General Chit Chat

[Worthy4England]

So if we know someone was more than likely guilty of genocide, we just shrug if they try and enter UK?

'More than likely' is not good enough to stop someone on attached to a diplomatic mission entering the country unless the government want to risk a diplomatic row over it.
Still sod all to do with the Met though! The Met, other forces and certain parts of the Judicial system are beginning to act like they run the country not the government and the way some 'private' individuals are manipulating the courts makes you wonder who the real enemy is.

The real enemy are people who wanted to recall our powerful judicial rights back from the EU, then piss and whinge when people use the judicial system as it was designed to be used, to settle matters at law, because it might turn up a result they don't like, rather than taking the ruling of the Daily Mail.

[Hoboh]

So if we know someone was more than likely guilty of genocide, we just shrug if they try and enter UK?

'More than likely' is not good enough to stop someone on attached to a diplomatic mission entering the country unless the government want to risk a diplomatic row over it.
Still sod all to do with the Met though! The Met, other forces and certain parts of the Judicial system are beginning to act like they run the country not the government and the way some 'private' individuals are manipulating the courts makes you wonder who the real enemy is.

The real enemy are people who wanted to recall our powerful judicial rights back from the EU, then piss and whinge when people use the judicial system as it was designed to be used, to settle matters at law, because it might turn up a result they don't like, rather than taking the ruling of the Daily Mail.

So what law entitles the Met to investigate a Saudi citizen, not a resident of this country, for alleged crimes in the Yemen?
Maybe they should start investigating Assad and Putin as well and probably half the rulers in parts of Africa, all at the expense of the London tax payers.

[Worthy4England]

So if we know someone was more than likely guilty of genocide, we just shrug if they try and enter UK?

'More than likely' is not good enough to stop someone on attached to a diplomatic mission entering the country unless the government want to risk a diplomatic row over it.
Still sod all to do with the Met though! The Met, other forces and certain parts of the Judicial system are beginning to act like they run the country not the government and the way some 'private' individuals are manipulating the courts makes you wonder who the real enemy is.

The real enemy are people who wanted to recall our powerful judicial rights back from the EU, then piss and whinge when people use the judicial system as it was designed to be used, to settle matters at law, because it might turn up a result they don't like, rather than taking the ruling of the Daily Mail.

So what law entitles the Met to investigate a Saudi citizen, not a resident of this country, for alleged crimes in the Yemen?
Maybe they should start investigating Assad and Putin as well and probably half the rulers in parts of Africa, all at the expense of the London tax payers.

International Law. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

[Hoboh]

So if we know someone was more than likely guilty of genocide, we just shrug if they try and enter UK?

'More than likely' is not good enough to stop someone on attached to a diplomatic mission entering the country unless the government want to risk a diplomatic row over it.
Still sod all to do with the Met though! The Met, other forces and certain parts of the Judicial system are beginning to act like they run the country not the government and the way some 'private' individuals are manipulating the courts makes you wonder who the real enemy is.

The real enemy are people who wanted to recall our powerful judicial rights back from the EU, then piss and whinge when people use the judicial system as it was designed to be used, to settle matters at law, because it might turn up a result they don't like, rather than taking the ruling of the Daily Mail.

So what law entitles the Met to investigate a Saudi citizen, not a resident of this country, for alleged crimes in the Yemen?
Maybe they should start investigating Assad and Putin as well and probably half the rulers in parts of Africa, all at the expense of the London tax payers.

International Law. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

So the UN have asked them to investigate then?
Because if they didn't, it still has fcuk all to do with the Met!

[Montreal Wanderer]

'More than likely' is not good enough to stop someone on attached to a diplomatic mission entering the country unless the government want to risk a diplomatic row over it.
Still sod all to do with the Met though! The Met, other forces and certain parts of the Judicial system are beginning to act like they run the country not the government and the way some 'private' individuals are manipulating the courts makes you wonder who the real enemy is.

The real enemy are people who wanted to recall our powerful judicial rights back from the EU, then piss and whinge when people use the judicial system as it was designed to be used, to settle matters at law, because it might turn up a result they don't like, rather than taking the ruling of the Daily Mail.

So what law entitles the Met to investigate a Saudi citizen, not a resident of this country, for alleged crimes in the Yemen?
Maybe they should start investigating Assad and Putin as well and probably half the rulers in parts of Africa, all at the expense of the London tax payers.

International Law. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

So the UN have asked them to investigate then?
Because if they didn't, it still has fcuk all to do with the Met!
[/quote]

Hobes, I'm not sure you understand international conventions. Article 1 of the Genocide Convention reads: "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish." The UK is a contracting party. The government has an obligation to prevent and/or punish the crime. The alleged criminal is in the UK, so the government must at least investigate the matter.

[Hoboh]

The UK is a contracting party. The government has an obligation to prevent and/or punish the crime. The alleged criminal is in the UK, so the government must at least investigate the matter.

Ah but,

An FCO spokesperson said the UK was not a member of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen but supported the intervention. “We regularly raise the importance of compliance with international humanitarian law with the Saudi government and other members of the military coalition and we do not shy away from raising legitimate human rights concerns with our friends.”
The Ministry of Defence monitors alleged violations of the law, which “informs our overall assessment” of compliance with international humanitarian law in Yemen, the spokesperson said.

Note, not the Met, also the UK government distanced itself from anything to do with the investigation, therefore the government is not investigating so why are the Met?

[Worthy4England]

The government isn't generally above the law. Nor should it be. That'd be the thin end of a very thick dictatorship wedge.

Have you turned into remoaner?

[Hoboh]

The government isn't generally above the law. Nor should it be. That'd be the thin end of a very thick dictatorship wedge.

Have you turned into remoaner?

Just saying the government signed and is responsible for UN treaties, not the Met.
Now if the government had asked the Met to look into it, fair enough.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The UK is a contracting party. The government has an obligation to prevent and/or punish the crime. The alleged criminal is in the UK, so the government must at least investigate the matter.

Ah but,

An FCO spokesperson said the UK was not a member of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen but supported the intervention. “We regularly raise the importance of compliance with international humanitarian law with the Saudi government and other members of the military coalition and we do not shy away from raising legitimate human rights concerns with our friends.”
The Ministry of Defence monitors alleged violations of the law, which “informs our overall assessment” of compliance with international humanitarian law in Yemen, the spokesperson said.

Note, not the Met, also the UK government distanced itself from anything to do with the investigation, therefore the government is not investigating so why are the Met?

The UK government isn't distancing itself as I read the quote - rather the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is by saying it falls under the Ministry of Defence, which is still probably part of the government.

[Worthy4England]

The government isn't generally above the law. Nor should it be. That'd be the thin end of a very thick dictatorship wedge.

Have you turned into remoaner?

Just saying the government signed and is responsible for UN treaties, not the Met.
Now if the government had asked the Met to look into it, fair enough.

Clearly, as is often the case, you don't have a Scooby what you're wombling on about, do you? The Met is acting upon a referral, as it is bound to do.

The UK Border Agency (or whatever they've decided to call them this week) are one Department that makes referrals to the Met when they need some ass-wipe investigating. You know, those borders we want to protect with that wall you want to build? This is to try and help them understand if they're letting some fcker in who thinks genocide is a reasonable way forward...

The Met don't then assemble a team of 800 to go and start digging other countries up. They do a scoping exercise to weigh up if there's even the remotest possibility of them being able to get any or anything like enough evidence to actually act upon. In pretty much every instance the answer is "no".

[Hoboh]

The government isn't generally above the law. Nor should it be. That'd be the thin end of a very thick dictatorship wedge.

Have you turned into remoaner?

Just saying the government signed and is responsible for UN treaties, not the Met.
Now if the government had asked the Met to look into it, fair enough.

Clearly, as is often the case, you don't have a Scooby what you're wombling on about, do you? The Met is acting upon a referral, as it is bound to do.

The UK Border Agency (or whatever they've decided to call them this week) are one Department that makes referrals to the Met when they need some ass-wipe investigating. You know, those borders we want to protect with that wall you want to build? This is to try and help them understand if they're letting some fcker in who thinks genocide is a reasonable way forward...

The Met don't then assemble a team of 800 to go and start digging other countries up. They do a scoping exercise to weigh up if there's even the remotest possibility of them being able to get any or anything like enough evidence to actually act upon. In pretty much every instance the answer is "no".

Ha fcuking Ha, well after extensive searching on the web no clear person/persons are identified as making any referrals, certainly not the government so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Bottom line is it will be some ambulance chasing lawyers behind this, you know this system of justice in motion, just think how many will lose their jobs if we pee off the Saudi's because of some human rights knob head who is probably urging Trump and the USA to do something about Assad as I'm posting this, guess he's after new clients when WW3 breaks out (If any of us survive)!
Keep your nose out of other peoples matters that's what counts, if it threatens you then hit back, massively.

[Hoboh]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... tagon-live

I hope to fcuk they don't hit any Russian staff or equipment! Otherwise been nice knowing you lads.

[Hoboh]

No test, no launches, looks like lardy boy blinked first.

[Worthy4England]

No test, no launches, looks like lardy boy blinked first.

They tried one according to reports, it failed?

[Hoboh]

No test, no launches, looks like lardy boy blinked first.

They tried one according to reports, it failed?

Yep, a wet Lettice a day late

Not the big bang chubby chops and his cohorts were promising, unless that is, you count opening a block of flats with no hot water

[Hoboh]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... world.html

Don't bloody well use social media then you brainwashed consumerist muppets!

[Lord Kangana]

Is that a self-deprecating post?

Only I can't help noticing a link to The Idiots Bible.

[Hoboh]

Is that a self-deprecating post?

Only I can't help noticing a link to The Idiots Bible.

Seeing you don't like links, here's the headline

British teenage girls are among the most miserable in the world: One in five say they are not happy with their lives with pressures from social media and bullying blamed
Britain came fourth in a table of 46 nations ranking dissatisfaction with life
Research was conducted with 540,000 15-year-olds around the world
High proportion of UK girls are skipping meals, indicators of eating disorders 

Must be the remoaner effect!

[Bruce Rioja]

A colleague of mine has had his company dipped to the tune of just under £4K, which meant, with what he'd actually spent on it, that he'd been pushed over his card limit and found himself unable to pay for the fuel he'd just put into his car whilst holidaying in Skye.

I thought that credit card companies used algorithms? If so, then if you look at his usual transactions (flights, hotels, hire cars, fuel and food) shouldn't £4K being paid to an educational establishment in Mexico stand out a bit?

[BWFC_Insane]

A colleague of mine has had his company dipped to the tune of just under £4K, which meant, with what he'd actually spent on it, that he'd been pushed over his card limit and found himself unable to pay for the fuel he'd just put into his car whilst holidaying in Skye.

I thought that credit card companies used algorithms? If so, then if you look at his usual transactions (flights, hotels, hire cars, fuel and food) shouldn't £4K being paid to an educational establishment in Mexico stand out a bit?

Was it one payment? Or multiples? Multiples - they should have picked it up.

Single payments even large foreign ones sometimes slip through. Also the algorithms aren't perfect. I had my card details stolen once and whilst it detected and blocked the card, some stuff still got through.