UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[Souseiseki]

First, unity. Unity is the strength of the European Union. President Juncker and I are determined to preserve the unity and the interests of EU 27. This determination is shared by all governments.

Second, being in the European Union comes with rights and benefits. Third countries can never have the same rights and benefits since they are not subject to the same obligations.

Third, negotiations will not start before notification.

Fourth, the single market and its full freedoms, its four freedoms, are indivisible. Cherry picking is not an option.

anyone willing to put odds on how many MEPs etc. literally lolled when they heard the term "red, white and blue brexit"?

[Marcurix]

First, unity. Unity is the strength of the European Union. President Juncker and I are determined to preserve the unity and the interests of EU 27. This determination is shared by all governments.

Second, being in the European Union comes with rights and benefits. Third countries can never have the same rights and benefits since they are not subject to the same obligations.

Third, negotiations will not start before notification.

Fourth, the single market and its full freedoms, its four freedoms, are indivisible. Cherry picking is not an option.

anyone willing to put odds on how many MEPs etc. literally lolled when they heard the term "red, white and blue brexit"?

I assumed it meant we were in for an arse kicking.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Excuse me?

Prove your claim. The source highlights the existence of illegal faith schools and I'm contending that we need legally state-funded state schools so that religious parents don't 'go underground' in terms of where they send their children - especially if they otherwise would have sent them to a state-funded state school.

You're saying the article I posted, which only highlights the existence of illegal faith schools and the issues associated them (such as ill-infrastructure and other dangers to children), somehow disproves this. Care to tell me how? Ideally speak in more one sentence at a time.

You made the claim. I don't need to prove anything. You claimed that unregistered schools were not a result of homeschooling, but truancy. Leaving aside that this seems highly unlikely to be true (and would be incredibly easy to solve if it were), you have provided no evidence of this. Your article does not mention attendance, but it does quote Ofsted's chief inspector (perhaps you've had enough of experts?) on homeschooling.

Call me old-fashioned, but when an expert highlights a problem and identifies something as the cause, I tend not to immediately dismiss that and blame some random other thing.

I'm not sure what you expect me to prove.

[South Park Labourite]

Prove your claim. The source highlights the existence of illegal faith schools and I'm contending that we need legally state-funded state schools so that religious parents don't 'go underground' in terms of where they send their children - especially if they otherwise would have sent them to a state-funded state school.

You're saying the article I posted, which only highlights the existence of illegal faith schools and the issues associated them (such as ill-infrastructure and other dangers to children), somehow disproves this. Care to tell me how? Ideally speak in more one sentence at a time.

You made the claim. I don't need to prove anything. You claimed that unregistered schools were not a result of homeschooling, but truancy. Leaving aside that this seems highly unlikely to be true (and would be incredibly easy to solve if it were), you have provided no evidence of this. Your article does not mention attendance, but it does quote Ofsted's chief inspector (perhaps you've had enough of experts?) on homeschooling.

Call me old-fashioned, but when an expert highlights a problem and identifies something as the cause, I tend not to immediately dismiss that and blame some random other thing.

I'm not sure what you expect me to prove.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38145058

Unlikely he says.

Of these, almost 4,000 children could not be traced by the authorities.

[Alvecia]

You made the claim. I don't need to prove anything. You claimed that unregistered schools were not a result of homeschooling, but truancy. Leaving aside that this seems highly unlikely to be true (and would be incredibly easy to solve if it were), you have provided no evidence of this. Your article does not mention attendance, but it does quote Ofsted's chief inspector (perhaps you've had enough of experts?) on homeschooling.

Call me old-fashioned, but when an expert highlights a problem and identifies something as the cause, I tend not to immediately dismiss that and blame some random other thing.

I'm not sure what you expect me to prove.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38145058

Unlikely he says.

Of these, almost 4,000 children could not be traced by the authorities.

Tbf that's an almost negligible percentage.
Obviously they should continue to improve their tracing and all that jazz, but that honestly sounds like a fucking incredibly tiny margin of error and I think they should be somewhat proud.

[South Park Labourite]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38145058

Unlikely he says.

Of these, almost 4,000 children could not be traced by the authorities.

Tbf that's an almost negligible percentage.
Obviously they should continue to improve their tracing and all that jazz, but that honestly sounds like a fucking incredibly tiny margin of error and I think they should be somewhat proud.

Statistically you can call it want you want. But in terms of livelihoods, we're talking about 4,000 children we're unsure where they are; 30,000 are still taken out the system overall for a period of indoctrination. I don't think we can really say how many would go underground if faith schools were abolished, but in 2011 there were over 20,000 state funded schools and I think I knew more than a few parents in my old Catholic primary school who were pious to the level of cuckoo that I could see breaking the law just to give their kids a religious education.

[Alvecia]

Tbf that's an almost negligible percentage.
Obviously they should continue to improve their tracing and all that jazz, but that honestly sounds like a fucking incredibly tiny margin of error and I think they should be somewhat proud.

Statistically you can call it want you want. But in terms of livelihoods, we're talking about 4,000 children we're unsure where they are; 30,000 are still taken out the system overall for a period of indoctrination. I don't think we can really say how many would go underground if faith schools were abolished, but in 2011 there were over 20,000 state funded schools and I think I knew more than a few parents in my old Catholic primary school who were pious to the level of cuckoo that I could see breaking the law just to give their kids a religious education.

The problem is you're trying to say something is bad by pointing out it's not perfect. Nothing is perfect.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

You made the claim. I don't need to prove anything. You claimed that unregistered schools were not a result of homeschooling, but truancy. Leaving aside that this seems highly unlikely to be true (and would be incredibly easy to solve if it were), you have provided no evidence of this. Your article does not mention attendance, but it does quote Ofsted's chief inspector (perhaps you've had enough of experts?) on homeschooling.

Call me old-fashioned, but when an expert highlights a problem and identifies something as the cause, I tend not to immediately dismiss that and blame some random other thing.

I'm not sure what you expect me to prove.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38145058

Unlikely he says.

Of these, almost 4,000 children could not be traced by the authorities.

She, actually.

Now was that so hard? Rather than just claiming you're right and demanding I prove you wrong, you provide your own source, and the result is a useful dialogue.

So now we have two causes of these schools. Homeschooling, and parents effectively going into hiding. The first you address by greater restrictions, the second by law enforcement. It's still a stretch to say that doing away with faith schools would result in this happening more, and I don't think for one moment that tossing out secularism is worth it (at best that's a sticking plaster; you're pandering to people who are apparently this close to going on the run with their kids).

But to get back to the point, you still haven't explained how faith schools are compatible with your desire to force immigrants to integrate. Aren't these people exactly the sort you want to deport? Why offer concessions and permit segregation, since they're clearly not adopting British values? Just send them home, right?

[South Park Labourite]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38145058

Unlikely he says.

Of these, almost 4,000 children could not be traced by the authorities.

She, actually.

Now was that so hard? Rather than just claiming you're right and demanding I prove you wrong, you provide your own source, and the result is a useful dialogue.

So now we have two causes of these schools. Homeschooling, and parents effectively going into hiding. The first you address by greater restrictions, the second by law enforcement. It's still a stretch to say that doing away with faith schools would result in this happening more, and I don't think for one moment that tossing out secularism is worth it (at best that's a sticking plaster; you're pandering to people who are apparently this close to going on the run with their kids).

But to get back to the point, you still haven't explained how faith schools are compatible with your desire to force immigrants to integrate. Aren't these people exactly the sort you want to deport? Why offer concessions and permit segregation, since they're clearly not adopting British values? Just send them home, right?

Because Islam or Judaism aren't incompatible with British society. We respect freedom of religion in this country. Christian schools are immensely diverse anyway, particularly Catholic schools which I can say are the most diverse of them since many Catholics are from backgrounds that aren't White British. Church of England schools are mixed too, with people from African backgrounds. I've met people from Jewish schools and they are perfectly integrated, so I can't really fault them there. Islamic schools I feel can offer an education that encourages integration whilst catering to the desire of parents for their children to have a religious education. As these schools are all in the state sector, they can be regulated so as to produce the desired effect; we can make them teach British values for instance.

EDIT: Embarrassingly, it might be more practical just to ban Islamic schools... but then we'd still drive people underground into the hands of extremists and we're singling out a religion basically. Better to keep them up to prevent radicalisation as a necessary anomaly.

[Hydesland]

Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims
Momentum executive member suggests it is inevitable that Jeremy Corbyn will be abandoned by some factions if he is not ‘ideologically pure enough’

edit: I may or may not support these trots for tactical reasons.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

She, actually.

Now was that so hard? Rather than just claiming you're right and demanding I prove you wrong, you provide your own source, and the result is a useful dialogue.

So now we have two causes of these schools. Homeschooling, and parents effectively going into hiding. The first you address by greater restrictions, the second by law enforcement. It's still a stretch to say that doing away with faith schools would result in this happening more, and I don't think for one moment that tossing out secularism is worth it (at best that's a sticking plaster; you're pandering to people who are apparently this close to going on the run with their kids).

But to get back to the point, you still haven't explained how faith schools are compatible with your desire to force immigrants to integrate. Aren't these people exactly the sort you want to deport? Why offer concessions and permit segregation, since they're clearly not adopting British values? Just send them home, right?

Because Islam or Judaism aren't incompatible with British society.

I never said they were. But if you're saying we need faith schools to prevent certain people sending their kids to mental underground schools, then you have to concede that those particular people are exactly the sort you were talking about deporting a few pages ago.

We respect freedom of religion in this country.

Of course. That doesn't really have anything to do with faith schools, though. You can have religious freedom without the state paying for religious groups to segregate themselves.

Christian schools are immensely diverse anyway, particularly Catholic schools which I can say are the most diverse of them since many Catholics are from backgrounds that aren't White British. Church of England schools are mixed too, with people from African backgrounds.

They'd be even more diverse if they were secular.

I've met people from Jewish schools and they are perfectly integrated, so I can't really fault them there. Islamic schools I feel can offer an education that encourages integration whilst catering to the desire of parents for their children to have a religious education.

A secular education can do that too, without the segregation. Why should the state fund a religious education for anyone?
(Of course, making secular state schools actually secular might go a long way to making non-Christians feel more comfortable sending their kids to them, but that's a separate issue.)

As these schools are all in the state sector, they can be regulated so as to produce the desired effect; we can make them teach British values for instance.

So can secular state schools. Better, even. They'll teach respect for diversity without even trying, because there'll actually be diversity right there, in the classroom and the playground. Rather than instructing students to respect the beliefs of a hypothetical Christian or atheist or Jew, they can be taught to respect the beliefs of John or Susan who sits next to them in French.

EDIT: Embarrassingly, it might be more practical just to ban Islamic schools... but then we'd still drive people underground into the hands of extremists and we're singling out a religion basically. Better to keep them up to prevent radicalisation as a necessary anomaly.

Anomaly?

Why is segregation acceptable when it's done along lines of faith, but not when it's done by private citizens in their own lives? Why do you want the state to pay for one form of segregation but punish the other?

[Souseiseki]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/06 ... sh_courts/

The exact wording of section 56(1) is as follows:

Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings etc.

(1) No evidence may be adduced, question asked, assertion or disclosure made or other thing done in, for the purposes of or in connection with any legal proceedings or Inquiries Act proceedings which (in any manner)—

(a) discloses, in circumstances from which its origin in interception-related conduct may be inferred—

(i) any content of an intercepted communication, or

(ii) any secondary data obtained from a communication, or

(b) tends to suggest that any interception-related conduct has or may have occurred or may be going to occur.

...

Section 56(1)(b) creates a legally guaranteed ability – nay, duty – to lie about even the potential for State hacking to take place, and to tell juries a wholly fictitious story about the true origins of hacked material used against defendants in order to secure criminal convictions. This is incredibly dangerous. Even if you know that the story being told in court is false, you and your legal representatives are now banned from being able to question those falsehoods and cast doubt upon the prosecution story.

Potentially, you could be legally bound to go along with lies told in court about your communications – lies told by people whose sole task is to weave a story that will get you sent to prison or fined thousands of pounds.

Moreover, as section 56(4) makes clear, this applies retroactively, ensuring that it is very difficult for criminal offences committed by GCHQ employees and contractors over the years, using powers that were only made legal a fortnight ago, to be brought to light in a meaningful way. It might even be against the law for a solicitor or barrister to mention in court this Reg story by veteran investigative journalist Duncan Campbell about GCHQ's snooping station in Oman (covered by the section 56(1)(b) wording "interception-related conduct has occurred") – or large volumes of material published on Wikileaks.

The existence of section 56(4) makes a mockery of the "general privacy protections" in Part 1 of the IPA, which includes various criminal offences. Part 1 was introduced as a sop to privacy advocates horrified at the full extent of the act's legalisation of intrusive, disruptive and dangerous hacking powers for the State, including powers to force the co-operation of telcos and similar organisations. There is no point in having punishments for lawbreakers if it is illegal to talk about their law-breaking behaviour.

blah blah oversight blah blah saftey blah blah exemplary human rights

[Souseiseki]

don't worry though, if the british government ever mistreats you or screws you over like that (denying you legal aid, secret unchallengeable evidence of dubious origin, etc.) you can always appeal to the european court of human rights, who are almost guaranteed to take one look at that bullshit and strike it down

[Frank Zipper]

anyone willing to put odds on how many MEPs etc. literally lolled when they heard the term "red, white and blue brexit"?

I wonder if her speech writing team toyed with the idea of using 'the full English Brexit'.

[Philjia]

Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims
Momentum executive member suggests it is inevitable that Jeremy Corbyn will be abandoned by some factions if he is not ‘ideologically pure enough’

edit: I may or may not support these trots for tactical reasons.

I want whatever will get a normal centre left social democrat into a secure position in the leadership so I can go back to Labour and stop having to support the Greens.

[Vassenor]

Local newspaper poll shows 73% Remain compared to the 58% Leave delivered during the referendum from the same area.

All the usual fluff about sampling and all that (namely lack of methodology to effectively critique) but this does seem like an interesting shift.

[Great Nepal]

Local newspaper poll shows 73% Remain compared to the 58% Leave delivered during the referendum from the same area.

All the usual fluff about sampling and all that (namely lack of methodology to effectively critique) but this does seem like an interesting shift.

Hmmm the sample seems rather slanted to get the outcome, "In our survey more than 1,500 people took part of who 1,114 voted for Remain and 412 for Leave".

[Alvecia]

Local newspaper poll shows 73% Remain compared to the 58% Leave delivered during the referendum from the same area.

All the usual fluff about sampling and all that (namely lack of methodology to effectively critique) but this does seem like an interesting shift.

Hmmm the sample seems rather slanted to get the outcome, "In our survey more than 1,500 people took part of who 1,114 voted for Remain and 412 for Leave".

For a national referendum, 1500 is a shit sample size anyway.

[Tananat]

Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims
Momentum executive member suggests it is inevitable that Jeremy Corbyn will be abandoned by some factions if he is not ‘ideologically pure enough’

edit: I may or may not support these trots for tactical reasons.

I want whatever will get a normal centre left social democrat into a secure position in the leadership so I can go back to Labour and stop having to support the Greens.

Why do you want Labour to lose in 2020?

[Olivaero]

Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims
Momentum executive member suggests it is inevitable that Jeremy Corbyn will be abandoned by some factions if he is not ‘ideologically pure enough’

edit: I may or may not support these trots for tactical reasons.

I want whatever will get a normal centre left social democrat into a secure position in the leadership so I can go back to Labour and stop having to support the Greens.

haha what? you wanted more moderate positions than what Labour currently offer so you moved over to the greens? That's like wanting David Camerons wing of the conservative party to take back control so you move over to UKIP.

[Philjia]

I want whatever will get a normal centre left social democrat into a secure position in the leadership so I can go back to Labour and stop having to support the Greens.

Why do you want Labour to lose in 2020?

A more moderate candidate could win, unlike Corbyn, especially if they're not a gaffe in a suit like him.

[Great Nepal]

Hmmm the sample seems rather slanted to get the outcome, "In our survey more than 1,500 people took part of who 1,114 voted for Remain and 412 for Leave".

For a national referendum, 1500 is a shit sample size anyway.

To be fair it's just focused on a region, and if properly sampled it doesn't need to be. I doubt regional newspaper has time or resources to do that though.

[Philjia]

I want whatever will get a normal centre left social democrat into a secure position in the leadership so I can go back to Labour and stop having to support the Greens.

haha what? you wanted more moderate positions than what Labour currently offer so you moved over to the greens? That's like wanting David Camerons wing of the conservative party to take back control so you move over to UKIP.

The current Labour leadership is the Greens on acid, so I might as well join the Greens and back a leader who can actually string a sentence together at PMQs.

[Souseiseki]

Hmmm the sample seems rather slanted to get the outcome, "In our survey more than 1,500 people took part of who 1,114 voted for Remain and 412 for Leave".

For a national referendum, 1500 is a shit sample size anyway.

from what i know one of the weird things about sample size is that the criteria "national referendum" doesn't really affect how big the sample size needs to be

[Olivaero]

haha what? you wanted more moderate positions than what Labour currently offer so you moved over to the greens? That's like wanting David Camerons wing of the conservative party to take back control so you move over to UKIP.

The current Labour leadership is the Greens on acid, so I might as well join the Greens and back a leader who can actually string a sentence together at PMQs.

No it isn't. And he can actually. I say this as some one who used to be a member of the greens, momentum is very similar in feel to the greens. Seriously, if you want a moderate stance vote Lib Dem.