Home
by Guest Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:15 amWhat’s your number one priority were you Labour leader?@RLong_Bailey: Tackling anti-Semitism@Keir_Starmer: dealing with anti-Semitism@lisanandy: tackling anti-Semitism@EmilyThornberry: uniting partyhttps://t.co/2JBsF8PbgF #VictoriaLIVE pic.twitter.com/3trlCB2XWo
— Victoria Derbyshire (@VictoriaLIVE) February 13, 2020
UK - Politika i društvo
- Guest
- Posts : 82754
Join date : 2012-06-10
Lebe mekani, kako su ih kondicionirali.
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 41630
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : wife privilege
Стара болест левице, увек више пазе на то шта ће рећи непријатељ него шта су оно хтели да ураде.
_____
cousin for roasting the rakija
И кажем себи у сну, еј бре коњу па ти ни немаш озвучење, имаш оне две кутијице око монитора, видећеш кад се пробудиш...
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Mučno gledati
- Guest
LONDON (REUTERS) - Britain will prioritise access for high-skilled workers from around the world in its post-Brexit points-based immigration system, the government said on Tuesday (Feb 18), setting out its plans to put an end to a reliance on "cheap labour from Europe".
Concern over the impact of high levels of immigration from the European Union was one of the key drivers behind Britain's 2016 vote to leave the bloc and the government has said it plans to bring overall migration numbers down.
The new system will assign points for specific skills, qualifications, salaries or professions and only give visas to those who have enough points. It will come into force from Jan 1, 2021, and will treat EU and non-EU citizens the same.
...
"We need to shift the focus of our economy away from reliance on cheap labour from Europe and instead concentrate on investment in technology and automation. Employers will need to adjust," the government said in a policy document setting out its plans.
Concern over the impact of high levels of immigration from the European Union was one of the key drivers behind Britain's 2016 vote to leave the bloc and the government has said it plans to bring overall migration numbers down.
The new system will assign points for specific skills, qualifications, salaries or professions and only give visas to those who have enough points. It will come into force from Jan 1, 2021, and will treat EU and non-EU citizens the same.
...
"We need to shift the focus of our economy away from reliance on cheap labour from Europe and instead concentrate on investment in technology and automation. Employers will need to adjust," the government said in a policy document setting out its plans.
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Employers will need to adjust
That'll be fun
- Posts : 41630
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : wife privilege
KinderLad wrote:Employers will need to adjust
That'll be fun
Employers will need to adjust the government to their own needs, nothing to see here, move along.
_____
cousin for roasting the rakija
И кажем себи у сну, еј бре коњу па ти ни немаш озвучење, имаш оне две кутијице око монитора, видећеш кад се пробудиш...
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Ma da, ko zna sta ce biti na kraju. Ali poljskim plumberima je odzvonilo, to je to
- Posts : 41630
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : wife privilege
KinderLad wrote:Ma da, ko zna sta ce biti na kraju. Ali poljskim plumberima je odzvonilo, to je to
The United Kingdom is fully capable of making its own plumbs!
А ето сад, широко им поље... Биће, биће занимљиво.
_____
cousin for roasting the rakija
И кажем себи у сну, еј бре коњу па ти ни немаш озвучење, имаш оне две кутијице око монитора, видећеш кад се пробудиш...
- Guest
A spokesman from the British Museum said, “This is the one thing we didn’t want to happen” pic.twitter.com/jHBqh0oyoW
— Ahir Shah (@AhirShah) February 18, 2020
lololololo živeo brexit!
- Posts : 4836
Join date : 2016-06-09
Location : gotta have those beans
Predosećam trade Elgin Marbles za Nottingham Forest, deluje razumno...
- Guest
očevidački(tm) izveštaj sa 2 dana suđenja asanžu, nije nezanimljivo:
- Spoiler:
Woolwich Crown Court is designed to impose the power of the state. Normal courts in this country are public buildings, deliberately placed by our ancestors right in the centre of towns, almost always just up a few steps from a main street. The major purpose of their positioning and of their architecture was to facilitate public access in the belief that it is vital that justice can be seen by the public.
Woolwich Crown Court, which hosts Belmarsh Magistrates Court, is built on totally the opposite principle. It is designed with no other purpose than to exclude the public. Attached to a prison on a windswept marsh far from any normal social centre, an island accessible only through navigating a maze of dual carriageways, the entire location and architecture of the building is predicated on preventing public access. It is surrounded by a continuation of the same extremely heavy duty steel paling barrier that surrounds the prison. It is the most extraordinary thing, a courthouse which is a part of the prison system itself, a place where you are already considered guilty and in jail on arrival. [...]
Extradition hearings are not held at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. They are always held at Westminster Magistrates Court as the application is deemed to be delivered to the government at Westminster. Now get your head around this. This hearing is at Westminster Magistrates Court. It is being held by the Westminster magistrates and Westminster court staff, but located at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. All of which weird convolution is precisely so they can use the “counter-terrorist court” to limit public access and to impose the fear of the power of the state.
One consequence is that, in the courtroom itself, Julian Assange is confined at the back of the court behind a bulletproof glass screen. He made the point several times during proceedings that this makes it very difficult for him to see and hear the proceedings. The magistrate, Vanessa Baraitser, chose to interpret this with studied dishonesty as a problem caused by the very faint noise of demonstrators outside, as opposed to a problem caused by Assange being locked away from the court in a massive bulletproof glass box.
Now there is no reason at all for Assange to be in that box, designed to restrain extremely physically violent terrorists. He could sit, as a defendant at a hearing normally would, in the body of the court with his lawyers. But the cowardly and vicious Baraitser has refused repeated and persistent requests from the defence for Assange to be allowed to sit with his lawyers. Baraitser of course is but a puppet, being supervised by Chief Magistrate Lady Arbuthnot, a woman so enmeshed in the defence and security service establishment I can conceive of no way in which her involvement in this case could be more corrupt.
It does not matter to Baraitser or Arbuthnot if there is any genuine need for Assange to be incarcerated in a bulletproof box, or whether it stops him from following proceedings in court. Baraitser’s intention is to humiliate Assange, and to instill in the rest of us horror at the vast crushing power of the state. The inexorable strength of the sentencing wing of the nightmarish Belmarsh Prison must be maintained. If you are here, you are guilty.
It’s the Lubyanka. You may only be a remand prisoner. This may only be a hearing not a trial. You may have no history of violence and not be accused of any violence. You may have three of the country’s most eminent psychiatrists submitting reports of your history of severe clinical depression and warning of suicide. But I, Vanessa Baraitser, am still going to lock you up in a box designed for the most violent of terrorists. To show what we can do to dissidents. And if you can’t then follow court proceedings, all the better.
[...]
James Lewis QC made the opening statement for the prosecution. It consisted of two parts, both equally extraordinary. The first and longest part was truly remarkable for containing no legal argument, and for being addressed not to the magistrate but to the media. It is not just that it was obvious that is where his remarks were aimed, he actually stated on two occasions during his opening statement that he was addressing the media, once repeating a sentence and saying specifically that he was repeating it again because it was important that the media got it.
I am frankly astonished that Baraitser allowed this. It is completely out of order for a counsel to address remarks not to the court but to the media, and there simply could not be any clearer evidence that this is a political show trial and that Baraitser is complicit in that. I have not the slightest doubt that the defence would have been pulled up extremely quickly had they started addressing remarks to the media. Baraitser makes zero pretence of being anything other than in thrall to the Crown, and by extension to the US Government.
The points which Lewis wished the media to know were these: it is not true that mainstream outlets like the Guardian and New York Times are also threatened by the charges against Assange, because Assange was not charged with publishing the cables but only with publishing the names of informants, and with cultivating Manning and assisting him to attempt computer hacking. Only Assange had done these things, not mainstream outlets.
Lewis then proceeded to read out a series of articles from the mainstream media attacking Assange, as evidence that the media and Assange were not in the same boat. The entire opening hour consisted of the prosecution addressing the media, attempting to drive a clear wedge between the media and Wikileaks and thus aimed at reducing media support for Assange. It was a political address, not remotely a legal submission. At the same time, the prosecution had prepared reams of copies of this section of Lewis’ address, which were handed out to the media and given them electronically so they could cut and paste.
Following an adjournment, magistrate Baraitser questioned the prosecution on the veracity of some of these claims. In particular, the claim that newspapers were not in the same position because Assange was charged not with publication, but with “aiding and abetting” Chelsea Manning in getting the material, did not seem consistent with Lewis’ reading of the 1989 Official Secrets Act, which said that merely obtaining and publishing any government secret was an offence. Surely, Baraitser suggested, that meant that newspapers just publishing the Manning leaks would be guilty of an offence?
This appeared to catch Lewis entirely off guard. [...] Lewis then went on to add that any journalist and any publication that printed the official secret would therefore also be committing an offence, no matter how they had obtained it, and no matter if it did or did not name informants. Lewis had thus just flat out contradicted his entire opening statement to the media stating that they need not worry as the Assange charges could never be applied to them. [...]
The four US government lawyers seated immediately behind Lewis had the grace to look very uncomfortable indeed as Lewis baldly declared that any journalist and any newspaper or broadcast media publishing or even possessing any government secret was committing a serious offence. Their entire strategy had been to pretend not to be saying that.
[...]
Lewis then moved on to conclude the prosecution’s arguments. The court had no decision to make, he stated. Assange must be extradited. The offence met the test of dual criminality as it was an offence both in the USA and UK. UK extradition law specifically barred the court from testing whether there was any evidence to back up the charges. If there had been, as the defence argued, abuse of process, the court must still extradite and then the court must pursue the abuse of process as a separate matter against the abusers. (This is a particularly specious argument as it is not possible for the court to take action against the US government due to sovereign immunity, as Lewis well knows).
[...]
Edward Fitzgerald then arose to make the opening statement for the defence. He started by stating that the motive for the prosecution was entirely political, and that political offences were specifically excluded under article 4.1 of the UK/US extradition treaty. He pointed out that at the time of the Chelsea Manning Trial and again in 2013 the Obama administration had taken specific decisions not to prosecute Assange for the Manning leaks. This had been reversed by the Trump administration for reasons that were entirely political.
On abuse of process, Fitzgerald referred to evidence presented to the Spanish criminal courts that the CIA had commissioned a Spanish security company to spy on Julian Assange in the Embassy, and that this spying specifically included surveillance of Assange’s privileged meetings with his lawyers to discuss extradition. For the state trying to extradite to spy on the defendant’s client-lawyer consultations is in itself grounds to dismiss the case. (This point is undoubtedly true. Any decent judge would throw the case out summarily for the outrageous spying on the defence lawyers).
Fitzgerald went on to say the defence would produce evidence the CIA not only spied on Assange and his lawyers, but actively considered kidnapping or poisoning him, and that this showed there was no commitment to proper rule of law in this case.
Fitzgerald said that the prosecution’s framing of the case contained deliberate misrepresentation of the facts that also amounted to abuse of process. It was not true that there was any evidence of harm to informants, and the US government had confirmed this in other fora, eg in Chelsea Manning’s trial. There had been no conspiracy to hack computers, and Chelsea Manning had been acquitted on that charge at court martial. Lastly it was untrue that Wikileaks had initiated publication of unredacted names of informants, as other media organisations had been responsible for this first.
[...]
Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s QC, that shook us rudely into life. He stated that yesterday, on the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings. [...] This was too much even for prosecution counsel James Lewis, who stood up to say the prosecution would also want Assange to have a fair hearing, and that he could confirm that what the defence were suggesting was normal practice. Even then, Baraitser still refused to intervene with the prison. She stated that if the prison conditions were so bad as to reach the very high bar of making a fair hearing impossible, the defence should bring a motion to dismiss the charges on those grounds. Otherwise they should drop it. [...]
For the defence, Mark Summers QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behviour:
1) Assange helped Manning to decode a hash key to access classified material.
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial.
2) Assange solicited the material from Manning
Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public
3) Assange knowingly put lives at risk
Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US government.
In summary, Summers stated the US government knew that the allegations being made were false as to fact, and they were demonstrably made in bad faith. This was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition request. He described the above three counts as “rubbish, rubbish and rubbish”.
[...]
After a brief break, Baraitser came back with a real zinger. She told Summers that he had presented the findings of the US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact. But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court martial, even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence, as fact. Summers replied that agreed evidence or prosecution evidence at the US court martial clearly was agreed by the US government as fact, and what was at issue at the moment was whether the US government was charging contrary to the facts it knew. Baraitser said she would return to her point once witnesses were heard.
Baraitser was no making no attempt to conceal a hostility to the defence argument, and seemed irritated they had the temerity to make it.
[...]
The bulk of Summers’ argument went to refuting behaviour 3), putting lives at risk. This was only claimed in relation to materials a) and d). Summers described at great length the efforts of Wikileaks with media partners over more than a year to set up a massive redaction campaign on the cables. He explained that the unredacted cables only became available after Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian published the password to the cache as the heading to Chapter XI of their book Wikileaks, published in February 2011.
Nobody had put 2 and 2 together on this password until the German publication Die Freitag had done so and announced it had the unredacted cables in August 2011. Summers then gave the most powerful arguments of the day.
The US government had been actively participating in the redaction exercise on the cables. They therefore knew the allegations of reckless publication to be untrue.
Once Die Freitag announced they had the unredacted materials, Julian Assange and Sara Harrison instantly telephoned the White House, State Department and US Embassy to warn them named sources may be put at risk. Summers read from the transcripts of telephone conversations as Assange and Harrison attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of enabling source protection procedures – and expressed their bafflement as officials stonewalled them. This evidence utterly undermined the US government’s case and proved bad faith in omitting extremely relevant fact. It was a very striking moment.
[...]
Then, to wrap up proceedings, Baraitser dropped a massive bombshell. She stated that although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions, this was only in the Treaty. That exemption does not appear in the UK Extradition Act. On the face of it therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK, as the Treaty has no legal force on the Court.
...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-2/
- Posts : 713
Join date : 2015-08-30
Najbolja analiza razlicitih frakcija u Labor partiji koju sam procitao do sada - lepo objasnjava dosta toga sto se desilo tokom istorije levice sve do Brexita i zasto/gde je fejlovala:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/01/labour-leadership-contest-new-factions
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/01/labour-leadership-contest-new-factions
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Da, nije loše
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
- Guest
KinderLad wrote:
Mislio sam da se Lazanski oglasio.Nisam ga dugo vidio i ne bi me iznenadilo da danas izgleda kao BJ-ov otac.
- Posts : 3620
Join date : 2018-07-03
_____
"Sisaj kurac, Boomere. Spletkario si i nameštao ban pa se sad izvlačiš. Radiša je format a ti si mali iskompleksirani miš. Katastrofa za Burundi čoveče.
A i deluje da te napustio drugar u odsudnom trenutku pa te spašavaju ova tovarka što vrv ni ne dismr na ribu, to joj se gadi, i ovaj južnjak koji o niškim kafanama čita na forumu. Prejaka šarža." - Monsier K.
- Posts : 28265
Join date : 2015-03-20
Čime su pegavi incestaši zaslužili da im se PM obraća samo 6 minuta
_____
#FreeFacu
Дакле, волео бих да се ЈСД Партизан угаси, али не и да сви (или било који) гробар умре.
- Posts : 10317
Join date : 2012-02-10
New opinion poll from @NCPoliticsUK (1,010 GB adults 24-26 March) pic.twitter.com/NaI0Umw1Mj
— John Rentoul (@JohnRentoul) March 28, 2020
- Posts : 10317
Join date : 2012-02-10
evo ne znam
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Ne iznenadjuje, ali ljudi su generalno kreteni.
- Posts : 41630
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : wife privilege
Мораће неко од политичара да баци кашику или бар да искашље душу пред камерама. Ово "и ја сам позитиван" почиње да личи на позирање а и згоду да се мало склоне код швалерке на викендицу или тако нешто. Миссим верујем им као и иначе.
_____
cousin for roasting the rakija
И кажем себи у сну, еј бре коњу па ти ни немаш озвучење, имаш оне две кутијице око монитора, видећеш кад се пробудиш...
- Posts : 82754
Join date : 2012-06-10
To je i meni palo na pamet, da je namerno zakačio kako bi mog'o da kaže da je i sam žrtva i tako začepi usta kritičarima.
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 28265
Join date : 2015-03-20
ne prikazujte ovo našima mada ne sumnjam da su im izraelci već prodali foru da budu pozitivni pa izlečeni. samo me brine da će to da bude prvo vulin pa onda AV.
_____
#FreeFacu
Дакле, волео бих да се ЈСД Партизан угаси, али не и да сви (или било који) гробар умре.
- Posts : 41630
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : wife privilege
А, неће бити уверљиво ако баш нико од њих не извуче краћу сламку.
_____
cousin for roasting the rakija
И кажем себи у сну, еј бре коњу па ти ни немаш озвучење, имаш оне две кутијице око монитора, видећеш кад се пробудиш...
Similar topics
