In the news

It work very well in Northern Ireland all this flag waving... ;)

Can’t beat a good fleg! 😁

Pre revolution, a few guillotines with intent hanging around might sharpen the minds and intent of the honourable members, otherwise I propose placing their less than honourable members below the blades.

I've spotted a Slayer Fleg in North Belfast 😂

I propose the pit and the pendulum, with a public voting system on the length of the rope and who is to be placed in the blade's path.

(I think I need a holiday after this Brexit EUSS shit / covid / the government sleaze. Or a job change to install pendulums) ;)

But none in Four Winds? 😁

it gets better. and by better, i mean worse.

Atami, west of Tokyo:

https://mobile.twitter.com/PATRICIOSPINOZA/status/1411194548882128900

I hope that person in the little K van floored it and got the fuck out of Dodge, jeez...

That's devastating

Aye, really hope so, because then that shit started moving again it was going a lot faster than they had been.

And it had a couple of extra houses in it
😖

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/abc13.com/amp/driver-gets-shot-after-bumping-bicyclist-man-shoots-hitting-wife-with-truck-suspect-ran-over/10859767/

‘Bumps’ makes it sound innocuous. Reads like the driver was harassing the cyclists, knocked one off, got shot.

.

Maine woman refuses to give up vulgar license plate (Note: fixed broken link)

The plate references the fact that I exclusively breastfed all four of my children and that I frequently drive topless. Maine is in fact a topless state.

We've just had the anniversary of Gettysburg and I was really tempted to make some kind of Little Round Top joke (because Maine... oh, go read a history book).

'Ted, are you certain he's not just very close?’

The proposed Nationality and Borders Bill:

Helping an asylum seeker enter the UK will no longer need to be “for gain” to attract criminal liability. The core of the offence will read as follows:

A person commits an offence if—
(a) he knowingly facilitates the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the entry or ?>attempted entry into, the United Kingdom of an individual, and
(b) he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the individual is an asylum-seeker.

It depends on how one interprets “facilitates”, but removing the stipulation about gain is an odd look for a Bill that professes to target organised crime. While someone working for an organisation that “aims to assist asylum-seekers” cannot be charged with this offence, someone who works for a more general-purpose charity like the RNLI and who helps an asylum seeker enter the UK may, on the face of it, be criminalised by this change.

The maximum sentence for the general assisting unlawful immigration offence is raised to life from 14 years by clause 38.

Mind bogglin

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/the-nationality-and-borders-bill-2021-first-impressions/

Mind bogglin

It really is. And disgraceful.

Your quote omits the crucial strike through of “and for gain”. Confused the hell out of me till I clicked the link.

Isn’t there some kind of UN Law of the sea which requires ships to rescue people and requires countries with sea borders to establish search and rescue facilities which includes conducting those rescued at sea to a safe place? Can’t be arsed to Google it but surely that would protect any search and rescue charity.

Yes

https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Legal/Pages/UnitedNationsConventionOnTheLawOfTheSea.aspx

International law also means there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker but we are still intending to do against that

The UK govt had a hand in designing the current world order, and they seem intent on undermining its credibility at every stage. It’s not clear what designs they would have instead of the current ones.

The historical foundations of international law are custom and convention. It’s basically a big neighbourhood where countries acknowledge that they’re all equal and entitled to act freely (sovereignty) but they agree to act according to how everyone else acts (custom), and according to what they explicitly agree (convention). When a big successful neighbour starts ignoring the rules without consequences, it can cause ripples. At ‘best’, everyone realises that they can’t really trust their neighbour’s word on important issues (nukes) anymore, if they disdainfully reject their obligations on the small stuff (asylum seekers, diplomatic obligations etc). At ‘worst’, the local groups that the neighbour is part of take a reputational hit and start to lose adherents, and it starts a downward trend until no one really cares control their behaviour if there isn’t a strong effective consequence. Since every neighbour is entitled to do whatever they want with themselves, including become a recluse, the neighbourhood can only really punish the bad neighbour by refusing to do business with them, but then that neighbour’s partners would protest and it all gets messy.

There will always be people pushing the boundaries of what’s allowed and what’s not. On certain issues like international law, it’s dangerous to allow those challenges to go unchecked. For better or worse, the UK has a seat on the UN Security Council and has the US on its side. However, to misquote Palmerston, the US has no permanent friendships, only permanent interests, and it would be foolish to think that there aren’t forces in the US that would happily capitalise on an isolated, delegitimised and dependent UK.

For clarity, I clicked respond to you @greentricky but I don’t assume that you don’t know all of the above.

Jeez