Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:51 am This War on Drugs nonsense - is this something the Conservatives have identified as being of appeal to some key voter group or something? It seems to go against the tide of change sweeping though most of the world right now, and is against most expert opinion.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:02 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:23 am

E10EU wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:30 am Yet he still doesn't seem to give a XXXX about British nationals such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family.

While I doubt any of them really care about what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is going through, I think it's fair to file this case in the "Far from as straightforward as some people like to make out" category.

Firstly, it's adopting a lazy position of implying good faith in the Iranian regime, and bad faith in our own. If you had to choose between governments, for all our many, many faults, you'd be brave to bet on the Iranians.

Secondly, it assumes that she's entirely innocent. I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people.

Thirdly, yes, the UK Government took receipt of cash from the pre-revolutionary Iranian regime for goods and services we didn't deliver. But that was pre-revolution. Paying that money back to the current Iranian regime means squaring that action with international sanctions (although, to be fair, the USA have previously refunded money to the Iranians) on a hostile state that wishes to pursue nuclear armament, and has one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

Fourthly, expecting the UK Government to hand that money over assumes that the Iranians will then just hand Nazanin back to us. The Iranians have never publicly stated that her release is conditional of repayment of this money. Just imagine the criticism our Government would receive if they handed over money to Iran who then just blew a raspberry at us and walked away.

Fifthly, if the Iranians will hand her over on receipt of this money, then this is straightforward hostage taking. It's state-sanctioned terrorism against a British (duel) citizen. For the life of me, while the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism, I cannot understand why it's our government being painted as the pantomime villains in this when what the Iranians have done is deserving of much worse.

Almost all the vitriol being sprayed about would lead anyone to believe that everything is our fault. As she has duel citizenship, why is it the sole responsibility of the UK Government to give a XXX about her, and not the Iranians?

I feel for her family, but this is clearly not a straightforward issue.

Has Johnson promised you a safe seat. You missed out the bit where his intervention and comments on this matter led to the Iranians doubling down.

Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation and a welcome tool in any WUMs armoury.

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:07 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:51 am This War on Drugs nonsense - is this something the Conservatives have identified as being of appeal to some key voter group or something? It seems to go against the tide of change sweeping though most of the world right now, and is against most expert opinion.

There's a voter perception that only the most serious crimes are now dealt with by police and Johnson is trying to distance himself from his party's record of massive spending cuts on policing. He's creating a rod for his own back though, the stories about people doing gear at Westminster was obviously leaked to undermine the announcement. This is going to set off journalists to catch out hypocritical MPs and ministers who are fond of a line themselves, you get the sense that'll hurt the Tories more.

The announcements are also gimmicky as f*ck. Messaging all the customers of a dealer who's phone you've nabbed to tell them drugs are illegal is straight out of the thick of it. Prohibition has never worked, Brits love drugs. It's not going to change anything.

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:25 am

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:02 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:23 am

While I doubt any of them really care about what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is going through, I think it's fair to file this case in the "Far from as straightforward as some people like to make out" category.

Firstly, it's adopting a lazy position of implying good faith in the Iranian regime, and bad faith in our own. If you had to choose between governments, for all our many, many faults, you'd be brave to bet on the Iranians.

Secondly, it assumes that she's entirely innocent. I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people.

Thirdly, yes, the UK Government took receipt of cash from the pre-revolutionary Iranian regime for goods and services we didn't deliver. But that was pre-revolution. Paying that money back to the current Iranian regime means squaring that action with international sanctions (although, to be fair, the USA have previously refunded money to the Iranians) on a hostile state that wishes to pursue nuclear armament, and has one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

Fourthly, expecting the UK Government to hand that money over assumes that the Iranians will then just hand Nazanin back to us. The Iranians have never publicly stated that her release is conditional of repayment of this money. Just imagine the criticism our Government would receive if they handed over money to Iran who then just blew a raspberry at us and walked away.

Fifthly, if the Iranians will hand her over on receipt of this money, then this is straightforward hostage taking. It's state-sanctioned terrorism against a British (duel) citizen. For the life of me, while the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism, I cannot understand why it's our government being painted as the pantomime villains in this when what the Iranians have done is deserving of much worse.

Almost all the vitriol being sprayed about would lead anyone to believe that everything is our fault. As she has duel citizenship, why is it the sole responsibility of the UK Government to give a XXX about her, and not the Iranians?

I feel for her family, but this is clearly not a straightforward issue.

Has Johnson promised you a safe seat. You missed out the bit where his intervention and comments on this matter led to the Iranians doubling down.

Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation and a welcome tool in any WUMs armoury.

Nope, but I'm still holding out for a Christmas party invite. Any true Champagne Socialist would do the same.

Sure, the Iranians were only too glad to capitalise on Johnson's gaff when he was Foreign Secretary, but I remain sceptical that had he not said what he did the outcome would be any different. And, I didn't miss this bit out. You must have missed the bit where I said "the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism".

I disagree that Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation. Sure, conspiracists may speculate and such a statement may also be used in a bog-standard WUMs armoury. But a) I'm not a bog-standard WUM, and b) it's not an incorrect statement either.

Anyway, the main point I'm trying to get across, is that this is not a straightforward issue. Surely we can all agree on at least that.

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:25 am

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:02 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:23 am

While I doubt any of them really care about what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is going through, I think it's fair to file this case in the "Far from as straightforward as some people like to make out" category.

Firstly, it's adopting a lazy position of implying good faith in the Iranian regime, and bad faith in our own. If you had to choose between governments, for all our many, many faults, you'd be brave to bet on the Iranians.

Secondly, it assumes that she's entirely innocent. I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people.

Thirdly, yes, the UK Government took receipt of cash from the pre-revolutionary Iranian regime for goods and services we didn't deliver. But that was pre-revolution. Paying that money back to the current Iranian regime means squaring that action with international sanctions (although, to be fair, the USA have previously refunded money to the Iranians) on a hostile state that wishes to pursue nuclear armament, and has one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

Fourthly, expecting the UK Government to hand that money over assumes that the Iranians will then just hand Nazanin back to us. The Iranians have never publicly stated that her release is conditional of repayment of this money. Just imagine the criticism our Government would receive if they handed over money to Iran who then just blew a raspberry at us and walked away.

Fifthly, if the Iranians will hand her over on receipt of this money, then this is straightforward hostage taking. It's state-sanctioned terrorism against a British (duel) citizen. For the life of me, while the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism, I cannot understand why it's our government being painted as the pantomime villains in this when what the Iranians have done is deserving of much worse.

Almost all the vitriol being sprayed about would lead anyone to believe that everything is our fault. As she has duel citizenship, why is it the sole responsibility of the UK Government to give a XXX about her, and not the Iranians?

I feel for her family, but this is clearly not a straightforward issue.

Has Johnson promised you a safe seat. You missed out the bit where his intervention and comments on this matter led to the Iranians doubling down.

Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation and a welcome tool in any WUMs armoury.

Nope, but I'm still holding out for a Christmas party invite. Any true Champagne Socialist would do the same.

Sure, the Iranians were only too glad to capitalise on Johnson's gaff when he was Foreign Secretary, but I remain sceptical that had he not said what he did the outcome would be any different. And, I didn't miss this bit out. You must have missed the bit where I said "the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism".

I disagree that Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation. Sure, conspiracists may speculate and such a statement may also be used in a bog-standard WUMs armoury. But a) I'm not a bog-standard WUM, and b) it's not an incorrect statement either.

Anyway, the main point I'm trying to get across, is that this is not a straightforward issue. Surely we can all agree on at least that.

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:28 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:25 am

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:02 am

Has Johnson promised you a safe seat. You missed out the bit where his intervention and comments on this matter led to the Iranians doubling down.

Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation and a welcome tool in any WUMs armoury.

Nope, but I'm still holding out for a Christmas party invite. Any true Champagne Socialist would do the same.

Sure, the Iranians were only too glad to capitalise on Johnson's gaff when he was Foreign Secretary, but I remain sceptical that had he not said what he did the outcome would be any different. And, I didn't miss this bit out. You must have missed the bit where I said "the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism".

I disagree that Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation. Sure, conspiracists may speculate and such a statement may also be used in a bog-standard WUMs armoury. But a) I'm not a bog-standard WUM, and b) it's not an incorrect statement either.

Anyway, the main point I'm trying to get across, is that this is not a straightforward issue. Surely we can all agree on at least that.

Trying to make a nuanced point about one of the left's favourite theocracies

Good luck

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:50 am
Not an incorrect statement? Prove it.

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:38 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:50 am
Not an incorrect statement? Prove it.

What, this? "I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people."

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:54 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:38 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:50 am
Not an incorrect statement? Prove it.

What, this? "I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people."

You need to show that only a select number of people know for the statement to be correct.

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:10 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:54 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:38 pm

What, this? "I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people."

You need to show that only a select number of people know for the statement to be correct.

Okay. I'll use it as a conversational icebreaker at the next No.10 soirée and report back.

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:23 am

E10EU wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:30 am Yet he still doesn't seem to give a XXXX about British nationals such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family.

While I doubt any of them really care about what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is going through, I think it's fair to file this case in the "Far from as straightforward as some people like to make out" category.

Firstly, it's adopting a lazy position of implying good faith in the Iranian regime, and bad faith in our own. If you had to choose between governments, for all our many, many faults, you'd be brave to bet on the Iranians.

Secondly, it assumes that she's entirely innocent. I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people.

Thirdly, yes, the UK Government took receipt of cash from the pre-revolutionary Iranian regime for goods and services we didn't deliver. But that was pre-revolution. Paying that money back to the current Iranian regime means squaring that action with international sanctions (although, to be fair, the USA have previously refunded money to the Iranians) on a hostile state that wishes to pursue nuclear armament, and has one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

Fourthly, expecting the UK Government to hand that money over assumes that the Iranians will then just hand Nazanin back to us. The Iranians have never publicly stated that her release is conditional of repayment of this money. Just imagine the criticism our Government would receive if they handed over money to Iran who then just blew a raspberry at us and walked away.

Fifthly, if the Iranians will hand her over on receipt of this money, then this is straightforward hostage taking. It's state-sanctioned terrorism against a British (duel) citizen. For the life of me, while the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism, I cannot understand why it's our government being painted as the pantomime villains in this when what the Iranians have done is deserving of much worse.

Almost all the vitriol being sprayed about would lead anyone to believe that everything is our fault. As she has duel citizenship, why is it the sole responsibility of the UK Government to give a XXX about her, and not the Iranians?

I feel for her family, but this is clearly not a straightforward issue.

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:10 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:54 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:38 pm

What, this? "I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people."

You need to show that only a select number of people know for the statement to be correct.

Okay. I'll use it as a conversational icebreaker at the next No.10 soirée and report back.