• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Gather App
Which Tyler said:
www.theguardian.com

Sarina Wiegman an honorary dame as Lionesses and Red Roses get honours

Leah Williamson was named an OBE and four other Lionesses were made MBEs, while Jayne Torvill and Christopher Dean were given a damehood and a knighthood
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com



NB: 31 of the men's 2003 squad were honoured.
CBE for Johnson.
OBE for Wilkinson and Leonard.
MBE for every other player.
Whilst Woodward got a knighthood.

This world cup win (and grand slam) is no less of an achievement, but 1/6 as recognised
Click to expand...
A country giving out honours in the name of its (long finished) empire will continue having a hard time moving on from its racist legacy. It reflects poorly on adults in 2026 choosing to accept them.
 
Last edited:
Related opinion my favourite British celebrities are David Bowie, Daniel Radcliffe & John Oliver 😉 For more information look at the first line of their Wikipedia profiles.
 
"I want to establish the facts first. I want to speak to President Trump. I want to speak to allies. As I say I can be absolutely clear we were not involved in that".

He went on "as you know, I always say and believe we should uphold international law.

But I think at this stage, fast moving situation, let's establish the facts and take it from there"

Fair play to Starmer, thats a measured and reassuring response, unlike some reactions from Corbyn .
 
dirty harry said:
"I want to establish the facts first. I want to speak to President Trump. I want to speak to allies. As I say I can be absolutely clear we were not involved in that".

He went on "as you know, I always say and believe we should uphold international law.

But I think at this stage, fast moving situation, let's establish the facts and take it from there"

Fair play to Starmer, thats a measured and reassuring response, unlike some reactions from Corbyn .
Click to expand...
It's a wet response at best by Starmer designed to cause as little upset to Trump as possible.

They can't even say directly it would be wrong for the US to invade Greenland

I'd love to see anyone justify what happened is in accordance with international law. If it isn't then I've no idea what would be an appropriate responce by Starmer but it will be equally wet. As we can't and won't rock the boat
 
Last edited:
Saintjay said:
It's a wet response at best by Starmer designed to cause as little upset to Trump as possible.

I'd love to see anyone justify what happened is in accordance with international law. If it isn't then I've no idea what would be an appropriate responce by Starmer but it will be equally wet. As we can't and won't rock the boat
Click to expand...

I cant beleive im defending Starmer, but what do you want from him?

If he rants and raves like Bernie just has where does that get him?

Hes in the process of rejoining the EU, he has to remain non oppositional to Trump, his party is dropping through the floor, and hes an experienced lawyer who understands if there is a 1% chance of claiming legality of this action, someone like Trump will absolutely exploit that and justify it (and get away with it).

From what im aware, and as i said im no lawyer, under the US constitution Trump could justify this, as Maduro absolutely fallsnunder the category that allows executive authority. Especially if he is indicted on a terror or drug trafficking charge.

Internationally is another story i think, but we dont know the info that is involved, ive read that Maduro would have had to have either caused direct harm to American civilians or US soveregnty, which we dont know right now.

Where it gets complex, is whether Maduro was deemed a head of state, and the fact the US isnt party to the ICC.

As i said, im not a lawyer, im chatting **** on the internet like the rest, who knows if this is legal or not, i think its so murky not even lawyers would be sure right off the bat, especially not being privvy to all information at the whitehouse, which Starmer isnt...

I think.
 
dirty harry said:
I cant beleive im defending Starmer, but what do you want from him?

If he rants and raves like Bernie just has where does that get him?

Hes in the process of rejoining the EU, he has to remain non oppositional to Trump, his party is dropping through the floor, and hes an experienced lawyer who understands if there is a 1% chance of claiming legality of this action, someone like Trump will absolutely exploit that and justify it (and get away with it).

From what im aware, and as i said im no lawyer, under the US constitution Trump could justify this, as Maduro absolutely fallsnunder the category that allows executive authority. Especially if he is indicted on a terror or drug trafficking charge.

Internationally is another story i think, but we dont know the info that is involved, ive read that Maduro would have had to have either caused direct harm to American civilians or US soveregnty, which we dont know right now.

Where it gets complex, is whether Maduro was deemed a head of state, and the fact the US isnt party to the ICC.

As i said, im not a lawyer, im chatting **** on the internet like the rest, who knows if this is legal or not, i think its so murky not even lawyers would be sure right off the bat, especially not being privvy to all information at the whitehouse, which Starmer isnt...

I think.
Click to expand...
Rants and raves? I would say it was calm and measured. Funny how we all see things differently.
 
Welsh Exile said:
Rants and raves? I would say it was calm and measured. Funny how we all see things differently.
Click to expand...

Ok not quite rants and raves, it is his style to speak loudly and animated, but i dont consider flat out condemnation and making absolute statements about legality measured either...

Hes not in the breifings, or part of the decision making process, and after a decade of keeping his criticisms broad and radical, youd think he would just lean on these again, i would suggest to someone who wasnt an international lawyer, and didnt have intimate knowledge of an acrion not to speak absolutely.

Ill switch to rash assertions.
 
Without getting into the whole morality debate again but she speaks like motivation plays no part. Only outcome.

Trump isn’t doing this because he cares about the people in Venezuela or anything like that. And that’s before you get into the obvious point that even assuming it’s a good thing then why not do this to every similar country
 
Welsh Exile said:
Without getting into the whole morality debate again but she speaks like motivation plays no part. Only outcome.

Trump isn’t doing this because he cares about the people in Venezuela or anything like that. And that’s before you get into the obvious point that even assuming it’s a good thing then why not do this to every similar country
Click to expand...
I just remember it was an argument about Iraq and allowing that to happen and I bought into it but at least the USA had the pretence of going through the UN and Congress back then.

Its also a sign of how far Britain's influence has been lost from most accounts it was Blair and his team insisting they do that was the only reason they did.
 
Welsh Exile said:
Without getting into the whole morality debate again but she speaks like motivation plays no part. Only outcome.

Trump isn’t doing this because he cares about the people in Venezuela or anything like that. And that’s before you get into the obvious point that even assuming it’s a good thing then why not do this to every similar country
Click to expand...
Stock answer is - “it’s for the U.S. to set out its justifications for the actions that it’s taken.”

We've just signed another deal with a US defence contractor. Part of the new tech deal with the US or what ever it was. For data analytics capabilities supporting critical strategic, tactical and live operational decision making.

Plus the US has started parking large transport planes at Mildenhall. ( Largest US European fighter wing) would be mildly funny that the special relationship resulted in us being the launch pad for an invasion of Greenland.

I think we are now that in bed with the US most political leaders are playing soft. I hate it but we have no choice. Plus the Ukraine still needs support.
 
Last edited:
Saintjay said:
Stock answer is - “it’s for the U.S. to set out its justifications for the actions that it’s taken.”

We've just signed another deal with a US defence contractor. Part of the new tech deal with the US or what ever it was. For data analytics capabilities supporting critical strategic, tactical and live operational decision making.

Plus the US has started parking large transport planes at Mildenhall. ( Largest US European fighter wing) would be mildly funny that the special relationship resulted in us being the launch pad for an invasion of Greenland.

I think we are now that in bed with the US most political leaders are playing soft. I hate it but we have no choice. Plus the Ukraine still needs support.
Click to expand...
And we are in the position of having to respond to bullying because Europe is so divided and weak. The USA could invade Greenland and guarantee nobody would do anything.
 
ncurd said:
Just a reminder of our official opposition stance and how bad the Overton Window is in this country.

www.bbc.co.uk

US action in Venezuela morally right, Kemi Badenoch says

The Conservative leader tells the BBC the military operation raises "serious questions about the rules-based order".
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Does anyone actually disagree with Badenochs take here?

"The Conservative leader told the BBC that while she did not understand the legal basis for Donald Trump's operation to remove President Nicolás Maduro from the country, he was overseeing a "brutal regime" and she was "glad he's gone"

Doesnt this quote apply to pretty much all of us?
 

Similar threads

Which Tyler
Proposed law changes - 2024 edition
Replies
9
Views
4K
AlRums
AlRums
JohnKA
ARK - The State
Replies
1
Views
3K
JohnKA
JohnKA
RoosTah
Is South African Rugby afraid of Rugby League?
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
TRF_stormer2010
TRF_stormer2010
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Brett Gosper: 3 Year Residency Rule to be changed?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
11K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
TRF Mr Fish
All Black Watch - Week 2
Replies
10
Views
2K
TRF Mr Fish
TRF Mr Fish

Latest posts

Back
Top