If only Twitter was around during the Blair years there’s no way the Iraq was would have happened and we wouldn’t even have Isis!
Printable View
If only Twitter was around during the Blair years there’s no way the Iraq was would have happened and we wouldn’t even have Isis!
Oh the old, it went on in the past, so it will happen in the future school of thought...Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
What have they done today?! :sherlock:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Which does prove my point, long gone are the days that the government get away abuse of power and we do not hear about it due to us being alot more connected, in the old days we would not have heard of any of thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
you crack on, pointless posts like this bring nothing to the discussion, unless you think it makes you look smartQuote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
will be interesting to watch how that pans out aswellQuote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
It doesn’t prove your point, it proves they’re still getting away with what they want with zero consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
This could be posted after every post you make in fairness.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
We wouldn't have heard of a citizen taking the government to the supreme court and winning or how the government achieved their majority after a general election?Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
Give over.
Social media and the rise of independent investigatiive journalists have done a lot for getting stories out there, yes - but there's no way we're at full transparency.
You knew exactly what i meant, your last sentence proves thatQuote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Trump won the election due to Russian interference, the whole of Twitter know about it but it’s changed nothing. How can you say the government can’t get away with stuff like this any more because of social media?
I know what you meant and there's no way that the days of governments getting away with abuse of power are long gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
The Key words in my post are finding it easy, and i stand by that, we are all far to connected for that, so when the public find out, questions are asked, the ferry company fiasco was mentioned, questions were asked and the government back-tracked on it ( was it last week ? ? ? ) a prime example of not finding it easyQuote:
Originally Posted by lardy
So the government doesn't find it easy to abuse power now because questions are asked on social media and keeps them in check.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
Yet in this thread you are criticising people for doing exactly that
"Oh the old, It went on in the past, so it will happen in the future school of thought
I feel safe in the knowledge that Your good self and Lardy wouldnt just stand by and let the Government abuse its power, I can sleep safe in that knowledge
Or we can always look at everything in life with suspicion and mistrust, what a joyful life that must be "
The internet and social media are very much a double edged sword in this respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
The collapse of newspaper sales has meant that traditional media employ a fraction of the number of journalists that they used to, and those that remain typically just repurpose press releases into stories as it is much quicker than going and investigating anything.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47310206
New article seems to point to automatic citizenship till age of 21...
:popcorn:
Why are people happy to have her sent to Bangladesh? Do they think they deserve a “terrorist” more than the U.K.? Or do people just not care as long as we are rid of her?
Getting rid seems to be the priority. As long as she's not on British soil they couldn't care less. I think that's the general attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
It's her parents I feel sorry for.
Their daughter as a child is groomed/brainwashed into running away to a war zone and shacking up with a terrorist paedo.
Finally a glimmer of hope for them when she says she wants to come home to face the music, only for the UK to say, sorry you aren't British any more, you can be someone else's problem.
Is that really who we are as a nation? Does it make you proud?
I kept repeating this yesterday now lawyers are saying the same, usual suspects, thank you! :facepalm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadstool
"If the person remains in the UK, their Bangladeshi citizenship remains in existence but dormant."Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
As I said (repeatedly), it might be automatic but she still needs to do something to activate it. No country gives citizenship without paperwork.
You say tomato I say tomAto,told you yesterday that she had automatic citizenship, you never said it was automatic along with many, that was my whole point, and I did agree if you want to check that she would have to activate itQuote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
I gave three different hypothetical examples of someone being entitled to something automatically but having to do something to get it.
I still don't quite understand why it's within Britain's power to refuse her citizenship, but not within Bangladesh's power.
Especially since Trump has previously asked European 'allies' to take back ISIS fighters and make them stand trial... 2 days ago. (oops... 4 days ago :hehe:)Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial. The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them........</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1096980408401625088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
How on Earth are you still digging ffs :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Igovernor
Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Just for reference, sentence 1 and 3 we not a criticism of people raising question and challenging the governments actions, they were more i did not agree with the statements made
sentence one were purely that i do agree with that statement that just because the government have abused power in the past that they will do it again ( sure they might )
sentence three, i do not agree with that outlook in life, where everything has to be one of suspicion and mistrust, it is hardly balanced, it was in response to your post about me being naive, somewhere between is the balance
sentence two, now this was a bit of a sarcastic backhanded compliment, I do feel that the government will not have free reign in abusing the power they have due to people like you and croesy ( and many others on the net ) which was the whole point of my post, what people can do about it is another matter, but the example above i gave about the ferry fiasco just goes to prove the point, our government no longer have free reign to abuse power
I hope that has cleared up that misunderstanding and any offence it might have caused
Fox news had a story this morning on it, I guess it will be taken out of trumps hands, so he can say it wasnt his decisionQuote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
:hehe: there's no way you meant that as a compliment... :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
What are me and Lardy going to do?! You’ve got literal journalists reporting on Aaron Banks links to Russia and the Meuller report and the bbc or the government aren’t even looking at it.
Matt would work for the department of truth until the day he died because he was a glass half full kinda guy.
sarcastic backhanded compliment,:wave: you missed another bit of my post, you appear to do that occasionally , you missed the " finding it easy " from a previous post, are you using a phone to use this board, maybe the text size is too small for youQuote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Amended for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
Unless of course you have some irrefutable proof of which the CIA the DNS FBI and Homeland, with all their resources are collectively and/or severally so far unaware of course!!
Except that all of those agencies have agreed that Russia interfered in the 2016 US Presidential Election...Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-comments.html
Quote:
American intelligence agencies and both parties on Capitol Hill are in consensus that, as Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, said, “Russia conducted an unprecedented influence campaign to interfere in the U.S. electoral and political process.”
The federal and congressional intelligence and national security groups that have stated that Russia interfered in the election:
1. Central Intelligence Agency
2. Office of the Director of National Intelligence
3. F.B.I.
4. National Security Agency
5. Justice Department
6. Department of Homeland Security
7. House Intelligence Committee
8. Senate Intelligence Committee
Nothing alleged about the indictments that have already happened.
Why do conspiracy theorists stop believing that conspiracies are possible when there’s proof?
Almost like the ones that don’t back up a far right agenda aren’t interesting to them 🤔.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies that we know of — the latest being longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Saving this post so I can stop calling you an alleged dick headQuote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Just saw this in an article:
2006-2016 - deprivation of citizenship if conducive to the public good was used 50 times
2017 - 104 times
It was not used at all between 1973 and 2002
It’s not being used even when national security is not at stake. Lucky Matt is only focussing on this one issue though.
If I was a British citizen with parents who had a different heritage I’d be scared. They’ve basically become second class citizens. If citizenship has become easily revocable is it even citizenship? Seems like it’s become a visa.
She says today she’s willing to change
If so That changes everything
I'm not sure what her current living arrangements are, but you have to wonder how able to speak freely she isQuote:
Originally Posted by light up the darkness
If she is willing to change that shirley means that she hasn't yet, which could lead someone to assume she will only change if it suits what she wants.. not really a good basis to begin from is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by light up the darkness
If the whole issue regarding Shamima Begum has proved something, it's that Britain does indeed control its own borders, not the EU.