it*) is just spun as peace making. *it seems there is so much crap that would take out anyone else that it is like Mr burns being so ill it keeps him alive. If it works for trump, it's no surprise it works for corbyn
Maybe you need to read that article yourself as once you remove the biased reporting and misleading claims the only thing their source said is that the polices special demonstration squad, not MI5 as you claim, opened files to “assess whether the person was a threat" and that they'd open a file if "someone who sympathises with a certain group, or is friends with a specific person". Also considering it's against parliamentary rules, and possibly illegal, to surveil members of parliament I'd say it raises question about why the police conducted surveillance operations against a member of parliment who was carrying out his work Is it any wonder all these claims are being treated as smears when an entire article like the one you posted is constructed around a couple of lines that not only don't come from the source yourself and other claims but are also filled to the brim with other biased reporting and misleading claims, the Torygraph needs a lesson in investigative journalism but you also need to check the facts in an article if you're going to use it as supposed evidence. No, you're acting like a conspiracy theorist because you're taking what partisan newspapers say as gospel without doing even the most basic fact checking. I have no problem talking about a persons actions but if you're going to continue making claims even after being told those claims are wrong then at least do people the favor of checking your supposed facts as i hate to break it to you but newspapers in the UK are highly partisan and nearly always try to mislead people. Again you're conflating the paramilitary cause with the political cause and you're either being mislead yourself our trying to mislead others, i know it maybe difficult to understand but in politics you often find yourself talking to some rather unsavory people, just like John Major did when he started the peace process. Not at all, i believe in the facts and not the partisan views of articles written by other people, i don't let other people tell me what to think, i make my own mind up and like I've said to you on many occasions none of these claims by the right wing press stand up to even the most basic fact checking and logical thinking process. Perhaps if you want a serious discussion on the subject you should try making a specific claim instead of constantly posting links and quotes from articles where other people have told you what to think, as a suggestion how about we start with what you quoted that "in 1987 when Corbyn paid tribute to eight IRA gunmen who were shot dead in an SAS ambush" or you can pick any specific claim you like the choice is yours. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Has it occurred to you that some people know this and voted for him because of this? These are political positions, not slurs.
Why do you think he is some kind of anti capitalist monster? Is it because he lives in an area over 50% of the countries population could not even enter without arousing suspicion from the police due to looking too poor? Or is it because he holds speeches for rich brats at Glastonbury who could afford tickets that cost hundreds instead of buying dinner for the actual poor and exploited workers at the very same event? Judge him by his actions, not his words and if you do that you'll find he is far less against the establishment than he pretends to be. Oh please, it was just a harmless joke with the conspiracy crap, but if you want to be all serious about it fine, he is a politician and what he says in public doesn't necessarily match what he said behind closed doors, did he tell the IRA to blow people up or to stop blowing people up? MI5 has obviously concluded the latter and I'll trust their judgement long before I trust the public word of a politician.
Which is fine really. Fixing the establishment is going to be faster and easier (and a lot less messy) then tear-down-and-build-anew.
The thing is i can't find anything concrete that says MI5 did have a file on him, from what i can tell the articles Disequilibria is posting links to are rehashes of reports from 2 years ago about a whistleblower who used to work for the Met's special demonstration squad, and based on the article he linked to in the Torygraph they say the following... In other words it's unclear if the files SDS kept were shared with MI5 or if MI5 had their own or any files related to protest groups.
What does this self-determination allow the UK to do that is so necessary, and that it couldn't do in the EU? Germany seems to cope. What principles and values matter so much to risk economic uncertainty? And shouldn't that have been resolved before the UK decided to leave? It had 20 years to think about it. That is a wish list, not a plan for a post-Brexit Britain. So Brexit is just done on a fanciful assumption that the UK will somehow be better off? Okay... and then you think Corbyn is irresponsible with the economy. Nope. - You can't just use EU schedules and amend the quotas. You'll have to draw them up from scratch. - Removing tariffs will do wonders for UK agriculture and industry... oh, wait, Minford said something about acceptable losses. - Those national agencies are about to become a lot more expensive to run as they have to take functions back. The UK was offloading cost to the EU. And for practical purposes they still have to be in lockstep with the EU ones. - Those customs controls are going to get a lot busier and need more resources. - So the point of Brexit was immigration control, but you don't yet know what immigration you will be able to control, or how? - Forget about grandfathering those FTAs. The UK won't have the same value to its trading partners outside the EU. Expect some serious renegotiation indeed... but not the way you think. Brexit on a whim and a wish list. Doesn't sound half-assed at all.
