JAG

37 minutes ago, webfact said:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman called the group "a violent mob" and said they had thrown projectiles at agents who responded with "the minimum force necessary to defend themselves."

 

"Congress needs to fully fund the border wall," Waldman said in a statement

So a department of the Federal Government is now commenting directly, critically and in an openly partisan manner upon the actions of the elected chamber of the government?

Compared to that I suppose that lobbing tear gas across an international border into a foreign country pales into insignificance...

3 hours ago, oilinki said:

I agree with this. It has been quite an voyage to get to know a bit better how Brits really think. 

Oh, I should imagine that there is as wide a spectrum of views on political matters in The UK as there is in Finnland. Monolithic centralised parties following a "diktat line" are not really part of the UK political scene. Both our major parties are essentially coalitions of a variety of views. Perhaps that is one reason why we have the mess we have, with the party in government,(Conservatives), whilst claiming to be carrying out the decision made in the referendum, are actually doing everything they can to thwart it - the faction in control (just) are essentially remainers. The main opposition party, (Labour), equally split on the matter, is rather sitting on its' hands. As for how Brits really think, well rather more of those who bothered to vote think we should leave than think we should remain.

I think the mistake many observers make is to think that decision was arrived at as a result of the 2016 campaign. It is a point of view, a thought if you like, which has been brewing for many years. The people were only allowed to declare their views in 2016. The result may have been different, (I certainly may not have voted to leave), if the UK's political establishment had over the last 20 odd years done anything to address or allay those widely held views in their dealings with the EU. They didn't. " 'cos they knew best."

That led to the rise of a new single issue party - UKIP. Because of our electoral system they were not able to win seats in parliament, but they were able to threaten the control of both the major parties. The referendum was a move on the part of the Conservative Party to shoot that particular tiger. It worked, although ironically if the Conservative Party are now (as looks likely) complicit in remaining, in all but name, in the EU it will probably energise UKIP again.

The people essentially didn't agree with their political establishment.. That is why they voted out. To that extent, it could possibly be described as a protest vote. I hope you will come to understand that it is a complex and long-running debate within the UK. Leavers and remainers are drawn from a wide cross-section of the UK, socially, politically and economically. It is a feature of the debate that I find myself agreeing with two such entirely disparate characters as the late Tony Benn and Jacob Rees Mogg, politically poles apart but of the same view on this! It is far from being as simple as it is painted. It reflects many factors, not least the UK's central role (whether you like it or not you cannot deny it) in the politics and history of Europe in the last 120 years.

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Clear majority? No, that was miniscule majority if we want to be honest.

 

There was plenty of protest votes against the government, which is expected in these kind of situations. Also the Brexit campaign did excellent job for confusing the electorate with mixed messages from two different campaigns. 

It was a clear majority of those who voted, in one of the largest turnouts in any democratic activity in the UK for many years - if we want to be honest.

You simply cannot know, and have no way of knowing what motivated those who voted, either for or against leaving. I do not wish to be rude, but as you are not British I rather suspect that you have a limited understanding of the issues, from the point of view of the British electorate and at the time took little interest in the campaigns. If it were a protest vote, I suggest that the protest was against a succession of Governments which have ensured that the views of the British people were effectively ignored on the subject of the EU, going back perhaps as far as the whole business over the Maastricht Treaty some 25 years ago. As for confusing the electorate, well I know little of Finnish politics, but I am sure you would be (rightly) annoyed if I were to suggest that your current government came to power because your electorate was too stupid and confused to understand why they voted for it.

26 minutes ago, oilinki said:

And yet UK is heading towards no-deal cliff. How does that work out?

Very simply. The referendum showed that a clear majority of those who voted, wished for the UK to leave the EU.

Notwithstanding that a significant number of ministers in the government wish to prevent the UK from effectively leaving the EU. Hammond is very much one, (personally I think that he is the real driving force behind this), the Prime Minister is another. They are the principal players in the efforts to arrange a "deal" which means that the UK does not effectively leave. Therefore they have made no preparation or proper contingency plans for actually leaving, despite the referendum starting the process over two years ago. They are actually doing their best to prevent both the decision of the electorate and the manifesto commitments on which they were elected in the subsequent general election being carried out. The cliff edge is of their making, they wish for it to be the only alternative.

Now whether one agrees or not that the UK should leave the EU, such action shows a staggering arrogance and cynical approach to the decision of the electorate, expressed in both the referendum and the last general election.

25 minutes ago, IssanMichael said:

I agree totally that liquor sellers are to blame, and anyone being shot then the gun manufacturers should be brought to justice, and rope makers in suicide cases, and builders who make stairs in apartments and lift makers bla bla bla bla  

Architects who design balconies...

Mind you I have just googled the "Stop Alcohol Group" (b*gg*r all else to do) and the resulting photo of this miserable bunch suggests that perhaps they should be arraigned for driving people to drink!

1 hour ago, Sir Swagman said:

Not just resellers surely, manufacturers, tax collectors from the producers and while you are at it include police, road builders, car retailers and manufacturers and all in the chain in between. I would reserve the strongest action for those companies that make steering wheels and accelerator and brake pedals as misuse of any or all is what leads to this carnage. 

Brake manufacturers and fitters are the real villains without a doubt - just look at the truly alarming rate of brake failures...

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Walls aren't worth much without guards. All the examples you cited have guards of one sort or another. Without them, walls are just easily scaleable physical objects. As others have pointed out. A wall that's nearly 2000 miles long is going to need a lot of guards. For a situation that is barely a patch on what it was just a few years ago. Illegal immigration from the southern border has drastically declined. Why spend so much to gain so little?

The Inner German Border, the wall separating West and East Germany was 866 miles long, and required a force of 50,000 border guards (East German) to ensure it remained uncrossable. That figure is with a shoot to kill policy against anyone attempting to cross, and very significant restrictions on people's freedom of  movement when approaching the wall and preparing to cross it. Granted it was built to keep people in rather than out, (people still worked out ways to get through), but the principle of a barrier to cross having to be guarded remains. The "Great Wall of Trumpton" will be some 2000 miles long.

It is a military principle that, unless an obstacle is "covered by fire", in this case let us substitute guarded and patrolled, it is an inconvenience rather than an obstacle!

Drones and surveillance devices are jolly useful, but you still need physical guards to respond to them. Of course the East Germans found minefields, hungry savage dogs on long chains, and automatic shotguns set off by tripwires (SM70s) to be quite effective as well. I wonder if...

3 hours ago, neeray said:

I guess I am late age (at 70) but I did not consider the Musk comments as a "generalisation" of my character.

Whilst I am a mere stripling in comparison to your good self????????, I will confess that I was unimpressed, and offended, by the implications in Mr Musks comments. My reaction is to write it off as the grandstanding of a self impressed plonker, with a demonstrated tenuous connection with the truth and access to a large audience though twitter. He would probably have benefited from a good slapping in early life! That said, I was not the specific target of his observations, groundlessly made on a very public platform. Mr Underwood was, and has chosen to  take it to court. Good luck to him, although I am not convinced that he will get far, chasing the golden boy of California through the Californian courts!

The difference between the two men is a contrast. Mr Underwood lives a quiet innocuous life here with his family, and played a significant and entirely creditable part in the efforts in July. His comments were accurate, and he employed a blunt but entirely normal English euphanism (remember he is an Englishman). Mr Musk is a known liar and it seems an attempted fraudster who, despite huge publicity which shamelessly seems little more than an attempt to climb on the bandwagon, played no effective role in the rescue. He did however accuse Mr Underwood, very publicly, of abhorrent actions.