Politics Thread 5

[Squinty]

I find it quite disgusting that abortion is still illegal in Norn Iron. I assume it's purely religiously motivated? Muppets.

DUP. Fairly sure someone tried to put something through for it a few years ago and the DUP basically voted it down. Loyalist/Unionists are retrogressive wankers.

[Garth]

twitter.com/MPritchardUK/status/1050306649246879744

[KK]

The police operation for Donald Trump's controversial visit to the UK in July cost nearly £18m, it has emerged.

The US president's four-day trip saw nearly 10,000 officers deployed from all over the country with over 26,000 shifts worked.

Protests over the visit were held in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

The visit coincided with increased demands on policing linked to the hot weather, summer festivals and the World Cup finals.

Sara Thornton, chairwoman of the National Police Chiefs' Council, revealed the policing bill and said that "the majority of forces had to cancel officers' rest days, and extend the length of their shifts".

She praised the "hard work" of officers in ensuring that the "public were kept safe throughout".

In July the Treasury said it would fund policing costs of up to £5m for police operations during Mr Trump's visit to his Scottish golf course.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45820394

Let's hope he doesn't come back for a while...

[Garth]

twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1050367184734687232

twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1050356777466781696

[Jenuall]

twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1050367184734687232

Thie coming from a man who looks like he's in the process of holding back an orgasm there.

[Lex-Man]

If he ain't getting any, why should anyone else.

Serious question, has politics always been this nuts or is it just me?

[satriales]

twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1050356777466781696

Last week May announced that austerity was over and yesterday that nobody would be worse off on UC, surely she wasn't lying again?

[KK]

Discussing on CNN currently if the U.K. taxpayer should pay for security at tomorrow’s poxy Royal z-list wedding, which has even more guests than Harry and Meghan. Answer: strawberry float NO.

[Lagamorph]

Discussing on CNN currently if the U.K. taxpayer should pay for security at tomorrow’s poxy Royal z-list wedding, which has even more guests than Harry and Meghan. Answer: strawberry float NO.

Even if the Royal Family pay it's still the taxpayer picking up the tab.

[Lex-Man]

Discussing on CNN currently if the U.K. taxpayer should pay for security at tomorrow’s poxy Royal z-list wedding, which has even more guests than Harry and Meghan. Answer: strawberry float NO.

Even if the Royal Family pay it's still the taxpayer picking up the tab.

The queen does make a fair bit selling mechanising crap to gullible chumps.

[Tineash]

Discussing on CNN currently if the U.K. taxpayer should pay for security at tomorrow’s poxy Royal z-list wedding, which has even more guests than Harry and Meghan. Answer: strawberry float NO.

Even if the Royal Family pay it's still the taxpayer picking up the tab.

The queen does make a fair bit selling mechanising crap to gullible chumps.

In our future People's Republic, we will make up the shortfall by selling commemorative guillotines.

[Alvin Flummux]

[Garth]

twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1050634969708544000

[Drumstick]

Charities and companies working with universal credit claimants have been banned from criticising or harming the reputation of the work and pensions secretary Esther McVey, The Times can reveal.

At least 22 organisations have been required to sign gagging clauses as part of their involvement with programmes to help people back to work.

Banned and required by who?

[Moggy]

Charities and companies working with universal credit claimants have been banned from criticising or harming the reputation of the work and pensions secretary Esther McVey, The Times can reveal.

At least 22 organisations have been required to sign gagging clauses as part of their involvement with programmes to help people back to work.

Banned and required by who?

Charities and companies working with universal credit claimants have been banned from criticising or harming the reputation of the work and pensions secretary Esther McVey, The Times can reveal.

At least 22 organisations have been required to sign gagging clauses as part of their involvement with programmes to help people back to work.

The contracts, worth a total of £1.8 billion, state that groups receiving the money must “pay the utmost regard to the standing and reputation” of the work and pensions secretary.

They must “not do anything which may attract adverse publicity” to her, damage her reputation or harm the public’s confidence in her.

Basically if the charities want government funding, they are not allowed to speak ill of McVey.

The government has done a similar thing with haulage firms. If haulage firms want to be involved with government talks on Brexit plans, then they are not allowed to speak about it, even if the plans are strawberry floating awful (and they are!).

[Drumstick]

Isn't that some form of blackmail or denial of free speech?

[Moggy]

Isn't that some form of blackmail or denial of free speech?

A gagging order isn't blackmail and we don't really have freedom of speech in the UK.

[Drumstick]

Isn't that some form of blackmail or denial of free speech?

A gagging order isn't blackmail and we don't really have freedom of speech in the UK.

Don't you try and tell me what I can and can't say.

So it's not legally binding then?

[Moggy]

Isn't that some form of blackmail or denial of free speech?

A gagging order isn't blackmail and we don't really have freedom of speech in the UK.

Don't you try and tell me what I can and can't say.

So it's not legally binding then?

I’d imagine it is legally binding. Non disclosure agreements are pretty standard.

Whether the government would take a charity to court is a different matter. Especially if all the charity has done is say that McVey is a useless and heartless twat.

[Drumstick]

Isn't that some form of blackmail or denial of free speech?

A gagging order isn't blackmail and we don't really have freedom of speech in the UK.

Don't you try and tell me what I can and can't say.

So it's not legally binding then?

I’d imagine it is legally binding. Non disclosure agreements are pretty standard.

Whether the government would take a charity to court is a different matter. Especially if all the charity has done is say that McVey is a useless and heartless twat.

Exactly. It'd make them look even worse and more heartless than they do now.