Jgm0228 would have attended a state banquet under a Salami government “to not make a story” as to why he declined.
The state visit of Donald Trump has stirred up controversy with the Shadow Chancellor recently accusing the Foreign Secretary of failing to condemn apparent presidential indifference towards Nazis as well asaccusing the President of United States of embracing white supremacist policies. The Shadow Chancellor lashed out at the Foreign Secretary, claiming the rise of the far-right did not concern him whilst also levying criticism at others who have decided to attend the state banquet. Another senior member of the Shadow Cabinet, HKNorman, who recently got tied up in a plagiarism scandal, announced they would also be boycotting the state banquet.
However, despite this rhetoric from the Shadow Chancellor, it turns out the Sunrise government which he played a key role in, had planned to invite President Trump on a state visit themselves. Secretary_Salami confirmed “the Sunrise government chose to continue Blurple 1’s pledge of welcoming the President and First Lady of the United States to Britain. On the table would have been the return to the JCPOA, which was Sunrise’s flagship foreign policy objective.” He also told the Telegraph that as Prime Minister he would have attended the banquet, with the President also present.
The Telegraph also learned that the Shadow Chancellor would have attended the state visit to “to not make a story”. He also asked for a ‘good spot’ at the banquet, according to a former sunrise ministers. The Shadow Chancellor has been at the throat of politicians attending the banquet in recent days, however this revelation could undermine his stance.
The Telegraph spoke to the Shadow Chancellor who confirmed that he would indeed attend the banquet if invited, and also challenged the Tories to ring him up. Informing the Telegraph, the Shadow Chancellor said he would use the banquet to make policy differences clear and raise a “large array of concerns” with the President. He argued that politicians going to flatter the President are doing ‘a disservice to the nation’ and it was acceptable for him to attend the banquet invitation because he would challenge the President.
We then asked the Shadow Chancellor if he had an objection to right wing politicians attending.
“I don’t have any confidence in their ability to do anything but kiss the ring so to speak. If they don’t have the moral compass to care about human rights, I don’t see what’s stopping them.”
jgm0228
Taking the Shadow Chancellor’s previous behaviour into account this is likely to come across a PR stunt. However, the Shadow Chancellor has refused to deny allegations that he was only attending the banquet to avoid controversy in the press over declining. He accused this of being vague rumours, however this account was directly challenged by some of the Shadow Chancellor’s former cabinet colleagues with multiple former Sunrise ministers confirming the Telegraph’s accounts. The Shadow Chancellor fought back arguing that “As a junior minister at the time I did not have the authority to unilaterally decide the line under CCR. If indeed what I will again say are your self described vague inclinations are indeed correct.” When asked whether his career was more important than his principles he argued that he did not want to give up the “government perch” over attending a banquet and was “quite busy fighting insufferable libertarians and their anti climate change combatting agenda”.
The Telegraph asked the Prime Minister for a statement in response to the Shadow Chancellor’s revelation:
“That would seem to be contrary to the sentiments expressed in some of his recent statements regarding the plans for the President’s visit, although I’m sure they would, in such an event, whip up some… imaginative reason why attending would be justified and, in fact, only proper. Of course, this would have to account for the absence of the Shadow Home Secretary, who has indicated that instead of attending they will be protesting, and for the rather strange silence from the Leader of the Opposition on whether or not they’ll attend. Labour’s response, on the whole, has been muddled. I think the main point here is that it is vital that one acknowledges the importance of the State Banquet as a celebration of the cherished ‘special relationship’ between the US and the UK — a celebration of a partnership that has a true global reach and can achieve lasting change by addressing some of the major issues that the modern world faces. I should hope that this is something all can rally behind, that all can celebrate and appreciate.”
Yukub
The Leader of the LPUK told the Telegraph that he believed Labour had no principles and that this was another “massive PR stunt but no one in the country is going to buy it”
Despite heavy criticism, it is clear a Labour-led government would have also given President Trump a state visit and it is doubtful that the Shadow Chancellor or Shadow Home Secretary would have attended protests given they were members of the Cabinet.
For opponents of the Labour Party it will be clear that they have one rule for the Tories and an entirely separate rule for themselves.
Labours Shadow Defence Secretary Stalin1953 is in a wave of controversy today, after delivering a speech during the LPUK non-proliferation motion debate today, which appeared to defend Iranian anger at the Satanic Verses, and made light of Iran’s capacity to build a nuclear weapon in 2-5 years.
The Shadow Defence Secretary’s began by saying that “no one country has the right to impose their system on another country”, and urging the parliament not to “bow to foreign policy hawks”. Stalin1953 goes on to say “Does this House know what the biggest reason is for why Iranians hate the West? Because we always insult them, because we fear them, because we refuse to talk, because we always provoke them, and most of all, because we don’t understand them.”
On Iranian human rights abuse, he says that Britain “should not subject our standards on them”, saying Britain has “our own share of human rights abuses”, listing austerity, food banks, the number of homeless and poor individuals, attacks on the UK Human Rights Act, participation in CIA detention and torture, domestic and elderly abuse along with “Veterans that are sent to war to kill or be killed and are left behind by a ‘patriotic’ government.” and other examples as proof of British human rights violations. He would also say British sanctions made Britain “guilty of making the lives of the Iranian people harder”
Stalin1953 then poses the question “First of all, is there any proof that Iran poses a threat to the UK?”, saying that Iran only hates the USA, saying “As far as I know, Iran and the UK have had a great relationship since the late 13th century,” These comments did not mention the seizure of a British flagged tanker, the UKs brief plans for JCPOA withdrawal, the Iranian strikes on bases housing UK troops and the detention of the British ambassador in january. He follows comments regarding the US-Iran relationship with “Now, I am not saying that Iranians do not resent us, for we have inflicted our share of destruction on them,” and begins to list off past wrongs committed on Iran by the UK. These included the Anglo-Soviet invasion during World War II, due to perceived Iranian support for Nazi Germany, buying rights to Iranian oil and the Satanic Verses controversy, the mention of which has lead to severe backlash in the commons. This refers to the fatwa issued by Iran calling for the death British-Indian author Salman Rushdie for his book the Satanic Verses, which lampooned Islam. The inclusion of this event has lead to LPUK DL Seimer1234 calling for the shadow defence secretary to resign, and has been criticised by BigTrev-98 and Yukub, the Prime Minister.
During the furore, Shadow Minister for ME and Africa apth10 asked for the motion proposer to name examples of conflicts initiated by Iranian backed proxies, and was then answered by BigTrev-98 with several examples.
This scandal will undoubtedly result in significant attack from the Government and UO parties, with several already sharpening the knives. An ME Shadow Minister not knowing about Iranian proxies and the Shadow Defence Sec defending Iran, will be yet another crisis Labour will have to manage, one of several in the past two weeks alone.
Foreign Secretary InfernoPlato said in a comment to the Telegraph “I think the remakes are ill advised and ignorant. I’m not surprised the Labour Shadow Defence sec doesn’t know their history”.
LPUK Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Seimer1234 said of the comments in a statement to the Telegraph “These comments are deeply disturbing, and indicative of a party that is so eager to please Tehran in terms of ignoring human rights violations and national security risks. The Shadow Defence Secretary needs to go now. On the motion itself, I support the revised JCPOA wholeheartedly, however the motion raises necessary points of clarification.”
Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs Spokesperson CountBrandenburg was contacted but has yet to comment.
Shadow Minister for Middle East and Africa apth10 said on their question regarding proxy conflicts “I was just trying to seek clarification on which recent proxy conflicts have been caused by Iran, shouldnbt be hard for y’all to raise some examples” and had no comment regarding Stalins speech.
We contacted the Labour Press Office who has yet to comment.
The new minority Conservative government faces its first major parliamentary defeat losing 48 votes to 42 with an opposition motion passing
The government faced its first parliamentary defeat of the term with M491 passing with 48 votes in favour and 42 votes against. The motion was tabled by the LPUK by MP for Manchester North /u/threecommas who is a rising star in the parliamentary Libertarian Party. The motion passed on the back of LPUK,Labour and DRF. Every Tory MP voted against and most Liberal Democrats also backing the government.
The Prime Minister in response to the defeat told the Telegraph that “Realistically, a minority government such as ours should expect that it cannot always command a majority of the House in some cases. This is an understanding on which many of this country’s governments have been based upon. It is regrettable that the House didn’t subscribe to our point of view, but such events are reasonably common for any government.”
The motion calls for targeted sanctions on the members of the Duterte administration such as economic freezes and travel bans. It also calls for a condemnation of the administration who have played a role in the extrajudicial killing of tens of thousands which has drawn condemnation by NGO’s and charities.
The government has faced criticism by Labour and the Libertarian for its approach to the Philippines. /u/apth10 attacked the government is the weekly publication of Labour weekly accusing the Conservatives of being fine with “unsubstantiated killings not allowed under the rule of law to continue” and “ bashing parliamentarians who have deep concern for these things. “ and accused them of cosying up with dictators.
The Foreign Secretary was asked for comment by the telegraph:
The government has consulted on the recommendations made by the motion and FCO civil servants have indicated the proposed actions will not be successful. We will therefore be using the UN Report as a jumping off point to rally the international community to address the concerns highlighted by the motion, as many states are not going to address the issue without the report. To do so would be to ‘jump the gun’. In the spirit of cooperation, the government has already opened up communications with the LPUK to best ensure the aims of the motion are met”
InfernoPlato
From this comment we know the government are setting up talks with the Libertarians who were the authors of this motion. It’s clear that the government won’t be following the specific points in the motion but will be upholding the aims of the motion through a more multilateral strategy
The passage of this motion shows that without the support of the LPUK the government could lose more votes ahead. The Liberal Democrats appear firmly behind the government on foreign policy but it appears that the LPUK has its own ideas and can use its position to inflict defeat on the government. The Libertarians however supported the government on the DRF China motion and appear to largely be backing the government on the Serbia motion. Conciliatory rhetoric from the Foreign Secretary also shows that the government may be more open to working with the LPUK on foreign policy issues moving forward.
This motion passing is a stark reminder to the government that it is a minority government and that it needs to work cross-party in order to pass its agenda.
In a stunning u-turn this week, Shadow Chancellor JGM’s motion calling for an investigation into the behaviour of the British press was pulled, following wide consternation from political and journalistic quarters.
Former Liberal Democrat Leader and heavyweight /u/demon3472 was the first to speak on the matter calling the motion “reactionary, undemocratic, populist nonsense,” labelling itas an attack on the free press,arguing that the exchange of money for stories is common and should be recorded in MP’s expenses. Later on in the debate the Shadow Chancellor accused the ex Lib-Dem leaders’ mindset leading to the rise of Viktor Orban. The Duke for Redcar quickly respond with his view arguing that the press in Hungary have tried to stop the rise of Orban and Hungary now has one of the lowest press freedom indexes in Europe. The Duke of RedCar sharply attacked the Shadow Chancellor telling him not to discuss things he did not understand to justify non -sentient rules.
The Shadow Chancellor then began discussing Scots laws, in an interesting display of what some have called “whataboutism”. The Conservatives and Libertarians came out in force on the issue, with several Tory cabinet members including the Chancellor, International Trade Secretary and Culture Secretary. Labour also appeared split on the issue, with the Northern Irish Shadow Secretary simply saying “No” in the debate, in an apparent break of Shadow Cabinet unity. Captain_Plat_2258 was among the only ones to defend the motion, saying they were “appalled by the outrage from across the aisles at this bill” and called for the government to investigate the press. This was lambasted by LPUK Deputy Leader Seimer1234, saying Labour either wanted a “repeat of leveson” or to put the government in charge of investigating the press, which he described as an “unworkable….conflict of interest”
Matters soonbecame worse for Labour, with a letter signed by editors/owners of the Telegraph, Times, Indepedent, Guardian, Sun, Express and CATOUK published, calling for the motion to be withdrawn. Pressure was quickly mounting on Labour.
ARichTeaBiscuit finally succumbed to mounting pressure, and withdrew the motion. This was an embarrassing climbdown for the Leader, who will now have to face growing questions about whether they signed off on the motion, or did the Shadow Chancellor act unilaterally.
This debacle is yet another example of Labour communications breakdown, with shadow ministers rebelling against the party line, and the press making clear its displeasure at attempts from Labour to regulate it. It has been yet another embarrassing episode for a party already deep in scandal, and will only cause more friction in an already dividing party.
By David Seimmarson, Telegraph Political correspondent.
The Telegraph recently launched an investigation into the JGMgate scandal, a furore over JGMs message to Tommy2Boys where he spoke of Tommy “jizzing over institutions” and of “cumstains in the Union Jack”.
We were lucky enough to get four interviews with the key characters involved: Tommy2Boys, JGM, thePootisPower and ARichTeaBiscuit. By the conclusion of these interviews, the Telegraph became aware of an attempt by Tommy to threaten Labour that he would try to make “as big a scandal as possible” in the words of the Labour leader out of the JGM affair. We also became aware of several inconsistencies with the Labour timeline of events, with the Labour Chair suggesting the Leader had not told us the truth in our conversation with them about the partys reaction, before retracting the claim after the Leader spoke to them. This retraction and subsequent explanation of the mistake would only further deepen the evidence of either the Labour Leader or Labour Chair having attempted to mislead the Telegraph in their interview.
Our first interview was with the progenitor of this argument, Tommy2Boys. Tommy firstly explained the context of these comments, saying the first “cumstains in the union jack comment” was part of a conversation on Labour’s position on the union, while the second “jizzing over institutions” remark was “out of the blue”. Tommy said he found these comments “inappropriate”, saying he laughed it off the first time, however on the second occasion it showed a “disturbing trend”. Tommy also confirmed to us that he was subsequently contacted by the Labour Chair, who told Tommy he was “looking into” the comments, and had passed on the relevant information to the Labour leader. When asked about the Labour leader saying no investigation was taking place, Tommy confirmed that he was not contacted by anyone else from Labour past this point, and it was his opinion that the Labour chairperson was a “decent person who wanted to look into the allegations” however was stopped by the Labour leader. He finished our (first) interview with him by calling for the resignation of the Shadow Chancellor, and expressing his disappointment that the Labour leader was not the “honourable person I thought they were”.
This would not be the end of Tommy’s involvement in this debacle. In interviews with JGM, ARichTeaBiscuit and thePootisPower, all three repeated the same story of Tommy trying to “blackmail” Labour on this matter. JGM was first to mention it, saying that he had made aware that to, “at least one person, likely several”, Tommy threatened to “create as much of a scandal as possible” if JGM wasn’t removed. Tommy, according to JGM, “claimed that they were previously nice to Labour, but that they now intended to go hard at us”. ARichTeaBiscuit confirmed the story saying “I received a message from Tommy2Boys earlier that suggested that if I didn’t take action against JGM that action would be taken against myself and the Labour Party”, and that they considered the message tantamount to “political blackmail”. ARichTeaBiscuit would repeat the claims of blackmail in other answers, including to questions not specifically on that matter, saying they were quite “upsetting” and “unacceptable”. thePootisPower also confirmed that Tommy had approached them with a similar demand, providing the following quote from Tommy.
““> I should warn you as well the screenshots may go public in the next few days I haven’t decided if I want to do that yet. But a lot of people have them so I am surprised they are not already public frankly xD”
Tommy2Boys
Both the Labour Chair and Labour Leader had the same timeframe for these messages, both saying they came after Tommy brought up JGMs comments in an attack on Labour Weekly, but before the Tommy tweet on the matter. We spoke to Tommy about this, who confirmed the timeframe. They said that the accusations of blackmail were “ridiculous”, saying that the messages were an attempt to “reach out and appeal to their sense of decency”. He would also say that if attempting to “avoid a shitstorm that I do not particularly enjoy is blackmail in the eyes of the Labour leader, that is on them”.
In our interviews with JGM, he came across as a contrite figure. He apologised for his comments, and said they were “not appropriate”. He did raise questions about why they were being brought up again, saying that they were being used due to Tories taking offense at JGMs criticism of the former Tory chairman for his comments regarding Wales having intercourse with sheep and wanting to nuke cardiff. When asked if he felt the comments were being politically weaponised, he said no, saying that “the distress I caused was personal to them” and “completely valid”. He admitted to his comments forming a pattern of harshness, and that he could be more tactful, however when asked about his implications of anti semitism which have garnered much attention, he said the “burden as to who is incendiary rests on the people who think they can tell Jewish politicians what should and shouldn’t concern them”. On the “investigation” claims made by Tommy2Boys, he said no such investigation existed, however said he was told by ARichTeaBiscuit that his “actions were not good” and he was reprimanded. The Telegraph were told that the idea of a vonc in JGM had been mooted bu a Labour member, with Labour Chairman thePootisPower confirming that he had heard “rumblings” of a vonc, however had not heard in who. On this topic, JGM described the rumours as nebulous, and that he was focused on “delivering Labours incredible agenda”.
We now turn to the interviews with the Labour Leader and Chair in more detail. First, we spoke to Labour Leader ARichTeaBiscuit, who we asked about the JGM comments. They said that while they wouldn’t “make those comments” personally, they felt it didn’t warrant “the reaction Tommy2Boys tried to solicit by releasing them several months after they have been made”. ARTB went on to mention things that they had been called or described as, including “coward” and “mouth-piece”, and saying they hadn’t called for the resignation or investigation into of those involved. When asked again if JGMs comments were appropriate, they did not answer clearly, instead repeating previous lines about not wanting to personally make those comments. After it was put to them that JGM had described the messages as inappropriate and apologised for them, ARTB deleted their answer, and made a new one, saying “people across the political spectrum need to be more mindful of their language” but that they had been numbed by politics so had struggled to see them as inappropriate originally. They said they “respect the decision of the Shadow Chancellor to apologise” and said an apology and a promise to behave better in the future was all that was necessary, not the “pantomime that we’ve seen”.
ARTB confirmed that thePootisPower brought the comments to their attention, and that they both spoke and “agreed that the response mentioned was appropriate”. We would speak to the Labour Chair thePootisPower on this matter who said that ARTB “did not say anything whether I spoke to them directly or in leadership channels” and that it was “undeniable that they are choosing to do nothing on this and that in itself is part of the problem”. When I informed then that the Labour Leader had claimed that they had spoken, and that the plan that Poot was unaware of was, according to ARTB, backed by him, he said he could not remember any such recollection, and told us to ask ARTB for evidence to ascertain the truth of this. We did get in contact with ARTB to ask about these diametrically opposed stories, and received no reply for some time. A few minutes later, Poot returned to my conversation to “retract his version of events”, saying that “Akko had caught wind of my comments and pointed out that I was incorrect”. When asked how his story could change so rapidly, he said that ARTB had suggested that “we apologise and move on”, and that he had not understood this as a plan for a path forward. I then put to Poot, how could a plan that he had not understood as a plan, been backed by him as ARTB claimed. He said “Well I guess they took it that I supported that action from the leadership conversation, i dont know”. He also confirmed he did not at any point explicitly support what ARTB said.
We then returned to ARTB to ask for their explanatiln of this conundrum. They said that Poot backed the outline of their plan when they proposed it to them earlier, and that Poot taking a break from politics had simply lead to communication errors. Given that they had made remarks unaware of any plan, I asked ARTB how could poot have backed something they didn’t know about, and did poot provide explicit support for the proposal. ARTB did not answer the first question, instead saying that Poot had found agreeable the plan outlined and that they did provide explicit backing. Upon me informing them that Poot had said no explicit backing was given they responded “I believe that we’ve got something of a confused timeline of events here.”. This was the end of the four interviews.
Emerging from this, there are now four key parts to this story. The first, originally most prominent one is JGMs comments themselves. While undoubtedly vulgar and coarsening to public discourse, the Shadow Chancellors apology and the fact that these comments were in the public domain for some time, will likely bring an end to the debacle surrounding those comments themselves. The allegations from the labour trio of Tommy2Boys blackmailing them are the second part to this. Undoubtedly concerning, however based solely on the evidence provided by Poot, with ARTB not providing evidence after we asked them for some, the suggestion of the comments being blackmail are a stretch. However, there is possibly more to come on this front.
The two most serious parts of this are both not good news for Labour. The breakdown of communication from the Labour leader and chair was visible in vivid detail, with repeated contradictions and inconsistencies, with a few retractions for good measure. This is not a new problem for Labour, however it has been showcased in perhaps unrivalled detail here.
The final part of this is the now clear evidence that either the Labour Chair or the Labour leader is lying. Either the Chair did provide backing for this plan, which means they are lying, or they did not provide backing, which means the Labour leader is lying. The Labour leader was asked to provide a record of those messages between them and the Labour Chair. They have yet to do so. Until they do, it will likely remain unclear as to what exact member of the Labour leadership hasn’t been truthful. What is clear, is the handling of a relatively minor scandal, has now ballooned into a crisis, due to the poor handling of it by two of the party’s most senior members.
Following the previous government’s failure with its foreign policy with Iran which lead to a successful VONC it seemed like Tories had learned from their mistakes. However, while progress has been made in negotiating with Iran, now the new Foreign Secretary /u/InfernoPlato is under fire for his opposition to a motion calling to condemn and take action against the extrajudicial killing carried out in the Philippines with President Rodrigo Duterte has been culpable in.
The motion in question was introduced by /u/ThreeCommasClub the MP for Manchester North on behalf of the LPUK. It calls for the UK to condemn the Duterte Administration for their role in the extrajudicial killings and breakdown in rule of law in the country. Since 2016 Duterte has been President of the Philippines and under his watch police and masked gunman have killed a reported 20,000 people who have been suspected of playing any role in the drug trade. Addicts, drug deals, relatives of suspects and innocent bystanders have been killed in the violence. President Duterte has encouraged these killing and even openly admitted that he has played a role in ordering such actions. Various NGO’s such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented these killings and the breakdown in rule of law in the country. The President has also purged police officers and officials not loyal to him or those who may criticize his action including the press.
Now it is widely accepted that Duterte and his administration are complicit in these extrajudicial killings. The motion called for the UK to take actions by issuing targeted sanctions on officials including economic freezes on their assets and travel bans. However, /u/InfernoPlato argued against the motion, insisting the UK had to wait for a UN report to take multilateral action. When met with opposition from LPUK members he said that countries could not take action based on the basis of NGO findings and the UK had to consider greater geopolitics and long term benefits. He pointed to the fact that for example Japan a country in the region was hesitant to issue sanctions on the Philippines.
This was met with fierce opposition from LPUK member /u/LeChevalierMal-Fait who quoted the President own words which admitted to the killings. Furthermore he pointed to that the UK had taken action on Russia without a UN report and that Japan had been slow in sanctioning Russia as well. He pointed to the fact that the UK was not alone since the US had also taken steps to issue sanctions due to the killings. The author of the motion, ThreeCommas also attacked the Foreign Secretary stating that he was placing geopolitics over human life, asking “Should we sit and wait as more innocent people lose their lives to violence because it doesn’t benefit our geopolitics? It is sad day when we don’t value human life to take action.”
When reaching out to the LPUK for comment on the debate, Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Seimer had this to say, “The foreign secretaries refusal to use British unilateral action is disappointing, however what is more interesting is the baseless nature of his arguments for no unilateral action.” He refuted the Foreign Secretary’s arguments explaining that Japan has not been on board with sanctioning Russia and their motives for not supporting sanction are questionable. He also dismissed waiting for a UN report, “Duterte is a strongman, who will not co-operate with the UN. The UN report will only confirm what we already know, and it is time the UK [steps] up to the plate.” Duterte has already said he does not intend to cooperate with the UN and he does not consider himself accountable to the organization. In fact, he has already called a halt to all loans and grants from all countries who backed the UN investigation. Going on to refer to the ICC as “white idiots” and calling for the UN human rights team to be “fed to crocodiles.”
“Hitler massacred 3 million Jews … there’s 3 million drug addicts. There are. I’d be happy to slaughter them.”
President Duterte on the killings.
Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary /u/Youmaton responded that it was “disappointing to see the Foreign Secretary fail at his duty to stand up against human rights abuses.” They told the Telegraph that the facts were clear cut and idly waiting for UN report was not a option when human rights were being devastated. He called for the Foreign Secretary to do this job and stand up for human rights and call out those accountable for violating them. They left off with this final remark on the Conservatives: “If it holds true that the Tories reject this motion, it will only be yet another demonstration of a party unfit to determine our foreign policy.”
LPUK member and former Tory /u/LeChevalierMal-Fait and who was in a heated debate over the motion had this to say. “The Foreign Secretary professes to support a rules based international order but this is little more than a smoke screen to cover a unwillingness to act. It is a false dichotomy to claim that we must choose to act internationally or unilaterally.” He called for action o be taken under the ‘Magnitsky Sanctions Act’, which gives the government the power to sanction those accountable in violating human rights. He also called for a embargo of British exports like cameras and military equipment which could used in the process of killings. Finishing off he ended with an appeal to the Tory backbench: “I know there are Tory backbenchers of conscience who can use their vote on this motion to signal to the government to respectfully reconsider their misguided position.”
Indeed bold unilateral action now could itself send a strong signal to both human rights abusers in the Philippines that the world is watch hing and will act and be a rallying crying which can galvanize an international response.
I am calling on the government and the Foreign Secretary to use powers that they have under the “Magnitsky Sanctions Against Persons Act” to place targeted travel and assets sanctions on individuals where there is already a wealth of evidence of complicity in extrajudicial killings.
The government when asked to comment called the motion commendable but flawed. The government insisted on the need to wait for the UN report then take action with our allies. “Moving now, without UN support will alienate and frustrate our relationship with, and influence in, the Philippines which will in turn lead them to more unsavory elements within the international community.” When asked about if the Tories would whip in opposition to the motion, they said it was unlikely to see how they could support it at this time. In response members of the LPUK have responded that the motion indeed calls for action through the UN and nothing stops the UK from taking further multilateral action when the report is finished. ThreeCommasClub, the author, responded to the Tory position by saying “The Tories seem only interested in preserving geopolitical influence and appeasing our so called ‘allies’ who do not want to take action on human rights violations. It is shame that the Tories prefer delay and inaction which will put more lives at risk. When other nations refuse to take action against such violations it only emboldens strongmen to continue their reign of terror.”
InfernoPlato has commented in reponse saying, “Broadly however: my statement to the House stands on its own and no criticism directed at the position has actually delivered a coherent way at delivering change in the Philippines. I have also instructed the FCO to draw up an assessment so that I can share it with my counter parts on the opposition benches, in the hope this will add to the evidence the motion is counter productive to U.K. aims.”
Former Tory PM, eels made a comment which he later tried to delete from the record, remarking “can we like stop blanket condemning every foreign country or its leaders.” Youmaton called the comment “disappointing” and reckless stressing the need to call out human rights abuses. LPUK leader Fried, responded that the comment was “immature” and “offensive” to see the member poking fun of the motion which addressed serious human rights issue prevalent within the Philippines.
It’s a shame to see the tories making fun of the motion in the commons. This is a serious matter and I hope the former Prime Minister realises that UK should do more and that we are not condemning the duerte administration for the sake of it. It is right and just that was condemn foreign countries which violate human rights and do not treat their people right. The suggestion we are condemning every country is offensive and immature.
Friedmanite19
It seems despite the current Tory opposition to the motion, with LPUK and Labour supporting the motion it will pass, and then it will be up to the government to actually issue and implemented targeted sanctions. If passed the Foreign Secretary is duty-bound to act. What their stance on this motion means for the overall Conservative foreign policy remains to seen. The UK prides itself on defending human rights across the globe. In fact, /u/InfernoPlato himself voted in favor of a motion on the Rohingya crisis which called for unilateral action by suspending military training and penalizing companies doing business with the Burmese government. But now it seems their stance has changed but has the feelings of the party as whole changed as well? When it comes time for division, all eyes will be on Tory MPs to see if they cross into the Aye lobby and perhaps do as /u/LeChevalierMal-Fait suggests and act with their conscience.
/u/3Commas is a senior writer for the Telegraph who covers Westminster politics.
Shadow Home Secretary HKNorman is under pressure today, after their speech in the Commons on the Police and Civil Liberties bill, was found to be almost identical to a previous speech on the matter a few months ago.
The LPUK Leader /u/friedmanite19 had first spotted something was up with the Shadow Home Secretaries speech when they claimed that members from all sides of the house had spoken in favour of the bill taking to twitter to point out that no such event took place. Later on the Prime Minister /u/Yukub discovered that HKNorman had indeed copied their speech in the commons from a few months ago. This seems to explain the Shadow Home Secretaries confusion over what had been said in the chamber.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, & Local Government /u/brookheimer also noticed that HKNorman had been added to the authorship clause despite nothing changing in the bill. Labour are yet to tell the House of Commons which clause HKNorman wrote. Recently Tory MP’s have been accusing Labour MP’s of making speeches to meet a debate quota and have challenged the quality of them. The Secretary of State for Transport /u/brexitglroy read word for word from Wikipedia on the 2nd reading debate of B951 to mock labour and presumably the incident where /u/pavanpur04 who was minister for work and welfare was forced to resign following copying a statement on loneliness.
The Prime Minister gave the Telegraph the following statement:
“I am dismayed to see that the Labour Party has not only done a copy-paste job and bring this Bill before the House again in such a sloppy manner, without even bothering to change the opening speech. Imagine my surprise when I noticed that the current Shadow Home Secretary, HKNorman, has now been listed as a co-author, and chose to inaugurate their new-found status by simply copying the statement they originally made, some three months ago, without even bothering to see if those comments were applicable or factually correct in the current situation. Surely the people demand and deserve better of their elected representatives, and it reflects badly on the Labour Party.”
Yukub
The Leader of The Liberal Democrats questioned whether copying your own work was plagiarism when approached for comment by the telegraph. The Home Secretary /u/model-willem also attacked HKNorman in the commons for copying their speech.The Telegraph reached out to a member of the Labour Leadership who declined to comment in a serious manner.
There is no doubt pressure will pile on HKNorman and Labour. It is unclear whether HKNorman will face the same fate as pavanpur04 but only time will tell.
On the internet, there is no anonymity. Wherever you go your data is being collected by every site, app, and place you might visit. Of course, inherently there is nothing wrong with data collection but when large tech firms can exploit can gather data with the consent of their users that is when the danger emerges. In the 21st century, virtually everyone needs to use the internet and online services whether for job searching, reading the news, or something more serious. While technology has evolved, the laws to protect privacy on the internet has not. My bill has the purpose to fix several major gaps in the privacy and protection of the personal data of our citizens.
First, the bill makes sure all big online services give a clear opt-in policy before collecting data on the user and makes that that collection practice available in a clear manner unlike the long and complicated Terms of Services people are inclined to just read past. Moreso, users now have the option to see who is seeing their data and how exactly is being used, and they have the ability to delete their data permanently if they choose to do so. In our present-day, the relation between large tech firms and individuals is largely corrosive and one-sided. My bill can balance the scales.
Another important insight that users will be able to which third-party companies are able to see and use their data. Recent scandals such as Facebook allowing outside parties to see private chats and other personal data has rocked the public. When someone is giving away their data, people should know what is being given away and where it is going. By passing this bill it will make sure that the days of neglectfully sharing the data of users is something long gone.
The bill also makes sure companies are mandated to ensure users when their data has been hacked with details of how their data was exposed. Companies should not be able to hide behind a corporate veil when exposing people and their identities. Too often companies neglect their duty to inform users of hacking instead of choosing to protect their reputation or profits, this should not be able to happen.
Lastly, we have enforcement, by setting up a hotline to report violating, and by giving power to the Secretary to issue fines we give the bill teeth. Companies will follow and abide by the rules or otherwise, they can be fined for every offense which can deal serious damage to their financials. No person should be forced to give up their privacy to stay relevant socially or professionally online, no one should have to sell their identity to companies to access essential online services, that’s why Parliament needs to pass the Internet Privacy Act.
/u/ThreeCommasClub is the LPUK MP for Manchester North and the author of the Internet Privacy Bill.
In a sensational leak, the Telegraph have today become aware of Labour plans to establish an investigation into the party’s handling of recent scandals, with the purpose being to use to “scapegoat” the inquiry’s chair.
The Telegraph understands that the idea of a third party investigation was suggested by RedWolf177, the Shadow Leader of the Commons, to make a report to decide which changes to party discipline should be made. This suggestion [https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/435096153265274880/707208481630978078/image0.png] is understood to have been made at a meeting of the Labour shadow cabinet. In subsequent comments, RedWolf177 suggested an “overhaul of party discipline”, which is where the Shadow Home Secretary, with the support of Labour chairman ThePootisPower, put forward the name of the Duke of Redcar and Cleveland BigTrev-98 to hold an inquiry.
The Telegraph were lucky enough to hold an interview with the LPUK peer, where he confirmed that a “senior Labour frontbencher” engaged in a “half-backchannel” to discuss his availability to head such an inquiry, too look into how too prevent future faux pas and recommend disciplinary reforms. This senior Labour frontbencher said that Labour leadership would be in contact with specifics. However, no contact took place. Trev said he was disappointed at Labours “lack of discipline regarding an investigation into discipline”. This backchannel would not be the last contact between the Duke and a Labour member.
Subsequently, BigTrev-98 held another meeting with separate Labour member. This would prove to be a damning moment for Labour. The member confirmed the earlier story about an inquiry, however said that his inclusion had not been agreed, and that other candidates were still being considered. The member also confirmed what Labour’s intents for the investigation was. Trev said the Labour person told him the plan was to hold an inquiry to use as a “scapegoat”. He expanded that the plan was to blame BigTrev-98 or whoever was to chair the inquiry for Labours future problems, and also to use as a cover to show that Labour had recently taken action for its failings. BigTrev-98 described the idea as a “swift brush under the carpet” that had “jeopardized the success of an investigation. He also remarked that his willingness to speak to us was based on the ordeals shambolic handling by senior Labour members.
The Telegraph then were able to speak to ThePootisPower, chairman of the Labour party. When asked if the party had agreed to the investigation proposed, he said the idea had been suggested by a frontbencher, but no investigation was ongoing. Poot said he did not have a problem with the frontbencher backchanneling, however said the leadership had not signed off on that. The frontbencher was “presumably ascertaining whether they’d be interested in taking such a role” according to the Labour chairman. He confirmed that others had been considered for the investigation, namely BloodyContrary, however said leadership had not contacted him, although other members may have.
When asked about the “scapegoat” allegations, he said it was a “stretch” to say that Labour had these malicious plans as no inquiry had yet been finalised, and that the idea was currently theoretical. He said he “hoped” that this was not a prevalent attitude in the party, and that he’d rather resign than agree to a toothless inquiry. He urged anyone in the party who may have that opinion to “reconsider what they want our party to become”, and said the party had the option of rebuilding from the Gren and SBD scandals or “leave the country in the hands of the Tories once again”.
These revelations provide fresh trouble for a Labour Party that doesn’t need any more of it. The confusion over investigations, with members backchanneling without leadership permission, yet again shows that this is a party with deep organisational flaws. However what is much more worrying is the Labour member who described the proposed inquiry as a “scapegoat” opportunity. While Poot says he hopes that this is not a common opinion, the fact members are saying it out loud is not a good sign of the party’s attitude towards accountability. Whether there will be an investigation is unclear, however it appears for now Labour are happier to leave sleeping dogs lie.
SmashBrosGuys2933tells the Telegraph his sacking was purely a PR stunt in a tell all interview.
The controversial Labour frontbench reshuffle has raised the eyebrows of many pundits and the wider public, with the inclusion of more than 30 positions ,which is more seats than the party possess, and the revelation that shadow cabinet members had not been told what roles they had, meaning they found out via the mainstream news.
Today the Telegraph had the opportunity to speak to one of the victims of the reshuffle, /u/SmashBrosGuys2933, who was fired from the Labour frontbench over controversial comments where he asked people to “name a single POC billionaire”, arguing that the LPUK were a pro-white party, defending a controversial article penned by senior Labour member, RedWolf. RedWolf, has since bagged themselves a role in the shadow cabinet, as shadow leader of the commons.
SmashBros told the Telegraph that he was unaware he had been fired, and the party leadership had not informed him before making a public statement that he had been fired from frontline roles.
It also appeared that SmashBros had not clocked Labour big-whig, ThePootisPower’s, statement 4 days earlier telling the Telegraph that if “he made a statement he forgot to tell me”.
A running theme throughout this reshuffle appears to be a lack of communication with the Labour backbench, and wider party.
SmashBros informed the Telegraph that his comments were not racist and he “will never do anything to demean minorities.” In a shocking revelation he told the Telegraph that the Labour leadership admitted to him that this was a PR move to stop press coverage. This, if true, shows that Labour do not actually find his comments objectionable, but merely commanded an apology as a PR stunt to save their backs, and to oust him from the shadow cabinet. It should also be noted that the decision to announce that Smash was not going to considered for a cabinet posts was during the short lived and quickly botched coalition negotiations with the DRF and TPM for a governing coalition, Labour only appear to care about tackling such comments when they must defend their public image to convince others to coalition with them.
Later on, SmashBros told the Telegraph that he believes that RedWolf should be fired as “the originator of the issue” and he told this paper he believed he was being unfairly treated,stating that the reason RedWolf wasn’t fired was due to him being “a seasoned veteran”. SmashBros also went on to say that newer members across the commons, not only in Labour, are treated with contempt.
The reason he hasn’t is because he’s a seasoned veteran, whereas I am relatively new.
SmashBrosGuys2933 on why RedWolf wasn’t sacked.
SmashBros believed he was getting an unjustified proportion of the blame and argued that “The article was approved by Captainographer, the Press Officer and the leadership before being published in Labour Weekly. “and told us that he felt“they must share some blame for this controversy”.
Labour’s ThePootisPower told us that “SmashBros was removed from cabinet because the comments they made were inappropriate and frankly a bit racist in nature”. He told the Telegraph he believes SmashBros is not racist but “it would not be appropriate to reward that sort of behaviour with a frontbench position.” He also apologised for not talking to SmashBros about his sacking earlier.
If Labour thought firing SmashBros would have reduced press coverage, they couldn’t have been more wrong with the former Chief Whip coming out swinging and speaking out against the Labour Leadership’s decisions.
Gren_Gnat, who defended SmashBros, and denied that they could in any way be wrong before deleting his comments, also got an appointment to the shadow cabinet.
This will add to Labour’s woes and shows that there is a division in the party between older and newer members, most importantly it exposes Labour’s true intentions behind firing SmashBros and shows an image of a party more focused on political expediency and public relations than racism.
Model Telegraph 
