*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[OngBonga]

Well you wouldn't recognise a kangaroo court as having legitimacy would you? So yes it's also a form of a mock court.

Think Venn diagram - the kangaroo court is a subset of the larger circle of mock courts.

Say a law professor held a mock court in a lecture. There was no point to it other than to teach the students about legal procedures. Would you call that court legitimate? No, of course not. Would you call it a kangaroo court? No, of course not.

But you could call a kangaroo court a mock court, it's just a specific type of mock court where guilt is pre-ordained.

This is actually a fair and strong argument.

But it adds nothing to your much weaker argument that a kangaroo court is well defined, but it very clearly isn't.

[Poopadoop]

Mock court is another subjective term

The adjective mock means fake. Hence a mock court is a fake court. It's not subjective at all.

[Poopadoop]

But it adds nothing to your much weaker argument that a kangaroo court is well defined, but it very clearly isn't.

There might be some grey area around the edges of the definition of KC, but it certainly doesn't extend to lacking the power to enforce a punishment.

[Poopadoop]

You're actually being snobbish about sources.

I already knew the meaning of the term. It's not my fault if a prestigious dictionary agrees with it and you want to argue both me and the dictionary are wrong.

[OngBonga]

The adjective mock means fake. Hence a mock court is a fake court. It's not subjective at all.

One could use the term loosely to describe a court hastily put together, an ad hoc court if you will. There's another term for such a court. Giraffe court I think.

There might be some grey area around the edges of the definition of KC, but it certainly doesn't extend to lacking the power to enforce a punishment.

I'm sorry but if someone used it in this context then it would be a reasonable use of the term. "Lacking power" can certainly be termed "without proper authority", which is literally how some sources define kangaroo court.

...to argue both me and the dictionary are wrong.

Please show me where I said the dictionary was wrong. I said it was concise. Which, I'm sure we can agree, means as short as possible. Succinct. These are not a subjective words. These are clearly defined words. Kangaroo is also clearly defined, I don't think anyone will use that word in a different context to the one we're all familiar with. I guess you could incorrectly call a wallaby a kangaroo but considering both are clearly defined then it's reasonable to correct someone making this error.

I might even be using the word concise incorrectly. For it to be concise, not only does it need to be a brief definition, but complete. Whatever, it can also mean sufficient information using few words. You get the idea without having to read an essay. I'm not very concise.

You're not wrong in your definition of kangaroo court, and neither is the dictionary. Where you're wrong is to dismiss other definitions that aren't from prestige sources like Harrod's Dictionary sponsored by Hilton Hotels.

[OngBonga]

Oxford Dictionary, considered by many as "prestige", simply defines it as such...

​an illegal court that punishes people unfairly

This is ludicrously subjective. If a court has the power to make laws, does that mean it can't be a kangaroo court? Because if it can make laws, it can't be illegal unless it chooses to be illegal.

And "fairness" is also extremely subjective unless we're again talking about written law, which in theory should not be subjective at all (though it certainly can be). But of course laws can be unfair.

[Poopadoop]

One could use the term loosely to describe a court hastily put together, an ad hoc court if you will. There's another term for such a court. Giraffe court I think.

Ok, you do that.

I'm sorry but if someone used it in this context then it would be a reasonable use of the term. "Lacking power" can certainly be termed "without proper authority", which is literally how some sources define kangaroo court.

Power and proper authority are different things. Power means having the ability to enforce a verdict. Proper authority refers to legitimacy. A court can have power without proper authority, or have proper authority without power (or with limited power).

A frontier "court" in the Wild West might have found someone guilty and hung them while not having the legitimate authority to do so, and not following normal legal procedures or burden of proof, etc.. It had power but not proper authority. That's an example of a kangaroo court.

Conversely, the court at Nuremberg, among others, could in some cases be said to have authority without power. If it found a missing Nazi guilty of war crimes, as it did with Martin Bormann, it obviously couldn't do anything to him as long as he stayed missing. It's power was conditional on Bormann turning up. But it still had the legal authority to try him in absentia. That's not a kangaroo court.

Similarly, while it didn't happen at Nuremberg, a court could also try someone in absentia who was known to be dead. It obviously couldn't then dig the person up and hang them, so in that case its power was limited to the historical record. This court arguably has very limited power, but no-one would then conclude it's a kangaroo court.

The presence or absence of power has nothing to do with whether a court is a kangaroo court or not. The presence or absence of legitimacy does.

You're not wrong in your definition of kangaroo court, and neither is the dictionary. Where you're wrong is to dismiss other definitions that aren't from prestige sources like Harrod's Dictionary sponsored by Hilton Hotels.

I'm not dismissing your definition because you're not a prestigious dictionary. I'm dismissing it because it's wrong. Even if you use your "subjective" argument to make up your own definitions, it was still wrong in the context of how it was being used by Bodger and his ilk.

[Poopadoop]

This is ludicrously subjective. If a court has the power to make laws, does that mean it can't be a kangaroo court? Because if it can make laws, it can't be illegal unless it chooses to be illegal.

Laws aren't made by courts. What are you talking about?

A court gets its power from a lawmaking body, such as a parliament.

The definition is obviously referring to a court that isn't legitimate, i.e., illegal.

And "fairness" is also extremely subjective unless we're again talking about written law, which in theory should not be subjective at all (though it certainly can be).

By definition, an illegal court is unfair. Would you think it's fair to be tried in the UK by a court that wasn't given its authority by parliament?

But of course laws can be unfair.

See above- it's the fact that the court itself is illegitimate that makes the punishment unfair.


This is getting a bit boring now tbh. I'm just gonna accept that you will never admit you were wrong and leave it at that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm just gonna accept that you will never admit you were wrong and leave it at that.

Like many of you, I often use projection as a way of comforting myself.

[Poopadoop]

I don't have a valid riposte to your argument, so I'm gonna stick to reductio ad Ong'ing you.

fyp

[MadMojoMonkey]

Your mistake is that you think I'm arguing with you.

I'm not adding any riposte against you. I'm not interested in changing you. That's all you. I'm not invested.
I'm only interested in chatting.

You fabricate some conflict with me and act as though you are winning something... which is absurd.


Your use of this forum as your soap box and not as a social media platform in which you converse with friends needs to stop.
In this conversation, you've worn my patience multiple times. Each of those times, I've reminded myself that you're a long-standing member here and deserve a wide berth.

You're overextending your berth when you treat me like an opponent.

I don't have infinite patience.

You're inside nanners lines so far, but your course needs to correct.

[Poopadoop]

You're not adding anything to the debate, you're just complaining about me calling out Ong's bullshit. If you're so authoritarian that you're going to ban me for arguing with your friend, then go ahead.

[OngBonga]

I'm just going to put out that there's a debate about whether or not the Nuremberg Trials were or were not a kangaroo court. That's because the term kangaroo court if very much subjective.

[Poopadoop]

Are those arguments based on the idea that Nuremberg was powerless and didn't actually hang anyone, or are they concerned with its legitimacy as being set up by the occupying powers?

[OngBonga]

By definition, an illegal court is unfair.

By definition? By whose definition? Yours?

You're assuming right here that laws are by definition fair, because you're using the legality of a court to determine whether or not it is fair.

The UK probably has the legal right to overrule Scottish courts. They could perhaps, in a political incident, declare a Scottish court "illegal", which would mean their judgements have no authority. Are we now saying that this court is "by definition" unfair? Or is it the laws declaring it illegal that are unfair?

Fairness is extremely subjective. Define it for me please, show me how definite the word "fair" is. Show me how language is so rigid.

[OngBonga]

Are those arguments based on the idea that Nuremberg was powerless and didn't actually hang anyone, or are they concerned with its legitimacy as being set up by the occupying powers?

Depends who you ask.

[Poopadoop]

The point of the Oxford definition is it broadly concurs with the MW one- the kangaroo court is illegimate and doesn't follow what are considered fair procedures according to legal norms. What it doesn't concur with is your argument that a kangaroo court has no power.

Like I said though, this is getting boring. I mean if you're reduced now to arguing over the definition of every single word in the dictionary, then you obviously have given up on your original assertion. Next you're going to argue that the word subjective is subjective, and you really meant something else by it.

[Poopadoop]

Depends who you ask.

You mean there's someone out there who doesn't believe they hanged a bunch of Nazis after the NC found them guilty and sentenced them to hang? Someone please dig up those guys and tell them it was just a kangaroo court and had no power.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If there is something going on that is stressing you out beyond this forum, then I'm here to listen about that.
Picking a fight with me is something you know the end result of, so IDK what you're up to there.

As an adult and as a show of respect:
I apologize for quipping at you over the projection thing rather than discuss it in paragraph form.
I don't mean to get caught up in the game of quips, but I get riled up sometimes.

I am extending an olive branch. You can burn it if you choose.

You're not adding anything to the debate

I'm adding my thoughts as a friend who is chatting with 2 friends.

you're just complaining about me calling out Ong's bullshit.

I have mentioned ong once aside from assuring you that my motivations have nothing to do with him, and that was to call him out for using wikipedia as an appeal to authority. The exact equal critique I leveled against you with your dictionary shenanigans. I'm not playing favorites or defending anyone.

If you're so authoritarian that you're going to ban me for arguing with your friend, then go ahead.

I encourage you to argue with ong. He loves it. You love it. I'm a big fan.

You're projecting a set of motivations onto me that simply do not apply. It feels galling to be accused of animosity and false pretenses when I'm speaking to you directly and honestly and without any subterfuge. This is what's getting under my skin right now. Not your argument with ong and certainly not any sense that ong needs me to defend him.

IDK what's motivated you on this path, but if you're done here, then don't put me through the trauma of extending you every courtesy as I slowly become an anxious wreck, only to have you accuse me of being biased against you the entire time. I'd like to think that you have enough respect for me to at least not treat me like that. Really, I'd like to think you wouldn't treat anyone like that.

[Poopadoop]

The only thing bothering me is you. Me and Ong were having a fun debate and then you stuck your nose in and tried to be the referee. I don't want to fight with you either, so let's just leave it.

[OngBonga]

The point of the Oxford definition is it broadly concurs with the MW one.

Of course it does. So does the Wikipedia article, and so do both of us. The difference is that you seem to think that the definition of kangaroo court is definite and objective, which it very clearly is not. I'm simply accepting that it can mean something slightly different to different people in different contexts without losing my shit about it.

Some people might argue that civil courts are kangaroo courts because they enforce contract law, which isn't actually enforceable in a practical sense. All a civil court can do is make judgements, they can't force people to cough up. You sue me successfully for 1 million, it's not like anyone can force me to pay it. What actually happens is I become legally bankrupt, the debt is written off or tied to potential future earnings that I might or might not make, and I don't go to jail or face any further consequence. Has any judgement been enforced? That's a matter of opinion. And so I could accept that someone using the term kangaroo court to describe a civil court isn't being wholly disingenuous, even if they are using that term for its impact rather than its meaning.

[OngBonga]

We can agree a kangaroo court is an unfair one or an illegal one, for the most part. The subjectivity arises there. Fair and legal are nowhere near synonymous. Fair is subjective, law is not supposed to be but still is.

[Poopadoop]

It seemed that you managed to work your way around to a general argument that terms aren't always strictly defined, rather than the specific argument that a kangaroo court is powerless. Ok fine, I would be happy to go along with that.

Then you came up with the kangaroo civil court stuff. No-one calls a court a kangaroo court because it can't enforce a punishment. Except you I guess. But again, whatever, use the language however you want.

And yeah you obviously weren't losing your shit when you wrote 100 posts about how a kangaroo court has no power. But OTOH, telling you you're wrong 100 times is losing my shit. Nice reductio ad Ong there to finish things off.

[Poopadoop]

We can agree a kangaroo court is an unfair one or an illegal one, for the most part.

Great.

[OngBonga]

"rather than the specific argument that a kangaroo court is powerless."

Ok let me just sum up where you misinterpreting me.

A kangaroo court is not necessarily powerless.

A powerless court could reasonably be called a kangaroo court.

Do you agree with this? Because that's my argument summed up concisely.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The only thing bothering me is you. Me and Ong were having a fun debate and then you stuck your nose in and tried to be the referee. I don't want to fight with you either, so let's just leave it.

I didn't mean to referee anything, really, though I can see how my statements were in that tone.

How shall I say it then?

Your entire case was built on strong points until you made the appeal to authority. Just saying, IMO that was weak sauce. If you'd instead just said, "This is what I understand KC means..." rather than insist that what you understand is True, then that'd have been a stronger way to proceed, IMO.

I'm just commenting on what's being said. I'm not a referee. Go ahead and say whatever. If you think my point is bad, then say so. Turning our disagreement into a personal gripe or into an argument is where the line is drawn.

I'm not interested in arguments. I'm interested in discussions. If you want to argue with ong, then by all means do so. You both love it.

I am not ong. I'm not here to change your mind. I'm here to change mine. I'm here to say what I understand and hear what other people understand and see if there's anything in there that I'd like to adopt. Whether or not you want to be influenced by me is none of my concern, really, and certainly no ambition of mine. If it happens, it happens; if not, then not.


The problem with argument and debate is entrenched perspectives. I'm not interested in defending an idea. I'm interested in exploring ideas. I'm not interested in being right, I'm interested in being less wrong.

IDK if this helps you see my perspective, and perhaps assign less of an authoritarian nature to my comments. I'm not here to boss anyone around. I'm just thinking with friends.

[Poopadoop]

"rather than the specific argument that a kangaroo court is powerless."

Ok let me just sum up where you misinterpreting me.

A kangaroo court is not necessarily powerless.

A powerless court could reasonably be called a kangaroo court.


Do you agree with this? Because that's my argument summed up concisely.

Everything but the bolded, which is what I've been arguing against this whole time.

What I meant was "the specific argument that a powerless court can be referred to as a kangaroo court."

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wasn't the original point that Bojo saying the parliamentary court was a KC somehow a criminal offense?

The hashing out of what exactly he meant by KC seems relevant, and simply assuming that Bojo of all people uses any given word in the common parlance seems dubious.

Maybe he did, though. If so, and he was basically saying parliament was cracked, then ... what?
Worst case scenario... is that actually illegal? Can he be held in contempt of parliament for opinions stated to the press?
IDK the law.


And what is the not worst case scenario?
Does the law require motive? Proving motive is notoriously hard. He can say he was being dramatic or comedic, or playing up to the cameras... he can deflect his actual motivation into obscurity, which we all know Bojo is practiced at.

Is the ambiguity of the meaning of words, specifically KC, in this case relevant?

If not... does that actually prove his point?
I.e. if his statement is asserted to mean what Parliament chooses to be offended at and punishes him despite his adamant assertion that his motive was not offensive... isn't that kinda KC-ish?

[Poopadoop]

If a court had no power to enforce it's ruling, no-one would give a shit about it, whether it was otherwise fair or not, they'd just ignore it. They'd say 'sure anteater court, I'm sentenced to life on the moon. whatever, your honor. see ya.'

The reason people use the derogatory term kangaroo court is because they think they're being tried by an unfair court, AND that same court has the authority to punish them. cf Bodger Johnson.

[Poopadoop]

Wasn't the original point that Bojo saying the parliamentary court was a KC somehow a criminal offense?

Not a criminal offense, a contempt of parliament. He couldn't go to jail for it. Afaik the PC's power is limited to suspending MPs from sitting in parliament as an MP for a term anywhere from 1 day to life, and some other relatively minor punishments like taking away their pass so they can't use the tea room for cheap meals or some shit.

The hashing out of what exactly he meant by KC seems relevant, and simply assuming that Bojo of all people uses any given word in the common parlance seems dubious.

Since most people understand the term to mean illegitimate and biased, and the context of his quotes were along the same lines, I think we can fairly interpret them as such.

No-one apart from Ong has asserted Bodger meant something other than the usual common definition of the term KC, including Bodger himself.

Maybe he did, though. If so, and he was basically saying parliament was cracked, then ... what?
Worst case scenario... is that actually illegal? Can he be held in contempt of parliament for opinions stated to the press?
IDK the law.

He's holding the PC in contempt, and by proxy the entire parliament because they commissioned the PC. So yes, he can be held in contempt for saying the PC is/was prejudicial against him and didn't give him fair treatment. It's implying that the parliament is also biased because it appointed this biased committee and let it go ahead.

And what is the not worst case scenario?
Does the law require motive? Proving motive is notoriously hard. He can say he was being dramatic or comedic, or playing up to the cameras... he can deflect his actual motivation into obscurity, which we all know Bojo is practiced at.

Motive is an investigative tool that points detectives towards certain suspects and away from others, it's not a legal requirement for a guilty verdict.

You can be found guilty of murder without anyone having to provide an explanaton for why you did it. Proving your actions is what counts.

Is the ambiguity of the meaning of words, specifically KC, in this case relevant?

He did not try to use ambiguity as a defense. Obviously his lawyer who earns millions a year or whatever didn't consult with Ong for legal guidance. His bad.

I.e. if his statement is asserted to mean what Parliament chooses to be offended at and punishes him despite his adamant assertion that his motive was not offensive... isn't that kinda KC-ish?

He asserted it both before and after the hearing. He can hardly argue 'this kangaroo court unfairly punished me for calling it a kangaroo court.' I mean I wouldn't put it past him to try, but I doubt it would hold up.

[Poopadoop]

Motive is an investigative tool that points detectives towards certain suspects and away from others, it's not a legal requirement for a guilty verdict.

You can be found guilty of murder without anyone having to provide an explanaton for why you did it. Proving your actions is what counts.

To elaborate, a defendant's motive is often used by prosecutor's as a rhetorical device when the evidence is not compelling. So, e.g., you kill your spouse and it's a bit sketchy whether you did it or not. The prosecutor would likely argue to a jury that you had motive because you'd just taken out a $1m life insurance policy on them the day before.

OTOH, if you kill your spouse in front of a roomful of witnesses, your DNA is all over the murder weapon, etc., etc., the motive isn't really relevant to the case. Even if the prosecutor said they have no idea why you did it, you'd still be found guilty.

[OngBonga]

Not a criminal offense, a contempt of parliament. He couldn't go to jail for it. Afaik the PC's power is limited to suspending MPs from sitting in parliament as an MP for a term anywhere from 1 day to life, and some other relatively minor punishments like taking away their pass so they can't use the tea room for cheap meals or some shit.

So it's an employment disciplinary panel pretending it has the clout of a proper court?

Yeah sounds like a kangaroo court to me.

[Poopadoop]

He can hardly argue 'this kangaroo court unfairly punished me for calling it a kangaroo court.' I mean I wouldn't put it past him to try, but I doubt it would hold up.

Actually, if it were a kangaroo court, I guess he could say that. The problem for him is that no-one apart from him and a few of his lickspittles actually seem to think that it was a KC. It's just hard to imagine a parliamentary committee being set up, and its members agreed on by everyone in parliament, for the express purpose of railroading an MP.

It's certainly an unorthodox defense though lol. Can you imagine getting tried for something, publicly calling it a kangaroo court before it even started, then saying it was unfair to hold you in contempt for that? At the very least it doesn't seem like a wise strategy.

[Poopadoop]

So it's an employment disciplinary panel

More or less.

pretending it has the clout of a proper court?

I don't recall anyone on the PC claiming it could impose any greater penalties than it was empowered to do.

Yeah sounds like a kangaroo court to me

It's raining hamsters and dogs today too.

[OngBonga]

How can anyone be in contempt of an employment tribunal?

[OngBonga]

If they are using the word "contempt" to describe someone misleading them or insulting them, then they are behaving like a public authority. That's fine if they are a public authority, which I do believe they are. But they are basically nothing more than an employment tribunal dishing out slaps on wrists to people who are naughty. So they are acting like they have more authority than they do.

A kangaroo court.

[Poopadoop]

Ok Ong, whatever you say mate.

[Poopadoop]

He also was facing a recall vote from his constituency for being suspended for more than ten days. He managed to duck that by resigning in disgrace rather than risk being voted out in disgrace by his constituents.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Motive may not matter in this case, but it does matter in absolute loads of cases.

US law varies from state to state, but proving intent matters greatly when determining the difference between manslaughter and murder in various degrees (if the state has degrees).

At any rate, bojo is dumb and if his mouth gets him in bigger trouble than otherwise... that's par for the course, really.

[Poopadoop]

US law varies from state to state, but proving intent matters greatly when determining the difference between manslaughter and murder in various degrees (if the state has degrees).

Yup, fair point.

[OngBonga]

Ok Ong, whatever you say mate.

For this sarcasm, I hold you in contempt of Ong.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is the court of ong a Kangaroo court? Or an Anteater court? Or maybe a Zebra court?

I'm not sure to which zookeeper Poopy needs to report is all.

[Poopadoop]

"I hereby call this Court of Bullshit into order. Lord Ong, presiding."

[The Bean Counter]

With UK inflation and the base rate increase today, those at the poorest end of the scale are in for a rough ride.

Despite having a degree in Economics, I can't figure out how mortgages and rents going up by £500+ per month is going to be helpful in bringing food, energy and fuel costs down. Unless people living on the street and no eating is the idea.

[Poopadoop]

With UK inflation and the base rate increase today, those at the poorest end of the scale are in for a rough ride.

I'm not at the poorest end of the scale but I'm also in for a rough ride, with a mortgage renewal due in Feb. '24. Not food bank rough, but £500 more a month in mortgage payments would definitely be something I would feel in my wallet.

Despite having a degree in Economics, I can't figure out how mortgages and rents going up by £500+ per month is going to be helpful in bringing food, energy and fuel costs down. Unless people living on the street and no eating is the idea.

That seems consistent with most economists I've heard talking about it. Danny Blanchflower for one has been losing his shit over gov't policy lately. I think there's a former gov'r of the BoE as well saying they're being stupid.

If people are spending too much and creating too much demand which then drives inflation, you take money from people and give it to the banks to reduce spending and thus inflation. Ok, fine.

But if inflation is being caused by a shortage of supply, as it is now, and especially in things that people can't really go without like food, etc.., taking money from people and giving it to the banks is just going to make people suffer for nothing. I guess if they start to starve and/or freeze to death that will reduce inflation but yeah that seems a bit harsh.

Also, these supply shocks should be correcting themselves and the prices should stabilize or even drop, if Blanchflower is correct. The BoE is going to look a bit silly if interest rates are at 6% in January and inflation is already gone down to near zero.

[Poopadoop]

Oh I remember now. Not sure who said it but it was some high profile economist. He said inflation was being caused by a shortage of labour driving up wages and thus prices. He recommended increasing immigration. Too bad we aren't part of some kind of big trade bloc with free movement or labour or something. #MEGA

[Poopadoop]

Energy prices going down in July according to BG. Don't know if the gov't is still doing the whole tax us to give us subsidies to pay the energy companies record profits thing or not, but if nothing else that should ease inflation.

[Poopadoop]

You don't have to be a nutter to go on BBC Question Time. But it helps.

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/s...64786974662667

[Poopadoop]

Well it's official now. None of the students in my department are graduating this year, at least not when they're supposed to. First and second-years are also screwed; they can't progress to their next year.

This is going to explode in the news in early July when the results are announced. The unis are pleading being broke and there's no word of the gov't stepping in to either lift the tuition cap or raise the funding. I reckon this will be the next chapter in the Tory vs. "militant unions" story, and hopefully another nail in their coffin. Even better would be if they actually did something to help, but we all know how likely that is to happen.

[Poopadoop]

The Head of our School sent an email around staff a couple of weeks ago asking the people not on strike to do the marking for the people who are on strike. No-one volunteered. Solidarity, muthafuckas.

Today he sent another email along the same lines, adding in some words to the effect of "won't somebody think of the children?" Yeah, tell that to the gov't dude. 25% pay cut in real terms since they took over. It can't go on.

[Poopadoop]

I really don't know what's holding this country together right now. It's certainly not Fishi telling everyone to 'hold their nerve.'

[OngBonga]

I'm not in favour of striking but even I wouldn't be volunteering to do strikers' work. I'm at least going to respect the strikers' free will, I certainly expect them to respect my decision to work.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@poopy re wont somebody think of the children!

Don't you work in a university?

What children are they talking about?

[Poopadoop]

What children are they talking about?

The students. But really, I meant it as a mocking line about laying an inappropriate guilt trip on people. As in "it's entirely your fault the students aren't graduating because you're on strike because we refuse to pay you more."

[Poopadoop]

Media pretty quiet about "no graduation for you gate." I guess they got more important things to talk about like that pervy BBC announcer thing. Students are losing their shit; I feel sorry for them.

[Poopadoop]

First it was "I was too stupid to understand my own covid rules," now it's "I forgot my PIN."


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2374643.html


This whole playing dumb thing doesn't work in real life for adults. Someone should tell him that.

[Poopadoop]

Oh wait. Good thing someone was keeping an eye on him.

https://www.ft.com/content/349e9eda-...d-ceb3bfecac3a


I'm no techie, but wait, wut?

“There’s just a fear that, if the pin number is wrong, you could accidentally wipe the data,” said one person briefed on the discussions. “The hope is that the pin number will be correct and things will move forward, either today or tomorrow.”

[Poopadoop]

Goddamn woke Eurolibtards, taking back control of their borders!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...emoan-gridlock

[MadMojoMonkey]

Goddamn woke Eurolibtards, taking back control of their borders!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...emoan-gridlock

“This is the worst it’s ever been. It’s awful. On a scale of one to 10 it’s 11 – it’s boring,”

Man... life is hard for you guys. Being bored? Sounds awful.

[Poopadoop]

“This is the worst it’s ever been. It’s awful. On a scale of one to 10 it’s 11 – it’s boring,”

Man... life is hard for you guys. Being bored? Sounds awful.

Personally I refuse to go on holidays unless I'm guaranteed to spend at least 6 hours in a queue. That's what I work towards all year long.

Sometimes I go to the DMV just so I can stand in line. And when they're closed I phone up my bank's call center so I can wait a couple of hours to speak to someone there. Anyone who thinks that's not living the life is a whiner and probably a wokey.

[OngBonga]

I'm really not sure how a newspaper feels it's in the public interest to report on a bored family in a queue at a port.

Plenty of people have waited longer than six hours to enter a port.

She's come from the Netherlands. If I were making that journey, I'd just sail from Amsterdam or Rotterdam and drive from Yarmouth to the South Coast, and then moan about the queues on the M25 instead of at Dover.

[Poopadoop]

I'm really not sure how a newspaper feels it's in the public interest to report on a bored family in a queue at a port.

Yea, because the point of the story is to get to know this one family better, not to report on the longest queues ever at Dover.

Plenty of people have waited longer than six hours to enter a port.

Really? Where? I've waited at an aiport for customs a couple of hours tops. I've never waited 6 hours to exit/enter a country.

She's come from the Netherlands. If I were making that journey, I'd just sail from Amsterdam or Rotterdam and drive from Yarmouth to the South Coast, and then moan about the queues on the M25 instead of at Dover.

Good thinking Captain Hindsight. So your answer is to take a hours-long detour to get hom rather than sit for hours in a queue in Dover, like that's some kind of solution.

[OngBonga]

Yea, because the point of the story is to get to know this one family better, not to report on the longest queues ever at Dover.

You say this like it's a statement of act. Longest ever queue at Dover? Get fucking real. This is entirely based on some random person saying it's the "worst it's ever been". This is basically a report about people moaning in a queue.

Fun fact - it's not nearly as chaotic on the Portsmouth to St Malo and Plymouth to Roscoff routes. Maybe don't go the same route that every holidaymaker and truck driver wants to take because it's the "shortest" route. If people are too stupid to realise that shortest distance doesn't always mean shortest time, that's not news.

Really? Where? I've waited at an aiport for customs a couple of hours tops. I've never waited 6 hours to exit/enter a country.

Nor have I, but then again I've never tried to cross the channel when there's gales blowing, or when there's a strike, or when there's a million lorries trying to go the same route, or when the Channel Tunnel closes resulting in critical French border staff failing to get to work on time.

And that last one is what you're getting all moist over. Some French people don't make it to work on time due to technical fault, resulting in problems in their place of work, which just happens to be a critical port. Of course delays happen.

Six hours is nothing compared to the fuckers who were waiting for days in their lorries. Have you forgot about that already?

Longest queues ever. Fuck me.

[OngBonga]

Good thinking Captain Hindsight. So your answer is to take a hours-long detour to get hom rather than sit for hours in a queue in Dover, like that's some kind of solution.

If there's any kind of warning, then yes, absolutely. It's not even that long a detour. Which drive is furthest? Yarmouth to Portsmouth? Or Amsterdam to Calais? Surely the drive across three counties in England is shorter than spanning Belgium. The ferry crossing is much longer, granted, but that's a good time to rest instead of a relatively short crossing with no sleep.

If I need to go to France, then I would certainly do my best to not go Dover-Calais, because it's hell, and always has been, because everyone wants to take that route.

[OngBonga]

And if I needed to go to Amsterdam, then I'm definitely not going Dover-Calais, I'll either fly or go via the East coast directly to Netherlands. Or just get the train from London.

[OngBonga]

Lol I just did a distance check on both those routes by car and the Great Yarmouth to Portsmouth drive is one minute shorter than Amsterdam to Calais.

I said it was quicker.

I mean, a lot here depends on if you actually like sailing on a ferry. If so, then the Amsterdam to Great Yarmouth route is much more enjoyable than Calais to Dover, which is full to the brim with holidaymakers and their kids. If you're a holidaymaker with kids, then please go that route and leave the other routes congestion free, thanks.

[Poopadoop]

Lol I just did a distance check on both those routes by car and the Great Yarmouth to Portsmouth drive is one minute shorter than Amsterdam to Calais.

I said it was quicker.

I mean I'll have to take your word for it because I've never even heard of Great Yarmouth. But presumably they have to go through customs there too? So not sure how that make things any faster.

Also your hypothetical longer than 6 hours wait at a customs check seems made up, since you're just saying it happens rather than quoting a specific instance. I mean I guess if there's a hurricane you may get delayed, or if your plane goes down in the channel. That's not what's happened here, obv. it's due to the Brexit and the fact you have to have your passport checked now to go to the EU ldo.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Just be American, damn it.

Whenever I go anywhere, they let me right in and call me a rich bastard as I pass.
Then I grumble under my breath that I'm not rich and go spend $20 on lunch somewhere.

[OngBonga]

That's not what's happened here, obv. it's due to the Brexit and the fact you have to have your passport checked now to go to the EU ldo.

It's down to Brexit? This is an utterly ludicrous conclusion to jump to, for no reason other than politics.

I went to France last year, after Brexit. I went Portsmouth to St Malo. I had to queue for half an hour while we went through border control. No worries. I was a foot passenger. The cars probably had a longer wait, but the people who wait the longest are those at the front of the queue, because they turn up really early in order to get on the boat first. In this context, you only really start counting how long you're queuing for from the moment you're expected to arrive, the actual delay, anything before that is you turning up early.

I mean I'll have to take your word for it because I've never even heard of Great Yarmouth.

It's by Norwich on the East coast, not sure if passenger ferries go from there or Harwick (near enough to not matter), one deals with general passengers while the other freight.

Also your hypothetical longer than 6 hours wait at a customs check seems made up, since you're just saying it happens rather than quoting a specific instance.

Yeah meanwhile you just carrying on quoting "worst it's ever been" like it's fact.

Maybe six hours specifically for a passport check is extreme, but six hours to get into a port for any random reason is not extreme. Strikes will do it, and we all know the French love to strike.

And the reason is because of logistics, nothing political happening at all. Yes, of course no longer being in the EU means your passport has to be checked, but best I can recall you didn't just walk across the border before, you still had to be processed by staff that need to be able to turn up to work, so there was always the risk of delays due to logistical problems.

French staff couldn't get to work. That isn't politics. It's not "because of Brexit" you absolute clown.

[OngBonga]

To emphasise the point about how ludicrous it is to blame Brexit, this woman could have faced exactly the same delay travelling from the Isle of Wight to the mainland. You don't just walk on their ferries without them knowing who you are, so if there's nobody to do that, you're not sailing.

[Poopadoop]

To emphasise the point about how ludicrous it is to blame Brexit, this woman could have faced exactly the same delay travelling from the Isle of Wight to the mainland. You don't just walk on their ferries without them knowing who you are, so if there's nobody to do that, you're not sailing.

Dover port authorities have blamed understaffing at French border control for the delay.

Not so ludricrous is it.

[Poopadoop]

The delays aren't because they can't load the boats fast enough at Dover, it's because they take forever to unload at Calais. There's only so many boats in the ferry fleet.

And the reason they take forever is because instead of just waltzing through customs waving your EU passport like we did in 2019, now the Frenchies have to stop every British person and check their passport. For one, you're no longer allowed to spend more than 180 days a year in an EU country, so they have to check that and then stamp the date of entry in it. No more getting waved through for you, Sovereignty Boy.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and naturally the port authorities are blaming the French for not having enough customs agents. Like it's their fault we left the EU and made it a lot more work for them to process tourists from the UK. Pathetic.

[OngBonga]

The Guardian are literally saying that the delays were caused by a technical fault in the Channel Tunnel, which in turn caused French workers delays getting to work. Link in your link. Point is, that can happen to anyone, from the captain to the cleaners. If staff can't get to work, delays happen.

It doesn't take long to check a passport, you make it sound like it's an arduous process. It takes longer to check people aren't carrying metal things. If it was Brexit causing the delays, then it would always be a six hour wait. Is it always a six hour wait? No, so something has gone wrong, something that hasn't been going wrong for the last few years.

[Poopadoop]

You're like the guy who, when someone points out inflation is higher here than anywhere in the G7 ever since Brexit and points out the logic of why that is happening, turns around and says 'we've always had inflation, it's not a new thing,' like that's supposed to be an argument.

The delays are longer now than they were before Brexit. It's obvious why that is. But instead of just saying 'ok fine but it's worth it for sovereignty,' or some other such nonsense, you try to pretend it's due to something other than Brexit.

https://news.sky.com/story/port-of-d...idays-12922403

The best part of the story is how Kent voted for Brexit and now their county is being turned into a giant parking lot every summer.