Westministenders: Theresa's Common People

[RedToothBrush]

She came from Oxfordshire she had a thirst for knowledge
She studied geography at Saint Hugh's College
That's where politics
Caught her eye

She told them that her husband was loaded
The press barons said "In that case have a rum and coca-cola"
She said "Fine"
And in thirty seconds time she said

I want to look like common people
I want to do whatever common people do
I want to eat like common people
I want to sleep like common people
Like you

Well what else could Fiona and Nick do
They said "We'll see what we can do"

They took her to a supermarket
I don't know why
But they had to start it somewhere
So it started there
They said pretend you've got no money
She just laughed and said
"Oh you're so funny"
They smiled "Yeah”
Well we can't see anyone else smiling in here

Are you sure you want to live like common people
You want to see whatever common people see
You want to eat like common people
You want to sleep like common people
Like me

But she didn't understand
She just smiled and held Trump’s hand

Order that benefits get the chop
Tell them all to get a job
Promise to bring back the grammar school
Pretend you don’t think them a fool
But still you'll never get it right
'Cause when you're laid in bed at night
Watching the news talking about building the wall
All have to do is call your mates to fake it all

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do whatever common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
Whilst you blame it all on the EU
Because that’s all you can do

Sing along with the common people
Sing along and it might just get Brexit through
Laugh along with the common people
Laugh about leaving the EU

It’s the most stupid thing that you will do
Because you think that it is cool
You’ll call them a ‘lying foreigner’
But don’t say we didn’t warn you
You’ll regret saying we are better off out
'Cause everybody hates a benefits tourist

It doesn’t matter if you can’t do the math
With all those pockets that you grease
You’ll win the vote in Bath

You will never understand
How it feels to live your life
With no meaning or control
And with nowhere left to go
You are amazed that they exist
And wish they were all white
So you tell ‘The Big Lie’

Get THE flat above THE shop
Cut your hair and get THE job
Trick some mugs and hire some fool
Pretend you are not really cruel
But still you'll never get it right
Instead you're plotting late at night
About which ‘cockroach’ will take the fall
All have to do is call your mates to fake it all
Yeah

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
As we plan to leave the EU
Because there's nothing else left to do

But ‘moan’ about how we don’t want to leave the EU.

I agree Grommits.

Well said, Grommits

Red - I do see what you mean, but I was purely referring to the idea that she is making capital out of the police/troops issue. I suppose I think it makes sense to utilise a resource we already have, in the form of the Army, rather than employ more armed police, if this extremely high threat level is so rare.

I understand that there are wider issues about police numbers in general, but in this instance, it seems like a good use of our money. If she was using the army to show she is strong, then yes, she'd be making political capital from it. But she's using them because it makes sense in this eventuality. She isn't letting herself off any hook, because the situation that has arisen isn't intentional. I am gutted that the actions do reinforce her strong and stable bollocks, but I don't think she is actually acting in order to reinforce them in the first place. It's not like she knew there would be a terror attack.

The fact that she fell out with the police doesn't surprise me one iota. In a previous job role, I used to spend hours drinking tea with ON duty coppers, who used our offices as a rest stop. They were there every day for at least an hour if not more, sometimes twice a day. They used to spend time complaining about being overworked. I was a nurse in the NHS, same behaviour with lots or doctors and nurses. I don't want our public services run into the ground by the Tories, but I do think that sometimes it's not about more money or people, it's about getting the ones you do have to actually work, and avoiding duplication. A very long way of saying that if TM fell out with the police over manpower, it doesn't particularly surprise me.

The embargo didn't stop the U turn coming out, and though the opposition couldn't comment then, nor could her allies within the party really, so the public could think oh FFS about it to their hearts content. I know that me and DH did.

I suppose I just think that whilst we may think a person is acting a certain way which gives them an advantage, the fact that they haven't created that advantage means we shouldn't berate them for it. It runs the risk of seeming slightly biased and paranoid, which is not what I want people to think of those of us who loathe her policies.

I want a nurse when I was a tea drinker, by the way, I worked somewhere else.

*wasn't

rtb when i struggle to find the words to explain why I feel certain ways about things, you invariably pop up and write a post that does it for me . So mch of what we're seeing today can be laid firmly at the feet of that woman and her poor decision making. But as long as she seems strong and stable she'll get rewarded with the main prize. Meh.

Back to Brexit

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-could-be-shut-out-of-super-accurate-eu-gps-system-it-helped-to-build-a7574206.html

A somewhat bizarre story has emerged overnight from the US. A Republican candidate for Montana has been involved in an altercation with a journalist from the Guardian.

It took place in front of several witnesses. And has been reported by of all people FoxNews:

www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html
Greg Gianforte: Fox News team witnesses GOP House candidate 'body slam' reporter

The Guardian journalist Ben Jacobs had recently written an article about the Republican candidate Greg Gianforte:

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/28/greg-gianforte-republican-candidate-congress-russia-companies
GOP candidate has financial ties to US-sanctioned Russian companies

The reporting of the incident is damning of Greg Gianforte saying his attack was totally unjustified and unprovoked. From FoxNews. Against a GOP candidate.

Also last night advertisers started to pull money from FoxNews Sean Hannity after he's been peddling a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich had been murdered in some sort of political assassination and that this somehow was done related to the Democrats.

Both stories are massively bizarre but the role and importance of FoxNews in the chain of events in the US is important as it's believed by a particular group of people. But advertisers pulling is a sign that things are not all well and the station can not ignore it.

A point on that though: watch out for justification of attacks on journalists

Meanwhile....

m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/cocacola-maps-out-impact-of-brexit-on-allisland-ops-35743409.html
Coca-Cola 'maps out' impact of Brexit on all-island ops

BBC Radio 4 Today @ BBCr4today
"UKIP is more important now than it's ever been," says party leader @paulnuttallukip #r4today

Proof that UKIP are officially over.

However R4 have dropped an absolute clanger here:

Steven Thomas @TheStevenThomas
Did Humphrys really just ask Nuttall whether his campaign was a 'suicide mission'? Shit. #r4today

Kevin Maguire @ Kevin_Maguire
Unfortunate phrasing by @BBCr4today's John Humphrys asking Ukip's leader about Manchester then saying "Bit of a suicide mission for you.."

Not good.

Potentially important court ruling on information relating to the NHS. But it probably won't be released before June 8th because of purdah

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/24/andrew-lansley-diary-simon-lewis-foi-request-court?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Government fails to block release of Andrew Lansley diary portions
Court rules in favour of journalist Simon Lewis who made FoI request to see diary passages from period of health reforms

Journalist Simon Lewis made a request under the Freedom of Information Act to see passages of Lansley’s ministerial diary from 2010 and 2011, covering the period when controversial health reforms were being drawn up.

He was only given a heavily redacted version, but in 2013 the information commissioner, who oversees the legislation, ruled that the majority of the withheld information should be disclosed.

The government has since been challenging that decision through the information tribunals and the courts; but three appeal judges unanimously ruled on Wednesday in favour of disclosure.

What is so sensitive they went to court to block it from being publically released?

Also, the Manchester leaks from the US: the government were asked by an MP before parliament broke up, what the government were doing to protect sensitive information from the Trump administration. This one is going to keep on blowing... May's off to see him at a NATO summit today (Russia removed from the agenda). I wonder if she will suck up to him or give him a mouthful. Apparently Macron wants a quiet word on the side with May too.

Greater Manchester police have just confirmed they will not share any further information with US authorities over the matter.

This is noteworthy for Brexit too. Remember May said intelligence sharing with the EU was on the table. That relied on the US and being part of five eyes as the most important relationship. If we are withholding from the US, as has been confirmed, five eyes effectively no longer exists in practice.

How can this do anything but push us back towards Europe? Unless we want to go it alone? We can not trust that the US won't endanger us as they effectively already have.

The idea that we can suck up to them or draw closer links may have just evaporated over night. Geographically we can not escape needing EU support on that front too. They will not want to share with us if the US is doing this and we decide to get closer to the US.

Massive problem for May's Brexit strategy and ambitions right there.

Politically it will not be popular with Manchester area if security arrangements are on the table now. Especially with Brexiteers I'd argue. And of course the EU plan on full transparency so May can not even put it on the table without a full scale shitstorm breaking out over it.

Just logged on. I agree with Red's response to Grommit's posting.
I would add, it just depends on when the Army is stood down, and how often the security level is raised to Critical. Will this become the new norm? Getting the country used to it before the food riots start?

I admit to being horribly cynical where politicians are concerned, but Theresa May didn't know when to stop at the Home Office, and I see no sign that her judgement has improved. E.g. there is nothing wrong with deporting criminals - there is something wrong with deporting 50,000 students on trumped up charges.

The issue wth the Police is that, it's now very clear that our Police force isn't able to cope with more than the day to day stuff.
So go and arrest a robber and it's OK. Go and deal with a specific emergency crisis and it can't cope.

So yes in those circumstances, it makes sense to call in the Army. But only if you have also refined the army role as the one of the police in some circumstances. That also means training those people to donthat job.
E.g. Even if they army is 'only' used th patrol the city and keep an eye, have they been trained to act if they see something suspect? Is there a risk that their own training (action in enemy ground) will take over? Etc etc

It's also basically saying that the Army and the Police are becoming very close with very similar objectives... (see the potential risks there too)

In effect, reducing the police force so much that it cant cope with emergency situation is all well and good when you don't have any emergencies....
I would like to know what is TM plan re the safety of country though....

They will not want to share with us if the US is doing this and we decide to get closer to the US.

As far as I am concerned, the so-called 'Special Relationship' was only ever one way and this latest information leak has just illustrated that.

www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2017/05/clickbaiting-terror-what-it-s-write-viral-news-after-tragedy
Clickbaiting terror: what it’s like to write viral news after a tragedy

IMPORTANT article about how terror is reported - it deliberately panders to prejudice. How does this feed into other politics?

So yes in those circumstances, it makes sense to call in the Army. But only if you have also refined the army role as the one of the police in some circumstances. That also means training those people to donthat job.

They aren't doing anything in the 'police role'.
They are doing armed guard duty.
Something they are trained for and that they do constantly at home.
Every year there is refresher training.

E.g. Even if they army is 'only' used th patrol the city and keep an eye, have they been trained to act if they see something suspect? Is there a risk that their own training (action in enemy ground) will take over? Etc etc

Don't be ridiculous.
The army are more often armed guards outwith conflict areas than within.
They do armed guard, vehicle searching etc more than annually as part of their job in UK.

The army can only fill in the visible and physical hole of protection. They can not fill the invisible void of prevention.

If the cuts have affected the police's ability on the front line of security that you can see, what does that say about the back that you can't see?

In terms of finance perhaps it does make sense to use the army in situations like this because it's so rare. But armed police training for work in a civilian setting in the UK is very different from army training even for their work in a civil setting.

Unless the government is intending to give this more appropriate training to the army, for occasions like this, however rare they may be, then I do see it as a potential issue which could lead to other problems.

Also, at what point do private security firms get called to fill in gaps if and when they occur?

Also, at what point do private security firms get called to fill in gaps if and when they occur?

Didn't it work the other way at the Olympics? That the Army were called in when the private security firms weren't capable of doing the job?

Despite the fact that the police were warned about the bomber - twice - it seems encryption on the interwebs was to blame, and we can't have any of that ...

www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/25/uk_to_push_antiencryption_laws_after_election/

quite aside from the fact that it's an impossibility, it's wasting effort that could be deployed far more usefully elsewhere.

Since life has already passed beyond satire, I am awaiting news that the Tories are to redefine pi to be "3" - as they are outlawing irrationality.

It is sensible to call in the army if the police and intelligence services think we might need more lethal force on the streets.

However, they obviously only react to ongoing attacks.
To actually stop terrorists in the planning stage, takes intelligence and specialist police

Reportedly only 25% of people who are judged terror risks can actually be put under surveillance -
because of insufficient manpower -
NOT some sort of "PC madness" as some people seem to think

We should all agree that doing their best to keep the public safe must be a top priority for any govt.
Therefore, money must be found to recruit and train the numbers that the security services and police state they need for this task.

Even though we accept the necessity, I'm sure none of us are happy at the thought of more armed police and especially soldiers too on the street.

This inevitably increases the risk, as in NI, and as after 7/7, that some young soldiers can get angry / confused / scared and kill innocent people.
Rules of engagement need to be better explained than after 7/7

And we certainly don't want a situation as in the USA, where being the wrong colour hugely increases your chances of being one of those innocent victims.

*We should all agree that doing their best to keep the public safe must be a top priority for any govt.
Therefore, money must be found to recruit and train the numbers that the security services and police state they need for this task.

Even though we accept the necessity, I'm sure none of us are happy at the thought of more armed police and especially soldiers too on the street.*

YY.
Absolutely.

Friends who work in the telecoms/ISP sector have consistently pointed out that storing information and putting the onus on to the ISPs/telcos does nothing to help reduce risk. If anything it increases risk as the intelligence gathering operations end up drowning in data. The haystack just keeps on getting larger and larger.

This has been may have been (let's not prejudge the investigation) demonstrated with tragic effect in Monday's bombing, if the bomber had been previously identified as a risk.

Targetting end-to-end encryption and using scattergun approach is going to do nothing to help without the appropriate resources and intelligence allowing efforts to be focussed. That way, they might be able to work out where in the hay stack to start - it even be provided with a thread to follow to pull the needle out.

It's practically impossible to create the world that the Tories are telling us they want. You simply can't live in a world where the government can read anything they want because such a world isn't possible. It's like trying to insist on having the ability to control gravity.

So when such laws are proposed, the underlying question is "why". And it's obvious that they will create "nice" encryption (so 80% of everyone is unaffected) and "nasty" encryption - go to jail type nasty.

Nice ? Nasty ? Who decides ? Oh yes, politcians ... same as the Psychoactive Substances act which makes incense illegal (but that's "nice" so no one bothers).

We should always resist laws which can be arbitrarily applied as they're where discrimination begin.

With specific reference to encryption, there's an additional problem that - based on what I have seen from the government (and it's my job to look) - it's painfully clear that any deep understanding of the subject is either being ignored, or suppressed.

Quite aside from the mathematics of the situation, any country with weakened encryption will struggle to do business internationally.