From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier Parliament automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay the
General election. I know one has to be very careful about Facebook but can government delay the next GE?
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
We chose to do this not because it is easy but because we thought it would
be easy.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-22, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier Parliament automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay the
General election. I know one has to be very careful about Facebook but
can government delay the next GE?

They can delay the election, or indeed abolish elections entirely
and make Keir Starmer Dictator For Life, if they can get an Act of
Parliament passed which says that's what should happen.

Without passing an Act of Parliament, no, they cannot delay the
election beyond roughly 5 years from the last one.

Or to put it another way: no they cannot delay the election without
everyone being fully aware of what they are trying to do well in
advance of it happening; no they cannot delay it secretly, or by
some sneaky underhand method or suddenly pulling a rabbit out of
a hat.

See for example the "Prolongation of Parliament Act 1940" which is
how the UK government delayed elections during World War II:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/3-4/53/pdfs/ukpga_19400053_en.pdf

Absent the outbreak of World War III, a similar Act is not going to
get through Parliament any time soon.

(They passed another Act each year during World War II to delay the
elections another year. They're actually vaguely interesting, in that
they're not all the same but adding 1: the first one amends the
Parliament Act 1911 to substitute six years for five years, but the
second one disapplies the Parliament Act 1911 which means the duration
reverts to seven years as specified by the Septennial Act 1715, and
the third one amends the Septennial Act.)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 12:48:45 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay the
General election. I know one has to be very careful about Facebook but
can government delay the next GE?

Yes.

But so could the previous government. And the one before that. And the
one before that .... all the way back to when the election was delayed
because of a war in Europe.

You need to remember that the centre of gravity for Facebook is USian, so
all it's imaginings take place in a world of fixed elections and 16oz
pints that are full of "flavor". I can guarantee that even as I write
this, some thick Yank is having "AI" (most likely Gemini) telling them
that the next UK election is due in 2028.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 22 Dec 2025 12:48:45 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier Parliament >automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth >anniversary of the day on which it first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay the
General election. I know one has to be very careful about Facebook but can >government delay the next GE?

Not by diktat, no. Unlike rescheduling local elections, which is within the power of the DCLG, there is no statutory authority whereby the
administration can delay calling a general election beyond five years.

However, Parliament is sovereign, so if Parliament voted to delay the
election then the election can be delayed. This would not be unprecedented,
of course, it's precisely what happened in 1940. And, given that the
government has a Parliamentary majority in the Commons, it could, in theory pass the necessary legislation to enable a delay.

In practice, though, without a very compelling reason, I suspect they would have severe difficulty pushing it through. Cross-party agreement to delay elections and form a grand coalition is one thing, a government forcing
through a delay against the wishes of the opposition is quite another. That would be entirely unprecedented, and almost certainly controversial enough
for even members of the governing party to rebel against. And I also think
it's entirely implausible; the government has given absolutely no indication that it is even considering such a move.

If Russia does launch an all-out pan-European war some time in the next few years (and that is not, unfortunately, completely implausible, particularly
if Putin realises that his one and only chance of success in such an
endeavour would come while his orange puppet still occupies the White House) then another wartime election-free grand coalition may well be on the cards. And I suspect that the government (and probably opposition leaders) have already been briefed on the potential ramifications of such circumstances.
But a delay to elections in the absence of such circumstances is about as unlikely as unlikely gets, in the context of democratic politics.

The social media chatter about potentially delaying the 2029 general
election just to prevent Reform winning seems mainly to come from a mix of deliberate shit-stirring from purveyors of misinformation and ignorant knee-jerk jumping to conclusions by those who have little to no
understanding of local elections but are nonetheless happy to extrapolate
from their lack of knowledge to an entirely different situation. And the
latter are, of course, being exploited and manipulated by the former.

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-23, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

However, Parliament is sovereign, so if Parliament voted to delay the election then the election can be delayed. This would not be unprecedented, of course, it's precisely what happened in 1940.

... and 1916, and 1917, and 1918, and 1941, and 1942, and 1943, and 1944.
And also 1715 (which the perfidious colonials held up as an example of
the dangers of a lack of a constitution, apparently).

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 13:11:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-23, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

However, Parliament is sovereign, so if Parliament voted to delay the
election then the election can be delayed. This would not be unprecedented, >> of course, it's precisely what happened in 1940.

... and 1916, and 1917, and 1918, and 1941, and 1942, and 1943, and 1944.

All of which illustrate another important point: even in wartime, a delay to elections can't be indefinite, it requires repeated Parliamentary agreement
to extend it.

And also 1715 (which the perfidious colonials held up as an example of
the dangers of a lack of a constitution, apparently).

That's somewhat different. The 1715 general election took place on the
normal schedule, which, back then, was every three years (as set out in the Meeting of Parliament Act 1694). But, by then, pretty much everyone was
agreed that every three years was too often, so the newly formed Whig administration decided to legislate for a new maximum length. The Septennial Act 1715 changed the maximum from three to seven years, and a consequence
was that the next general election didn't happen until 1722. But that wasn't really a delay as such, it was just a change to the regular schedule. And seven-year administrations subsequently became the norm for the rest of the 18th century.

Over the course of the 19th century, though, four or five years (and
sometimes less) became the norm, despite the theoretical maximum still being seven. A couple of administrations lasted six years, but none went all the
way to seven. And in 1911 the Parliament Act 1911 reduced the maximum to
five years to match then current practice. That Act was subsequently
repealed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 which abolished prerogative dissolution and stipulated a fixed duration of five years (unless overriden
by Parliamentary vote), and that Act in turn was repealed by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 which reinstated prerogative dissolution
but also reinstated the five year maximum.

So wartime remains the only instances where the duration of a Parliament has been extended beyond the normal schedule. The schedule itself has been
tinkered with over the centuries, but there are no peacetime instances of a Parliament being extended beyond the schedule, at least in anything like the modern Parliamentary system.

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 12:33:21 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

The social media chatter about potentially delaying the 2029 general
election just to prevent Reform winning seems mainly to come from a mix
of deliberate shit-stirring from purveyors of misinformation and
ignorant knee-jerk jumping to conclusions by those who have little to no understanding of local elections but are nonetheless happy to
extrapolate from their lack of knowledge to an entirely different
situation. And the latter are, of course, being exploited and
manipulated by the former.

It's clearly generated in either the US or Russia (which are teh same
thing these days) and on a knowledge of the UK constitution that is approaching zero from the wrong side.

The problem is the it is aimed at are just as ignorant, so it seems to
chime.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 13:50:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

That Act was
subsequently repealed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 which
abolished prerogative dissolution and stipulated a fixed duration of
five years (unless overriden by Parliamentary vote), and that Act in
turn was repealed by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
which reinstated prerogative dissolution but also reinstated the five
year maximum.

I was in favour of the FTPA and will admit I was pretty wrong. Maybe
history will record the single worthwhile thing the Johnson government
did was repeal it.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 22/12/2025 in message <slrn10kjie4.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:

They can delay the election, or indeed abolish elections entirely
and make Keir Starmer Dictator For Life, if they can get an Act of
Parliament passed which says that's what should happen.

[snipped]

Many thanks :-)

Current suggestion that you 'phone the king and ask him to dissolve
Parliament because you don't like Starmer may not work then.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Captcha is thinking of stopping the use of pictures with traffic lights as cyclists don't know what they are.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-23, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 22/12/2025 in message <slrn10kjie4.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:

They can delay the election, or indeed abolish elections entirely
and make Keir Starmer Dictator For Life, if they can get an Act of >>Parliament passed which says that's what should happen.

[snipped]

Many thanks :-)

Current suggestion that you 'phone the king and ask him to dissolve Parliament because you don't like Starmer may not work then.

Calling an election *early* is something that Starmer could easily do.
(But of course is very unlikely to do!)

If the King wanted to dissolve Parliament early off his own bat then
my feeling is that he could perhaps manage it, but either way even
the attempt to do so would kick off an almightly ruckus which at best
would result in a restructuring of the way the royal prerogative works,
and at worst the abolition of the monarchy.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 23/12/2025 12:33 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 22 Dec 2025 12:48:45 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier Parliament
automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth
anniversary of the day on which it first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay the
General election. I know one has to be very careful about Facebook but can >> government delay the next GE?

Not by diktat, no. Unlike rescheduling local elections, which is within the power of the DCLG, there is no statutory authority whereby the
administration can delay calling a general election beyond five years.

However, Parliament is sovereign, so if Parliament voted to delay the election then the election can be delayed. This would not be unprecedented, of course, it's precisely what happened in 1940. And, given that the government has a Parliamentary majority in the Commons, it could, in theory pass the necessary legislation to enable a delay.

In practice, though, without a very compelling reason, I suspect they would have severe difficulty pushing it through. Cross-party agreement to delay elections and form a grand coalition is one thing, a government forcing through a delay against the wishes of the opposition is quite another. That would be entirely unprecedented, and almost certainly controversial enough for even members of the governing party to rebel against. And I also think it's entirely implausible; the government has given absolutely no indication that it is even considering such a move.

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election. I am not aware of any countermanding of that (so
far).

If Russia does launch an all-out pan-European war some time in the next few years (and that is not, unfortunately, completely implausible, particularly if Putin realises that his one and only chance of success in such an endeavour would come while his orange puppet still occupies the White House) then another wartime election-free grand coalition may well be on the cards. And I suspect that the government (and probably opposition leaders) have already been briefed on the potential ramifications of such circumstances. But a delay to elections in the absence of such circumstances is about as unlikely as unlikely gets, in the context of democratic politics.

The social media chatter about potentially delaying the 2029 general
election just to prevent Reform winning seems mainly to come from a mix of deliberate shit-stirring from purveyors of misinformation and ignorant knee-jerk jumping to conclusions by those who have little to no
understanding of local elections but are nonetheless happy to extrapolate from their lack of knowledge to an entirely different situation. And the latter are, of course, being exploited and manipulated by the former.

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 23/12/2025 04:21 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-23, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 22/12/2025 in message <slrn10kjie4.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:

They can delay the election, or indeed abolish elections entirely
and make Keir Starmer Dictator For Life, if they can get an Act of
Parliament passed which says that's what should happen.

[snipped]

Many thanks :-)

Current suggestion that you 'phone the king and ask him to dissolve
Parliament because you don't like Starmer may not work then.

Calling an election *early* is something that Starmer could easily do.
(But of course is very unlikely to do!)

If the King wanted to dissolve Parliament early off his own bat then
my feeling is that he could perhaps manage it, but either way even
the attempt to do so would kick off an almightly ruckus which at best
would result in a restructuring of the way the royal prerogative works,
and at worst the abolition of the monarchy.

It didn't do either thing in Australia (1975, I think).

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-23, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 04:21 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-23, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 22/12/2025 in message <slrn10kjie4.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:

They can delay the election, or indeed abolish elections entirely
and make Keir Starmer Dictator For Life, if they can get an Act of
Parliament passed which says that's what should happen.

[snipped]

Many thanks :-)

Current suggestion that you 'phone the king and ask him to dissolve
Parliament because you don't like Starmer may not work then.

Calling an election *early* is something that Starmer could easily do.
(But of course is very unlikely to do!)

If the King wanted to dissolve Parliament early off his own bat then
my feeling is that he could perhaps manage it, but either way even
the attempt to do so would kick off an almightly ruckus which at best
would result in a restructuring of the way the royal prerogative works,
and at worst the abolition of the monarchy.

It didn't do either thing in Australia (1975, I think).

That wasn't done by the Queen, and has been described as "the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history". And it was
50 years ago.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-23, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 12:33 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 22 Dec 2025 12:48:45 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier Parliament
automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth
anniversary of the day on which it first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay the
General election. I know one has to be very careful about Facebook but can >>> government delay the next GE?

Not by diktat, no. Unlike rescheduling local elections, which is within the >> power of the DCLG, there is no statutory authority whereby the
administration can delay calling a general election beyond five years.

However, Parliament is sovereign, so if Parliament voted to delay the
election then the election can be delayed. This would not be unprecedented, >> of course, it's precisely what happened in 1940. And, given that the
government has a Parliamentary majority in the Commons, it could, in theory >> pass the necessary legislation to enable a delay.

In practice, though, without a very compelling reason, I suspect they would >> have severe difficulty pushing it through. Cross-party agreement to delay
elections and form a grand coalition is one thing, a government forcing
through a delay against the wishes of the opposition is quite another. That >> would be entirely unprecedented, and almost certainly controversial enough >> for even members of the governing party to rebel against. And I also think >> it's entirely implausible; the government has given absolutely no
indication that it is even considering such a move.

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what triggered my OP.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
This mess is what happens when you elect a Labour government, in the end
they will always run out of other people's money to spend.
(Margaret Thatcher on her election in 1979)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-24, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>>saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic >>Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook

So, as I said then?

which is what triggered my OP.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 24/12/2025 in message <xn0pewy4qv0v9kb01m@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>>saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic >>Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what triggered my OP.

I have to follow this up. The latest suggestion on Facebook is that
Starmer is deliberately provoking war with Russia to give him a reason to postpone the election. I must see if Beano and Dandy are available online
so I can communicate with adults.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
How does a gender neutral bog differ from a unisex bog ?
It has a non-binary number on the door.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Jon Ribbens wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't.

It was Anna Turley being interviewed by Trevor Phillips on Sky

<https://youtu.be/9VkCgbdmHxY?t=97>

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

[rCa]

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election. I am not aware of any countermanding of that (so far).

ThererCOs an account of this incident in the Huff Post, with quotations,
here:

<https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/no-labour-has-not-said-it-might-delay-the-next-general-election_uk_6947e0fee4b0dd220fa0cc06>

Extract:

Sky presenter Trevor Phillips asked Labour chair Anna Turley on Sunday if Labour intended to postpone the next general election beyond 2029, too. But doing so would require breaching the law.

Turley immediately said: rCLNo, not at all. We are undertaking the biggest change to local government in 50 years and that takes time.rCY

But Phillips pushed: rCLIf I were interviewing someone in Latin America or Africa, and they said to me what yourCOve just said to me, yourCOd already be saying, rCybanana republic,rCO speechifying about the dangers of authoritarianism.rCY

He then suggested Labour could use its plans to also reform the House of
Lords as a reason to rCLput off a general election in 2029rCY.

Turley said: rCLWerCOve still got a huge amount of elections coming up this year in Scotland, in Wales, all of London, werCOve got a huge amount of elections coming up in May...rCY
--
Spike

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what triggered my OP.

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the messages
about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips asked Labour Party Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the
reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or
media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original
interview to decide if this was unusual.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 23/12/2025 22:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-23, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 12:33 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 22 Dec 2025 12:48:45 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 >>>> and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier Parliament
automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth
anniversary of the day on which it first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay the
General election. I know one has to be very careful about Facebook but can >>>> government delay the next GE?

Not by diktat, no. Unlike rescheduling local elections, which is within the >>> power of the DCLG, there is no statutory authority whereby the
administration can delay calling a general election beyond five years.

However, Parliament is sovereign, so if Parliament voted to delay the
election then the election can be delayed. This would not be unprecedented, >>> of course, it's precisely what happened in 1940. And, given that the
government has a Parliamentary majority in the Commons, it could, in theory >>> pass the necessary legislation to enable a delay.

In practice, though, without a very compelling reason, I suspect they would >>> have severe difficulty pushing it through. Cross-party agreement to delay >>> elections and form a grand coalition is one thing, a government forcing
through a delay against the wishes of the opposition is quite another. That >>> would be entirely unprecedented, and almost certainly controversial enough >>> for even members of the governing party to rebel against. And I also think >>> it's entirely implausible; the government has given absolutely no
indication that it is even considering such a move.

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.

Never be too sure.

<https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2148910/Anna-turley-delay-next-election>

<https://x.com/aliciakearns/status/2002682735635157384>

<https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1ps5cqh/labour_chair_refuses_to_rule_out_delaying_the/>

There are three things that could not have been read because (according
to you) they didn't exist.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 23/12/2025 22:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-23, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 04:21 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-23, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 22/12/2025 in message <slrn10kjie4.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:

They can delay the election, or indeed abolish elections entirely
and make Keir Starmer Dictator For Life, if they can get an Act of
Parliament passed which says that's what should happen.

[snipped]

Many thanks :-)

Current suggestion that you 'phone the king and ask him to dissolve
Parliament because you don't like Starmer may not work then.

Calling an election *early* is something that Starmer could easily do.
(But of course is very unlikely to do!)

If the King wanted to dissolve Parliament early off his own bat then
my feeling is that he could perhaps manage it, but either way even
the attempt to do so would kick off an almightly ruckus which at best
would result in a restructuring of the way the royal prerogative works,
and at worst the abolition of the monarchy.

It didn't do either thing in Australia (1975, I think).

That wasn't done by the Queen, and has been described as "the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history". And it was
50 years ago.

What you mean is that the then-leader of the Labor Party went on a
massive sulk for the rest of his life, threatening retribution |i la King Lear.

What the Governor General does is done in the name of the Monarch, using
the powers of the Monarch.

The rest of Australia breathed a sigh of relief that the Labor Party's incompetent rule had been brought to an end (for the time being).

Do you know any Australians who were around at the time, particularly if
they were trying to run businesses?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-24, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Jon Ribbens wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't.

It was Anna Turley being interviewed by Trevor Phillips on Sky

<https://youtu.be/9VkCgbdmHxY?t=97>

And in that clip did she say that "she could not rule out delaying
the next General Election"? Or did she in fact not say that?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-24, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>>> saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what triggered my OP.

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the messages
about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips asked Labour Party Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or
media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original
interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News.
But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would
appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the
snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for
a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped
includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general
election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>>>> saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the >>>>> next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what triggered my OP. >>

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the messages
about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips asked Labour Party
Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the
reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or
media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about
hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original
interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News.
But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the
snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for
a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped
includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the rCYNorCY was a response to there not being a reason to delay the 2029 General Election
whereas it was a response to a posed reason for not doing so. Other unasked
and so unresponded reasons for a postponement doubtless exist.

In no way was it a categorical rejection of the postponement of the next
GE.

And there being no plans for the same does not exclude extant discussions
on the topic that might lead later to such plans being formulated by those
who would benefit from such action.
--
Spike

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 24/12/2025 11:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Jon Ribbens wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>>> saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't.

It was Anna Turley being interviewed by Trevor Phillips on Sky

<https://youtu.be/9VkCgbdmHxY?t=97>

And in that clip did she say that "she could not rule out delaying
the next General Election"? Or did she in fact not say that?

When asked to rule it out, she would not / failed to / refused to do that.

She could easily have ruled it out had she wished to do so.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 24/12/2025 10:21 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>>> saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook

So, as I said then?

No.

The facts could not be further from what you said then.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>>>>> saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the >>>>>> next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic >>>>> Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what triggered my OP. >>>

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the messages
about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips asked Labour Party
Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the
reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or
media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about
hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original
interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News.
But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would
appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the
snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for
a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped
includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general
election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the rCYNorCY was a response to there not being a reason to delay the 2029 General Election whereas it was a response to a posed reason for not doing so.

No, you are just making false assumptions.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>>>>>> saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the >>>>>>> next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic >>>>>> Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what triggered my OP. >>>>

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the messages >>>> about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips asked Labour Party >>>> Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the >>>> reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or >>>> media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about
hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original
interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News.
But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would >>> appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the
snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for
a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped
includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general
election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the rCYNorCY was a >> response to there not being a reason to delay the 2029 General Election
whereas it was a response to a posed reason for not doing so.

No, you are just making false assumptions.

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and
so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next General Election being postponed.
--
Spike

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier Parliament automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay the
General election. I know one has to be very careful about Facebook but
can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24, we
see a UK Government delay local elections, propose banning Jury trials, letting violent criminals out of jail early, ignoring anti-semitism, UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Spike wrote:

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and
so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the ladydid not rule out the prospect of the next
General Election being postponed.

I don't know how much longer the interview continued after the end of
the clip, it sounded chopped-off.

Afterwards Trevor Phillips was puzzled why she'd refused to rule-out
delaying, perhaps she later realised how it sounded as she appeared on
Times Radio clarifying that they definitely wouldn't delay it ...


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 25 Dec 2025 at 12:59:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the >>>>>>>> next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic >>>>>>> Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what triggered my OP.

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the messages >>>>> about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips asked Labour Party >>>>> Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the >>>>> reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or >>>>> media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about >>>>> hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original
interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News.
But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would >>>> appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the
snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for
a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped
includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general
election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the rCYNorCY was a >>> response to there not being a reason to delay the 2029 General Election
whereas it was a response to a posed reason for not doing so.

No, you are just making false assumptions.

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and
so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next General Election being postponed.

Nor was she asked to do so. Nor did she rule out the whole government emigrating to Alpha Centauri. The whole thing is a tawdry fabrication.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 at 12:59:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the >>>>>>>>> next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic >>>>>>>> Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what triggered my OP.

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the messages >>>>>> about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips asked Labour Party >>>>>> Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the >>>>>> reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or >>>>>> media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about >>>>>> hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original >>>>>> interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News. >>>>> But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would >>>>> appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the >>>>> snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for
a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped
includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general >>>>> election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the rCYNorCY was a >>>> response to there not being a reason to delay the 2029 General Election >>>> whereas it was a response to a posed reason for not doing so.

No, you are just making false assumptions.

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and
so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next
General Election being postponed.

Nor was she asked to do so. Nor did she rule out the whole government emigrating to Alpha Centauri. The whole thing is a tawdry fabrication.

rCYThe presenter replied: rCLWhat IrCOm not hearing is that this Labour government canrCOt see any circumstances by which you would choose to do what yourCOve done in local authorities and delay a general election, which, IrCOve got to say, IrCOm finding surprising, that you canrCOt just say, rCOno general election will go beyond the five-year term.rCY She replied: rCLOf course a general election will come.rCY

Now work out the relationship between rCOrCaof course a General Election will comerCY and rCYThere will be postponement of the General ElectionrCY.

In case you hadnrCOt noticed , and you donrCOt seem be be alone in this, the former statement doesnrCOt rule out the latter.

Politicians, eh.
--
Spike

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on Thu, 25 Dec
2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act
2022 and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier
Parliament automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day that
is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay the >>General election. I know one has to be very careful about Facebook but
can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24, we
see a UK Government delay local elections,

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and the
councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone would be
screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

Only banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials have
been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

Again, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life doesn't
mean life" since 1967.

ignoring anti-semitism,

Has been going on for thousands of years.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

If the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also think
there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be beaten to a
pulp, what's the problem?
--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <mr4qoqFdc0sU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:59:06 on Thu, 25
Dec 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about >>>>> hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original
interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News.
But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would >>>> appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the
snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for
a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped
includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general
election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the rCYNorCY was a >>> response to there not being a reason to delay the 2029 General Election
whereas it was a response to a posed reason for not doing so.

No, you are just making false assumptions.

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and
so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next >General Election being postponed.

Nowadays "ruling something out" carries as much weight as booking a
hotel room, then cancelling it the day after.

Similarly "having no plans..." almost certainly means "we do have such a
plan, and currently it says <<we won't be doing that, unless one of the following things happen tomorrow...>>"

cf Raising taxes, or making a bid to become the next Labour Leader.
--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-25, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Spike wrote:

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and
so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the ladydid not rule out the prospect of the next
General Election being postponed.

I don't know how much longer the interview continued after the end of
the clip, it sounded chopped-off.

Afterwards Trevor Phillips was puzzled why she'd refused to rule-out delaying, perhaps she later realised how it sounded as she appeared on
Times Radio clarifying that they definitely wouldn't delay it ...

I think you mean "Afterwards Trevor Phillips *said* he was puzzled..."

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-25, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 at 12:59:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it >>>>>>>>>> happens - saying less than a week ago that she could not rule >>>>>>>>>> out delaying the next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a >>>>>>>>> lunatic Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what
triggered my OP.

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the
messages about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips
asked Labour Party Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the
general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the >>>>>>> reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or >>>>>>> media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about >>>>>>> hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original >>>>>>> interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News. >>>>>> But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would >>>>>> appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the >>>>>> snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for >>>>>> a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped >>>>>> includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general >>>>>> election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the rCYNorCY was a
response to there not being a reason to delay the 2029 General Election >>>>> whereas it was a response to a posed reason for not doing so.

No, you are just making false assumptions.

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and >>> so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next >>> General Election being postponed.

Nor was she asked to do so. Nor did she rule out the whole government
emigrating to Alpha Centauri. The whole thing is a tawdry fabrication.

rCYThe presenter replied: rCLWhat IrCOm not hearing is that this Labour government canrCOt see any circumstances by which you would choose to do what yourCOve done in local authorities and delay a general election, which, IrCOve
got to say, IrCOm finding surprising, that you canrCOt just say, rCOno general
election will go beyond the five-year term.rCY She replied: rCLOf course a general election will come.rCY

Now work out the relationship between rCOrCaof course a General Election will comerCY and rCYThere will be postponement of the General ElectionrCY.

In case you hadnrCOt noticed , and you donrCOt seem be be alone in this, the former statement doesnrCOt rule out the latter.

Whereas you haven't noticed the other things she said, and also haven't
noticed the difference between what I have actually said and what you
have wrongly assumed I have said.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 26/12/2025 12:42 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on Thu, 25 Dec
2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

-aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act
2022-a and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier
Parliament-a automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day that
is the fifth-a anniversary of the day on which it first met.

-aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay the
General election. I know one has to be very careful about Facebook
but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24, we
see-a a UK Government delay local elections,

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and the councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone would be
screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

Only banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials have
been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

Again, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life doesn't
mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for discount,
"good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent offences
deserve a whole life tariff.

ignoring anti-semitism,

Has been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George Brown
have said?

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

If the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also think there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be beaten to a
pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.

I wouldn't have expected to read it here.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 26/12/2025 02:16 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-25, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Spike wrote:

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and >>> so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the ladydid not rule out the prospect of the next
General Election being postponed.

I don't know how much longer the interview continued after the end of
the clip, it sounded chopped-off.

Afterwards Trevor Phillips was puzzled why she'd refused to rule-out
delaying, perhaps she later realised how it sounded as she appeared on
Times Radio clarifying that they definitely wouldn't delay it ...

I think you mean "Afterwards Trevor Phillips *said* he was puzzled..."

Of course he said it.

Did you think he communicated it by telepathy?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <mr7m03FrqrcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:03 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 12:42 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on Thu, 25
Dec 2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act >>>>2022a and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier >>>>Parliamenta automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day that >>>>is the fiftha anniversary of the day on which it first met.

aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay
the General election. I know one has to be very careful about >>>>Facebook but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24,
we seea a UK Government delay local elections,

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and the >>councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone would be >>screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

Only banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials
have been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

Again, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life doesn't >>mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for discount,
"good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent offences >deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading Usenet postings.

ignoring anti-semitism,

Has been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George Brown
have said?

The Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not here
for the hunting.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

If the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also
think there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be
beaten to a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.

I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

Why, does the truth hurt?
--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:41:23 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 12:33 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

In practice, though, without a very compelling reason, I suspect they would >> have severe difficulty pushing it through. Cross-party agreement to delay
elections and form a grand coalition is one thing, a government forcing
through a delay against the wishes of the opposition is quite another. That >> would be entirely unprecedented, and almost certainly controversial enough >> for even members of the governing party to rebel against. And I also think >> it's entirely implausible; the government has given absolutely no indication >> that it is even considering such a move.

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election. I am not aware of any countermanding of that (so >far).

If you're sure that you read it, then you can also cite where you read it.

If you can't remember where you read it, then you're not actually sure you
read it. Or, at least, you're not at all sure of the context.

Politicians often respond to hypothetical questions with "I can't rule
out...", particlarly for things that they, personally, don't control and therefore have no power to rule out, before going to explain why the hypothetical scenario is, in their opinion, highly improbable.

I mean, nobody can actually rule out the possibility that the government
may, in a few years time, decide to delay the next general election. Even
the current Prime Minister, who is the only person in a position to actually rule it out, may not be the Prime Minister when the decision comes to be
made. So any sensible answer to the question has to be qualified by "I can't rule it out", alongside the more usweful analysis of wh it's extremely
unlikely to happen.

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 26/12/2025 02:18 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-25, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 at 12:59:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it >>>>>>>>>>> happens - saying less than a week ago that she could not rule >>>>>>>>>>> out delaying the next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a >>>>>>>>>> lunatic Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what
triggered my OP.

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the >>>>>>>> messages about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips
asked Labour Party Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the
general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the >>>>>>>> reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or >>>>>>>> media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about >>>>>>>> hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original >>>>>>>> interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News. >>>>>>> But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would
appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the >>>>>>> snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for >>>>>>> a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped >>>>>>> includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general >>>>>>> election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the rCYNorCY was a
response to there not being a reason to delay the 2029 General Election >>>>>> whereas it was a response to a posed reason for not doing so.

No, you are just making false assumptions.

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and >>>> so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next >>>> General Election being postponed.

Nor was she asked to do so. Nor did she rule out the whole government
emigrating to Alpha Centauri. The whole thing is a tawdry fabrication.

rCYThe presenter replied: rCLWhat IrCOm not hearing is that this Labour
government canrCOt see any circumstances by which you would choose to do what
yourCOve done in local authorities and delay a general election, which, IrCOve
got to say, IrCOm finding surprising, that you canrCOt just say, rCOno general
election will go beyond the five-year term.rCY She replied: rCLOf course a >> general election will come.rCY

Now work out the relationship between rCOrCaof course a General Election will
comerCY and rCYThere will be postponement of the General ElectionrCY.

In case you hadnrCOt noticed , and you donrCOt seem be be alone in this, the >> former statement doesnrCOt rule out the latter.

Whereas you haven't noticed the other things she said, and also haven't noticed the difference between what I have actually said and what you
have wrongly assumed I have said.

She dodged the question / statement (see above):

"What IrCOm not hearing is that this Labour government canrCOt see any circumstances by which you would choose to do what yourCOve done in local authorities and delay a general election, which, IrCOve got to say, IrCOm finding surprising, that you canrCOt just say, rCOno general election will
go beyond the five-year term."

She simply answered that General Election would (eventually) come,
without answering the question as to whether it would be delayed beyond
the usual limit. She COULD have said "We will not seek to run away from
the whole electorate as we are clearly doing with some local electorates".

But she didn't.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-25, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 at 12:59:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it >>>>>>>>>>> happens - saying less than a week ago that she could not rule >>>>>>>>>>> out delaying the next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a >>>>>>>>>> lunatic Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what
triggered my OP.

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the >>>>>>>> messages about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips
asked Labour Party Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the
general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the >>>>>>>> reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or >>>>>>>> media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about >>>>>>>> hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original >>>>>>>> interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News. >>>>>>> But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would
appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the >>>>>>> snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for >>>>>>> a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped >>>>>>> includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general >>>>>>> election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the rCYNorCY was a
response to there not being a reason to delay the 2029 General Election >>>>>> whereas it was a response to a posed reason for not doing so.

No, you are just making false assumptions.

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and >>>> so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next >>>> General Election being postponed.

Nor was she asked to do so. Nor did she rule out the whole government
emigrating to Alpha Centauri. The whole thing is a tawdry fabrication.

rCYThe presenter replied: rCLWhat IrCOm not hearing is that this Labour
government canrCOt see any circumstances by which you would choose to do what
yourCOve done in local authorities and delay a general election, which, IrCOve
got to say, IrCOm finding surprising, that you canrCOt just say, rCOno general
election will go beyond the five-year term.rCY She replied: rCLOf course a >> general election will come.rCY

Now work out the relationship between rCOrCaof course a General Election will
comerCY and rCYThere will be postponement of the General ElectionrCY.

In case you hadnrCOt noticed , and you donrCOt seem be be alone in this, the >> former statement doesnrCOt rule out the latter.

Whereas you haven't noticed the other things she said

What she said never included a definitive statement that the next General Election would not be delayed or postponed.

Talk about rCOno plans to do sorCO has no worth whatsoever.

and also haven't
noticed the difference between what I have actually said and what you
have wrongly assumed I have said.

I think you exaggerate your importance, if you think IrCOm going to wade through a ten-deep layer of postings to find where you believe you were
right. I leave that task to you. The proper time to have made an objection
was when the alleged post appeared, and not very late in the day as a
response to what was a reply to a third poster.
--
Spike

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 25 Dec 2025 12:59:06 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next >General Election being postponed.

Of course she didn't rule it out. How could she? It is completely and
utterly beyond her power to rule it out. But she did say, correctly, that
there were no reasons to delay the next general election.

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 17:19:31 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 24/12/2025 11:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Jon Ribbens wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>>>> saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the >>>>> next General Election.

I am sure you didn't.

It was Anna Turley being interviewed by Trevor Phillips on Sky

<https://youtu.be/9VkCgbdmHxY?t=97>

And in that clip did she say that "she could not rule out delaying
the next General Election"? Or did she in fact not say that?

When asked to rule it out, she would not / failed to / refused to do that.

She could easily have ruled it out had she wished to do so.

She couldn't possibly have done so, since she has absolutely no power to
rule it out. Even if she's still in her current post when the next election comes round, it won't be her decision.

She was asked a multi-part question by the interviewer, and utilised a
common political trick of answering the part which enabled her to best make
her point and simply ignoring the other part. That doesn't mean she's
avoiding giving the "wrong" answer. It simply means that she wants the soundbites from the interview to be the ones she chooses, rather than
someone else's choice.

It's clear from the interview that her focus is on justifying delays to
local elections as well as boasting about the government's plans to reform
the Lords. Speculating about a future general election, whatever she says, risks diverting attention away from the things she wanted to focus on. So
it's only when pressed that she returns to that point, but does so by essentially dismissing it rather than addressing the question in detail.

I also suspect that she wasn't expecting to be asked about the next general election (since the possibility hadn't been raised in interviews before),
and therefore didn't have any prepared response. So, again, her choice at
the time, rather than trying to wing it on air, was to firstly ignore and
then, when pushed, close down the question rather than give an unprepared response. That, too, is normal political interview behaviour[1], and doesn't tell us much, if anything, about the real answer to the question.

You can argue that it was a poor response, and possibly she should have been more forceful in rebutting any suggestions that the next general election
will be delayed. But not every politician has perfect interview technique.
And you can't assume from a less than fully ept answer that the answer is
the one you think it is.

[1] We're actually taught that in media training: If you're asked a question you're not prepared for, don't improvise, just close the question down and
try to steer the topic back to the subjects you are prepared for.

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <q2ctkk50obi51vi26b06piuiju1nfjcfek@4ax.com>, at 16:13:33 on
Fri, 26 Dec 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

[1] We're actually taught that in media training: If you're asked a question >you're not prepared for, don't improvise, just close the question down and >try to steer the topic back to the subjects you are prepared for.

Back in the day, I used to *provide* media training for people.
--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

I also suspect that she wasn't expecting to be asked about the next general election (since the possibility hadn't been raised in interviews before),
and therefore didn't have any prepared response. So, again, her choice at
the time, rather than trying to wing it on air, was to firstly ignore and then, when pushed, close down the question rather than give an unprepared response. That, too, is normal political interview behaviour[1], and doesn't tell us much, if anything, about the real answer to the question.

You can argue that it was a poor response, and possibly she should have been more forceful in rebutting any suggestions that the next general election will be delayed. But not every politician has perfect interview technique. And you can't assume from a less than fully ept answer that the answer is
the one you think it is.

I think she probably was a bit confused and alarmed by such a bizarre
and stupid question being asked, and suspected it might be a trap in
some way. Which it kind've was, in that the interviewer was trying to manufacture a story out of nothing.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 26/12/2025 03:50 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr7m03FrqrcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:03 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 12:42 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on Thu, 25
Dec-a 2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

-aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act >>>>> 2022-a and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved earlier
Parliament-a automatically dissolves at the beginning of the day
that is the fifth-a anniversary of the day on which it first met.

-aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay
the-a General election. I know one has to be very careful about
Facebook-a but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24,
we-a see-a a UK Government delay local elections,

-aDamned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and the
councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone would be
screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

-aOnly banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials
have-a been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

-aAgain, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life doesn't
mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for discount,
"good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent offences
deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading Usenet postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

ignoring anti-semitism,

-aHas been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George Brown
have said?

The Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not here
for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

-aIf the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also
think-a there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be
beaten to a-a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

Why, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.

What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 26/12/2025 03:51 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:41:23 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 12:33 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

In practice, though, without a very compelling reason, I suspect they would >>> have severe difficulty pushing it through. Cross-party agreement to delay >>> elections and form a grand coalition is one thing, a government forcing
through a delay against the wishes of the opposition is quite another. That >>> would be entirely unprecedented, and almost certainly controversial enough >>> for even members of the governing party to rebel against. And I also think >>> it's entirely implausible; the government has given absolutely no indication
that it is even considering such a move.

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election. I am not aware of any countermanding of that (so
far).

If you're sure that you read it, then you can also cite where you read it.

Actually, I can't, otherwise I'd have said so.

But the contrary suggestion that I had read is somewhere disreputable
has already been proven false.

If you can't remember where you read it, then you're not actually sure you read it. Or, at least, you're not at all sure of the context.

I don't agree. I described it in quite general terms.

Politicians often respond to hypothetical questions with "I can't rule out...", particlarly for things that they, personally, don't control and therefore have no power to rule out, before going to explain why the hypothetical scenario is, in their opinion, highly improbable.

I mean, nobody can actually rule out the possibility that the government
may, in a few years time, decide to delay the next general election.

Why not?

We are talking about putting off an election for party political purposes.

Even
the current Prime Minister, who is the only person in a position to actually rule it out, may not be the Prime Minister when the decision comes to be made. So any sensible answer to the question has to be qualified by "I can't rule it out", alongside the more usweful analysis of wh it's extremely unlikely to happen.

...and?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 26/12/2025 03:56 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 12:59:06 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next
General Election being postponed.

Of course she didn't rule it out. How could she? It is completely and
utterly beyond her power to rule it out. But she did say, correctly, that there were no reasons to delay the next general election.

She could have made her *own* position on it clear, ruling out any party-political interference over which year an election might be held
over to.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 26/12/2025 15:22, Spike wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-25, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 at 12:59:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 23/12/2025 in message <slrn10km6gv.66d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it >>>>>>>>>>>> happens - saying less than a week ago that she could not rule >>>>>>>>>>>> out delaying the next General Election.

I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a >>>>>>>>>>> lunatic Facebook post or something.

JNugent probably did, I saw it on Facebook which is what
triggered my OP.

Facebook has a search feature. It is not difficult to find the >>>>>>>>> messages about an interview on Sky News where Trevor Phillips >>>>>>>>> asked Labour Party Chairman Anna Turley about delaying the
general election.

I have not seen the interview itself so I do not know how accurate the
reports are. The messages seem to be posted by Reform UK supporters or
media that is hostile to the Labour government.

My impression is that most politicians avoid making commitments about >>>>>>>>> hypothetical future issues. I would need to see the whole original >>>>>>>>> interview to decide if this was unusual.

Someone else has recently posted a link to the interview on Sky News. >>>>>>>> But that clip is cut short before the end of the interview, and it would
appear from the Huffington Post link posted by someone else that the >>>>>>>> snipped part includes her saying explicitly "There are no plans for >>>>>>>> a change to the general election". Even the bit that wasn't snipped >>>>>>>> includes Phillips asking "Might that be a reason to put off a general >>>>>>>> election in 2028/29?" and her answering "No".

You seem to have fallen in to the trap of assuming that the rCYNorCY was a
response to there not being a reason to delay the 2029 General Election >>>>>>> whereas it was a response to a posed reason for not doing so.

No, you are just making false assumptions.

No, you are failing to read (or listen, as the case may be) properly, and >>>>> so not understand what is being said or not said.

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next >>>>> General Election being postponed.

Nor was she asked to do so. Nor did she rule out the whole government
emigrating to Alpha Centauri. The whole thing is a tawdry fabrication.

rCYThe presenter replied: rCLWhat IrCOm not hearing is that this Labour
government canrCOt see any circumstances by which you would choose to do what
yourCOve done in local authorities and delay a general election, which, IrCOve
got to say, IrCOm finding surprising, that you canrCOt just say, rCOno general
election will go beyond the five-year term.rCY She replied: rCLOf course a >>> general election will come.rCY

Now work out the relationship between rCOrCaof course a General Election will
comerCY and rCYThere will be postponement of the General ElectionrCY.

In case you hadnrCOt noticed , and you donrCOt seem be be alone in this, the
former statement doesnrCOt rule out the latter.

Whereas you haven't noticed the other things she said

What she said never included a definitive statement that the next General Election would not be delayed or postponed.

Talk about rCOno plans to do sorCO has no worth whatsoever.

<sigh>
Had you asked that same question prior to WWII, a member of the then government could have answered either:

"We have no plans to do so." - which you reject as worthless.

Or, they could have given an absolute assurance they would never do such
a thing - only to break that pledge shortly after.

Tell us which reply would make you happy?

and also haven't
noticed the difference between what I have actually said and what you
have wrongly assumed I have said.

I think you exaggerate your importance, if you think IrCOm going to wade through a ten-deep layer of postings to find where you believe you were right. I leave that task to you. The proper time to have made an objection was when the alleged post appeared, and not very late in the day as a response to what was a reply to a third poster.

--
Sam Plusnet

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <mr86inFuejpU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:39:03 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:56 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 12:59:06 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the >>>next
General Election being postponed.

Of course she didn't rule it out. How could she? It is completely
and utterly beyond her power to rule it out. But she did say,
correctly, that there were no reasons to delay the next general election.

She could have made her *own* position on it clear, ruling out any >party-political interference over which year an election might be held
over to.

Wasn't she being interviewed as a member of the Government, in which
case her *own* position isn't something she's allowed to express?
--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <mr86eoFuejpU2@mid.individual.net>, at 19:36:57 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Politicians often respond to hypothetical questions with "I can't
rule out...", particlarly for things that they, personally, don't
control and therefore have no power to rule out, before going to
explain why the hypothetical scenario is, in their opinion, highly >>improbable.

I mean, nobody can actually rule out the possibility that the
government may, in a few years time, decide to delay the next general >>election.

Why not?

We are talking about putting off an election for party political purposes.

You might be, but I think the rest of us have a longer list of possible reasons why that situation might arise.

Even the current Prime Minister, who is the only person in a
position to actually rule it out, may not be the Prime Minister when
the decision comes to be made. So any sensible answer to the question
has to be qualified by "I can't rule it out", alongside the more
usweful analysis of wh it's extremely unlikely to happen.

...and?

--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <mr86a4FuejpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:34:28 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:50 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr7m03FrqrcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:03 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 12:42 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on Thu, 25 >>>>Deca 2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament >>>>>>Act 2022a and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved >>>>>>earlier Parliamenta automatically dissolves at the beginning of >>>>>>the day that is the fiftha anniversary of the day on which it first met. >>>>
aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay >>>>>>thea General election. I know one has to be very careful about >>>>>>Facebooka but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24, >>>>>wea seea a UK Government delay local elections,

aDamned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and
the councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone would
be screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

aOnly banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials >>>>havea been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

aAgain, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life
doesn't mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount, "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent
offences deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading
Usenet postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

So you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

aHas been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George
Brown have said?

The Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not
here for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

Are you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years", for example.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

aIf the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also >>>>thinka there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be >>>>beaten to aa pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

Why, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.

What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

Just to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish-looking folks to be beaten up?
--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27 Dec 2025 at 14:06:18 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <mr86a4FuejpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:34:28 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:50 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr7m03FrqrcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:03 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 12:42 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on Thu, 25
Dec 2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament
Act 2022 and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved
earlier Parliament automatically dissolves at the beginning of >>>>>>> the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay >>>>>>> the General election. I know one has to be very careful about
Facebook but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24, >>>>>> we see a UK Government delay local elections,

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and
the councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone would
be screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

Only banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials
have been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

Again, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life
doesn't mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount, "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent
offences deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading
Usenet postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

So you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

Has been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George
Brown have said?

The Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not
here for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

Are you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years", for example.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

If the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also
think there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be
beaten to a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

Why, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.

What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

Just to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish-looking folks to be beaten up?

They weren't "Jewish looking", they were known pro-Israeli propagandists carrying or wearing Israel supporting emblems and seeking to confront a pro-Palestine march. But never let truth get in the way of a good story.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <4503665381.0cc29b17@uninhabited.net>, at 14:17:16 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:

On 27 Dec 2025 at 14:06:18 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <mr86a4FuejpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:34:28 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:50 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr7m03FrqrcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:03 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 12:42 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on Thu, 25 >>>>>> Dec 2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament >>>>>>>> Act 2022 and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved
earlier Parliament automatically dissolves at the beginning of >>>>>>>> the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it >>>>>>>>first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay >>>>>>>> the General election. I know one has to be very careful about >>>>>>>> Facebook but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24, >>>>>>> we see a UK Government delay local elections,

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and
the councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone would >>>>>> be screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

Only banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials
have been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

Again, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life
doesn't mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount, "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent
offences deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading
Usenet postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

So you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

Has been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George
Brown have said?

The Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not
here for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

Are you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years", for
example.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

If the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also
think there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be
beaten to a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

Why, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.

What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

Just to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish-looking folks to be beaten up?

They weren't "Jewish looking", they were known pro-Israeli propagandists >carrying or wearing Israel supporting emblems and seeking to confront a >pro-Palestine march. But never let truth get in the way of a good story.

You'll have to take that up with whoever wrote: "UK police threatening
someone for 'looking Jewish'"
--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 26/12/2025 05:39 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

I also suspect that she wasn't expecting to be asked about the next general >> election (since the possibility hadn't been raised in interviews before),
and therefore didn't have any prepared response. So, again, her choice at
the time, rather than trying to wing it on air, was to firstly ignore and
then, when pushed, close down the question rather than give an unprepared
response. That, too, is normal political interview behaviour[1], and doesn't >> tell us much, if anything, about the real answer to the question.

You can argue that it was a poor response, and possibly she should have been >> more forceful in rebutting any suggestions that the next general election
will be delayed. But not every politician has perfect interview technique. >> And you can't assume from a less than fully ept answer that the answer is
the one you think it is.

I think she probably was a bit confused and alarmed by such a bizarre
and stupid question being asked, and suspected it might be a trap in
some way. Which it kind've was, in that the interviewer was trying to manufacture a story out of nothing.

Well that's very odd.

After all, and as you must admit, according to you in your first post in
the thread, the whole thing was simply someone's imagination running
wild in some unidentified Facebook post.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 02:06 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

-aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament >>>>>>> Act-a 2022-a and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved
earlier-a Parliament-a automatically dissolves at the beginning of >>>>>>> the day-a that is the fifth-a anniversary of the day on which it >>>>>>> first met.

-aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay >>>>>>> the-a General election. I know one has to be very careful about >>>>>>> Facebook-a but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24, >>>>>> we-a see-a a UK Government delay local elections,

-aDamned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and
the-a councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone would >>>>> be-a screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

-aOnly banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials
have-a been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

-aAgain, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life
doesn't-a mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount,-a "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent
offences-a deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading
Usenet-a postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

So you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

-aHas been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George
Brown-a have said?

-aThe Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not
here-a for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

Are you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years", for example.

What would that have to do with the Labour Party (the subject of this discussion)?

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

-aIf the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also
think-a there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be
beaten to a-a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

-aWhy, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.
What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

Just to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the Jewish- looking folks to be beaten up?

No. I'd have preferred that the police had done their job properly and prevented it from happening without denying anyone the right to walk
abroad for their lawful occasions at a time of their choosing.

You know... like the police did for the anti-resident protestors at Epping.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 02:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 27 Dec 2025 at 14:06:18 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <mr86a4FuejpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:34:28 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:50 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr7m03FrqrcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:03 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 12:42 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on Thu, 25 >>>>>> Dec 2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament >>>>>>>> Act 2022 and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved
earlier Parliament automatically dissolves at the beginning of >>>>>>>> the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay >>>>>>>> the General election. I know one has to be very careful about >>>>>>>> Facebook but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24, >>>>>>> we see a UK Government delay local elections,

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and >>>>>> the councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone would >>>>>> be screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

Only banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials >>>>>> have been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

Again, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life
doesn't mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount, "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent
offences deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading
Usenet postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

So you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

Has been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George
Brown have said?

The Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not
here for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

Are you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years", for
example.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

If the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also >>>>>> think there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be
beaten to a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

Why, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.

What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

Just to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish-looking folks to be beaten up?

They weren't "Jewish looking", they were known pro-Israeli propagandists carrying or wearing Israel supporting emblems and seeking to confront a pro-Palestine march. But never let truth get in the way of a good story.

"Jewish looking" was the phrase used by the police, as reported in the
media at the time.

And why should *anyone* be prevented by the police from "confronting" a "pro-Palestine march"?

Please try to provide an answer which does not rely upon an a priori acceptance that "pro-Palestine marchers" have more rights than other people.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 02:03 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr86eoFuejpU2@mid.individual.net>, at 19:36:57 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

-aPoliticians often respond to hypothetical questions with "I can't
rule-a out...", particlarly for things that they, personally, don't
control and-a therefore have no power to rule out, before going to
explain why the-a hypothetical scenario is, in their opinion, highly
improbable.

-aI mean, nobody can actually rule out the possibility that the
government-a may, in a few years time, decide to delay the next
general election.

Why not?

We are talking about putting off an election for party political
purposes.

You might be, but I think the rest of us have a longer list of possible reasons why that situation might arise.

I wonder why the word "improbable" springs to min there?

Even-a the current Prime Minister, who is the only person in a
position to actually-a rule it out, may not be the Prime Minister when
the decision comes to be-a made. So any sensible answer to the
question has to be qualified by "I can't-a rule it out", alongside the
more usweful analysis of wh it's extremely-a unlikely to happen.

...and?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 02:01 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr86inFuejpU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:39:03 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:56 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 12:59:06 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the
next
General Election being postponed.

-aOf course she didn't rule it out. How could she? It is completely
and-a utterly beyond her power to rule it out. But she did say,
correctly, that-a there were no reasons to delay the next general
election.

She could have made her *own* position on it clear, ruling out any
party-political interference over which year an election might be held
over to.

Wasn't she being interviewed as a member of the Government, in which
case her *own* position isn't something she's allowed to express?

Members of governments express their own opinions very frequently.
Especially on matter which are not party policy. If it is/was/will not
be party policy to delay a General Election for party political
advantage (to Labour), she was entirely free to express her own opinion
on that.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <mraf9dFbf44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:19:56 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 02:06 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament >>>>>>>>Acta 2022a and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved >>>>>>>>earliera Parliamenta automatically dissolves at the beginning of >>>>>>>>the daya that is the fiftha anniversary of the day on which it first met.

aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may >>>>>>>>delay thea General election. I know one has to be very careful >>>>>>>>about Facebooka but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July >>>>>>>24, wea seea a UK Government delay local elections,

aDamned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and >>>>>>thea councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone >>>>>>would bea screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

aOnly banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials >>>>>>havea been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

aAgain, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life >>>>>>doesn'ta mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for >>>>>discount,a "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent >>>>>offencesa deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading >>>>Useneta postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

So you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

aHas been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George >>>>>Browna have said?

aThe Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not >>>>herea for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

Are you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years",
for example.

What would that have to do with the Labour Party (the subject of this >discussion)?

I thought the topic of this subthread was anti-semitism.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

aIf the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also >>>>>>thinka there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be >>>>>>beaten to aa pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

aWhy, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.
What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

Just to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish- looking folks to be beaten up?

No. I'd have preferred that the police had done their job properly and >prevented it from happening without denying anyone the right to walk
abroad for their lawful occasions at a time of their choosing.

Very often when there are protesters, and anti-protest activists, the
only way to ensure everyone's safety is to keep them apart.

You know... like the police did for the anti-resident protestors at Epping.

False dichotomy.
--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <mrafltFbgduU3@mid.individual.net>, at 16:26:37 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 02:01 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr86inFuejpU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:39:03 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:56 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 12:59:06 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of
the next
General Election being postponed.

aOf course she didn't rule it out. How could she? It is completely >>>>anda utterly beyond her power to rule it out. But she did say, >>>>correctly, thata there were no reasons to delay the next general election. >>>

She could have made her *own* position on it clear, ruling out any >>>party-political interference over which year an election might be
held over to.

Wasn't she being interviewed as a member of the Government, in which >>case her *own* position isn't something she's allowed to express?

Members of governments express their own opinions very frequently.

Not when they are being interviewed on TV/Radio while wearing a
government spokesperson hat. I'd have thought that was media
studies 101.

Especially on matter which are not party policy. If it is/was/will not
be party policy to delay a General Election for party political
advantage (to Labour), she was entirely free to express her own opinion
on that.

Doesn't work like that. And if you think it does, then your confusion
will simply get deeper.
--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <mrafh3FbgduU2@mid.individual.net>, at 16:24:03 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 02:03 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr86eoFuejpU2@mid.individual.net>, at 19:36:57 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

aPoliticians often respond to hypothetical questions with "I can't >>>>rulea out...", particlarly for things that they, personally, don't >>>>control anda therefore have no power to rule out, before going to >>>>explain why thea hypothetical scenario is, in their opinion, highly improbable.

aI mean, nobody can actually rule out the possibility that the >>>>governmenta may, in a few years time, decide to delay the next
general election.

Why not?

We are talking about putting off an election for party political >>>purposes.

You might be, but I think the rest of us have a longer list of
possible reasons why that situation might arise.

I wonder why the word "improbable" springs to min there?

It's not the slightest bit improbable. For example the outbreak of a
World War has already been mentioned by people here.

Evena the current Prime Minister, who is the only person in a >>>>position to actuallya rule it out, may not be the Prime Minister
when the decision comes to bea made. So any sensible answer to the >>>>question has to be qualified by "I can'ta rule it out", alongside
the more usweful analysis of wh it's extremelya unlikely to happen.

...and?

--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-27, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 26/12/2025 05:39 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

I also suspect that she wasn't expecting to be asked about the next
general election (since the possibility hadn't been raised in
interviews before), and therefore didn't have any prepared response.
So, again, her choice at the time, rather than trying to wing it on
air, was to firstly ignore and then, when pushed, close down the
question rather than give an unprepared response. That, too, is
normal political interview behaviour[1], and doesn't tell us much,
if anything, about the real answer to the question.

You can argue that it was a poor response, and possibly she should
have been more forceful in rebutting any suggestions that the next
general election will be delayed. But not every politician has
perfect interview technique. And you can't assume from a less than
fully ept answer that the answer is the one you think it is.

I think she probably was a bit confused and alarmed by such a bizarre
and stupid question being asked, and suspected it might be a trap in
some way. Which it kind've was, in that the interviewer was trying to
manufacture a story out of nothing.

Well that's very odd.

After all, and as you must admit, according to you in your first post in
the thread, the whole thing was simply someone's imagination running
wild in some unidentified Facebook post.

I said nothing of the sort - that's, er, your imagination running wild.

It's also a bit rich for you to go on about "unidentified Facebook post"
when it's you that failed to identify where you read what you claimed.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mrafe5FbgduU1@mid.individual.net...

And why should *anyone* be prevented by the police from "confronting" a "pro-Palestine
march"?

In order to prevent a potential Breach of the Peace; in accordance with
Section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1936

Please try to provide an answer which does not rely upon an a priori acceptance that
"pro-Palestine marchers" have more rights than other people.

Given that all awful marches and demonstrations, in London anyway, can only take place as a result of prior arrangement with the police including giving 6 weeks notice, that fact in itself gives all those taking part in such marches more
"rights" - a reasonable expectation of being able to march or demonstrate without fear of violence for one - than it does those seeking to disrupt such marches, by whatever means


bb



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 05:43 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mrafltFbgduU3@mid.individual.net>, at 16:26:37 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 02:01 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr86inFuejpU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:39:03 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:56 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 12:59:06 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of
the-a next
General Election being postponed.

-aOf course she didn't rule it out. How could she? It is completely >>>>> and-a utterly beyond her power to rule it out. But she did say,
correctly, that-a there were no reasons to delay the next general
election.

She could have made her *own* position on it clear, ruling out any
party-political interference over which year an election might be
held-a over to.

-aWasn't she being interviewed as a member of the Government, in which
case her *own* position isn't something she's allowed to express?

Members of governments express their own opinions very frequently.

Not when they are being interviewed on TV/Radio while wearing a
government spokesperson hat. I'd have thought that was media
studies 101.

Especially on matter which are not party policy. If it is/was/will not
be party policy to delay a General Election for party political
advantage (to Labour), she was entirely free to express her own
opinion on that.

Doesn't work like that. And if you think it does, then your confusion
will simply get deeper.

She was not free to deny that the government is planning to bring in
even more vote-rigging measures than they have announced to date?

I'll take your word for it.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 05:41 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mraf9dFbf44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:19:56 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 02:06 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

-aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament >>>>>>>>> Act-a 2022-a and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved >>>>>>>>> earlier-a Parliament-a automatically dissolves at the beginning >>>>>>>>> of the day-a that is the fifth-a anniversary of the day on which >>>>>>>>> it first met.

-aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may >>>>>>>>> delay-a the-a General election. I know one has to be very careful >>>>>>>>> about-a Facebook-a but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July >>>>>>>> 24,-a we-a see-a a UK Government delay local elections,

-aDamned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and >>>>>>> the-a councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone
would-a be-a screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

-aOnly banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials >>>>>>> have-a been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

-aAgain, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life
doesn't-a mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount,-a "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent
offences-a deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading
Usenet-a postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

-aSo you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

-aHas been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George
Brown-a have said?

-aThe Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not >>>>> here-a for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

-aAre you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years",
for-a example.

What would that have to do with the Labour Party (the subject of this
discussion)?

I thought the topic of this subthread was anti-semitism.

Labour Party anti-semitism.

Read the OP.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

-aIf the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also >>>>>>> think-a there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be >>>>>>> beaten to a-a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

-aWhy, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.
What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

-aJust to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish--a looking folks to be beaten up?

No. I'd have preferred that the police had done their job properly and
prevented it from happening without denying anyone the right to walk
abroad for their lawful occasions at a time of their choosing.

Very often when there are protesters, and anti-protest activists, the
only way to ensure everyone's safety is to keep them apart.

You know... like the police did for the anti-resident protestors at
Epping.

False dichotomy.

So you say (or at least, strongly imply) that the police do not have a
duty to protect citizens and other members of the public from physical
attack.

And that, by implication, the potential victim must be treated as the perpetrator.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 05:27 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-27, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 26/12/2025 05:39 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

I also suspect that she wasn't expecting to be asked about the next
general election (since the possibility hadn't been raised in
interviews before), and therefore didn't have any prepared response.
So, again, her choice at the time, rather than trying to wing it on
air, was to firstly ignore and then, when pushed, close down the
question rather than give an unprepared response. That, too, is
normal political interview behaviour[1], and doesn't tell us much,
if anything, about the real answer to the question.

You can argue that it was a poor response, and possibly she should
have been more forceful in rebutting any suggestions that the next
general election will be delayed. But not every politician has
perfect interview technique. And you can't assume from a less than
fully ept answer that the answer is the one you think it is.

I think she probably was a bit confused and alarmed by such a bizarre
and stupid question being asked, and suspected it might be a trap in
some way. Which it kind've was, in that the interviewer was trying to
manufacture a story out of nothing.

Well that's very odd.

After all, and as you must admit, according to you in your first post in
the thread, the whole thing was simply someone's imagination running
wild in some unidentified Facebook post.

I said nothing of the sort - that's, er, your imagination running wild.

It's also a bit rich for you to go on about "unidentified Facebook post"
when it's you that failed to identify where you read what you claimed.

I had forgotten. I have already made that clear.

All sorts of links come up when reading political news.

Someone else has identified the original source as Sky News, which of
course, has a news website. Other sites carried references to the conversation.

On 23rd December, I had written:

QUOTE:
I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.
ENDQUOTE

And you answered (this is verbatim):

QUOTE:
I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.
ENDQUOTE

Oddly, you were *sure* [my emphasis, but your word] that I had not read
what I had already said I had read.

What your motivation for that denial of the absolute truth might have
been is not for me to know or explain.





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 05:45 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mrafh3FbgduU2@mid.individual.net>, at 16:24:03 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 02:03 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr86eoFuejpU2@mid.individual.net>, at 19:36:57 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

-aPoliticians often respond to hypothetical questions with "I can't >>>>> rule-a out...", particlarly for things that they, personally, don't >>>>> control and-a therefore have no power to rule out, before going to
explain why the-a hypothetical scenario is, in their opinion, highly >>>>> improbable.

-aI mean, nobody can actually rule out the possibility that the
government-a may, in a few years time, decide to delay the next
general election.

Why not?

We are talking about putting off an election for party political
purposes.

-aYou might be, but I think the rest of us have a longer list of
possible-a reasons why that situation might arise.

I wonder why the word "improbable" springs to min there?

It's not the slightest bit improbable. For example the outbreak of a
World War has already been mentioned by people here.

And you regard that as probable, rather than improbable, within the next
three and a half years, do you?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:18852a31eda55dbf$422834$2873333$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com...

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mrafe5FbgduU1@mid.individual.net...

And why should *anyone* be prevented by the police from "confronting" a "pro-Palestine
march"?

In order to prevent a potential Breach of the Peace; in accordance with Section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1936

Please note that this provision has been replaced by section 4 of the
Public Order Act of 1986; which created the Offence of Fear or
Provocation of Violence.

The point remains however, that historically speaking, such potential confrontations, however described, have been the subject of preventive legislation for at least the last 89 years.

bb

Please try to provide an answer which does not rely upon an a priori acceptance that
"pro-Palestine marchers" have more rights than other people.

Given that all awful marches and demonstrations, in London anyway, can only take place as a result of prior arrangement with the police including giving 6
weeks notice, that fact in itself gives all those taking part in such marches more
"rights" - a reasonable expectation of being able to march or demonstrate without fear of violence for one - than it does those seeking to disrupt such
marches, by whatever means

bb

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 25 Dec 2025 16:22:50 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2025 at 12:59:06 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

[...]

In the extant case, the lady *did not* rule out the prospect of the next
General Election being postponed.

Nor was she asked to do so. Nor did she rule out the whole government >emigrating to Alpha Centauri. The whole thing is a tawdry fabrication.

Of all the stupid arguments I have heard on UKLM (and there are many)
this one has to be a strong contender for the stupidest.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

On 24/12/2025 17:19, JNugent wrote:

On 24/12/2025 11:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Jon Ribbens wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it
happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the >>>>>> next General Election.

I am sure you didn't.

It was Anna Turley being interviewed by Trevor Phillips on Sky

<https://youtu.be/9VkCgbdmHxY?t=97>

And in that clip did she say that "she could not rule out delaying
the next General Election"? Or did she in fact not say that?

When asked to rule it out, she would not / failed to / refused to do that. >>
She could easily have ruled it out had she wished to do so.

So now you see that you made a mistake. You said she "said" that she
could not rule it out. In fact she was silent and chose not to answer.

Indeed. Actually stating "I cannot rule it out" would have been a very different situation and would genuinely have been major news.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 09:08 pm, The Todal wrote:

On 27/12/2025 18:58, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 05:27 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-27, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 26/12/2025 05:39 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> I also suspect that she wasn't expecting to be asked about the next >>>>>> general election (since the possibility hadn't been raised in

interviews before), and therefore didn't have any prepared response. >>>>>> So, again, her choice at the time, rather than trying to wing it on >>>>>> air, was to firstly ignore and then, when pushed, close down the
question rather than give an unprepared response. That, too, is
normal political interview behaviour[1], and doesn't tell us much, >>>>>> if anything, about the real answer to the question.

You can argue that it was a poor response, and possibly she should >>>>>> have been more forceful in rebutting any suggestions that the next >>>>>> general election will be delayed. But not every politician has
perfect interview technique. And you can't assume from a less than >>>>>> fully ept answer that the answer is the one you think it is.

I think she probably was a bit confused and alarmed by such a bizarre >>>>> and stupid question being asked, and suspected it might be a trap in >>>>> some way. Which it kind've was, in that the interviewer was trying to >>>>> manufacture a story out of nothing.

Well that's very odd.

After all, and as you must admit, according to you in your first
post in
the thread, the whole thing was simply someone's imagination running
wild in some unidentified Facebook post.

I said nothing of the sort - that's, er, your imagination running wild.

It's also a bit rich for you to go on about "unidentified Facebook post" >>> when it's you that failed to identify where you read what you claimed.

I had forgotten. I have already made that clear.

All sorts of links come up when reading political news.

Someone else has identified the original source as Sky News, which of
course, has a news website. Other sites carried references to the
conversation.

On 23rd December, I had written:

QUOTE:
I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens
- saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.
ENDQUOTE

And you answered (this is verbatim):

QUOTE:
I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.
ENDQUOTE

Oddly, you were *sure* [my emphasis, but your word] that I had not
read what I had already said I had read.

What your motivation for that denial of the absolute truth might have
been is not for me to know or explain.

I interpreted what he said as suggesting you misunderstood something
that you read or saw. And I don't think any member of the government has said that she "could not rule out" delaying the next General Election.
So if you read of someone saying that, you either misunderstood what you read, or it was a theory put about by someone making mischief.

Anyway, here is one report:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2148910/Anna-turley-delay-next- election

Labour party chair now refusing to rule out delaying the next general election

The Labour Party chairman has repeatedly refused to rule out delaying
the next general election after scrapping council elections next year.
Anna Turley MP left Sky News host Trevor Phillips stunned as she was
given repeated opportunities to rule out the idea.

The key sentence in the report is: "Ms Turley failed to answer the question".

I think she was right not to answer the question just as she should
never be tempted to answer this one: should we commit ground troops to defending Ukraine?

That cannot credibly be distinguished from refusing (or, if you prefer, failing) to rule out the government delaying the next general election
past its statutory date.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 09:14 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 27/12/2025 in message <mraonjFcv52U3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:

I wonder why the word "improbable" springs to min there?

It's not the slightest bit improbable. For example the outbreak of a
World War has already been mentioned by people here.

And you regard that as probable, rather than improbable, within the
next three and a half years, do you?

According to other Facebook posts (as I mentioned upstream) Starmer is deliberately antagonising Putin with the intention of starting a war so Starmer has an excuse for delaying the election.

I can't stand either man, but that is, I feel, pushing it just teeny bit
too far. Wouldn't you agree?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 09:16 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 27/12/2025 in message <mrafe5FbgduU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:

They weren't "Jewish looking", they were known pro-Israeli propagandists >>> carrying or wearing Israel supporting emblems and seeking to confront a
pro-Palestine march. But never let truth get in the way of a good story.

"Jewish looking" was the phrase used by the police, as reported in the
media at the time.

And why should anyone be prevented by the police from "confronting" a
"pro-Palestine march"?

To prevent a breach of the peace as explained at the time.

Please try to provide an answer which does not rely upon an a priori
acceptance that "pro-Palestine marchers" have more rights than other
people.

We're all adults in here we don't need instructions on how to reply to posts.

There was nothing about the construction of a post or how to post it.

I was merely stating that anything which boils down to "My lot have more
human rights than your lot or anyone else's lot" is unlikely to impress
as a response.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 09:30 pm, The Todal wrote:

On 27/12/2025 16:22, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 02:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 27 Dec 2025 at 14:06:18 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <mr86a4FuejpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:34:28 on Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:50 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr7m03FrqrcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:03 on Fri, 26 >>>>>> Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 12:42 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on Thu, 25 >>>>>>>> Dec-a 2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

-a I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament >>>>>>>>>> Act-a 2022-a and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved >>>>>>>>>> earlier-a Parliament-a automatically dissolves at the beginning of >>>>>>>>>> the day-a that is the fifth-a anniversary of the day on which it >>>>>>>>>> first met.

-a There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay >>>>>>>>>> the-a General election. I know one has to be very careful about >>>>>>>>>> Facebook-a but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July 24, >>>>>>>>> we-a see-a a UK Government delay local elections,

-a Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and >>>>>>>> the-a councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone would >>>>>>>> be-a screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

-a Only banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials >>>>>>>> have-a been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

-a Again, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life >>>>>>>> doesn't-a mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount,-a "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent
offences-a deserve a whole life tariff.

-a Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading >>>>>> Usenet-a postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

So you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

-a Has been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George >>>>>>> Brown-a have said?

-a The Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not >>>>>> here-a for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

Are you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years", for >>>> example.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

-a If the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also >>>>>>>> think-a there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be >>>>>>>> beaten to a-a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

-a Why, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.

What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

Just to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish-looking folks to be beaten up?

They weren't "Jewish looking", they were known pro-Israeli propagandists >>> carrying or wearing Israel supporting emblems and seeking to confront a
pro-Palestine march. But never let truth get in the way of a good story.

"Jewish looking" was the phrase used by the police, as reported in the
media at the time.

And why should *anyone* be prevented by the police from "confronting"
a "pro-Palestine march"?

Please try to provide an answer which does not rely upon an a priori
acceptance that "pro-Palestine marchers" have more rights than other
people.

The answer is that the entire event was a wholly inaccurate and
misleading anecdote from a notorious pro-Israel campaigner who was out
to provoke a confrontation with demonstrators.

Isn't that the whole point of a counter-demonstration?

Isn't it exactly the reason that "pro-Palestine activists" (the ones
with rights no-one else has, apparently) confronted the residents of Epping?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 09:33 pm, The Todal wrote:

On 27/12/2025 19:03, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 05:41 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mraf9dFbf44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:19:56 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 02:06 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

-aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of
Parliament Act-a 2022-a and if I have read it correctly if not >>>>>>>>>>> dissolved earlier-a Parliament-a automatically dissolves at the >>>>>>>>>>> beginning of the day-a that is the fifth-a anniversary of the >>>>>>>>>>> day on which it first met.

-aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may >>>>>>>>>>> delay-a the-a General election. I know one has to be very >>>>>>>>>>> careful about-a Facebook-a but can government delay the next GE? >>>>>>

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July >>>>>>>>>> 24,-a we-a see-a a UK Government delay local elections,

-aDamned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, >>>>>>>>> and the-a councils concerned were abolished a year later,
everyone would-a be-a screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

-aOnly banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury >>>>>>>>> trials have-a been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

-aAgain, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life >>>>>>>>> doesn't-a mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount,-a "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent
offences-a deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading >>>>>>> Usenet-a postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

-aSo you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

-aHas been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George >>>>>>>> Brown-a have said?

-aThe Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're >>>>>>> not here-a for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

-aAre you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years", >>>>> for-a example.

What would that have to do with the Labour Party (the subject of
this discussion)?

I thought the topic of this subthread was anti-semitism.

Labour Party anti-semitism.

Read the OP.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

-aIf the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who >>>>>>>>> also think-a there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they >>>>>>>>> should be beaten to a-a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

-aWhy, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.
What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

-aJust to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish--a looking folks to be beaten up?

No. I'd have preferred that the police had done their job properly
and prevented it from happening without denying anyone the right to
walk abroad for their lawful occasions at a time of their choosing.

Very often when there are protesters, and anti-protest activists, the
only way to ensure everyone's safety is to keep them apart.

You know... like the police did for the anti-resident protestors at
Epping.

False dichotomy.

So you say (or at least, strongly imply) that the police do not have a
duty to protect citizens and other members of the public from physical
attack.

And that, by implication, the potential victim must be treated as the
perpetrator.

And you say that the police do not have a duty to prevent fights and acrimonious confrontations, and that they should stand by and meekly
observe when the chief executive of the self-styled Campaign Against Antisemitism wants to strut his stuff in front of a peaceful pro-
Palestine demonstration.

And that his determination to become a "victim" for publicity purposes should be respected and even encouraged.

A police two-tier double-standard in operation there, it seems to me.
Ask the Epping residents.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 09:34 pm, The Todal wrote:

On 24/12/2025 17:19, JNugent wrote:

On 24/12/2025 11:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Jon Ribbens wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it
happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the >>>>>> next General Election.

I am sure you didn't.

It was Anna Turley being interviewed by Trevor Phillips on Sky

<https://youtu.be/9VkCgbdmHxY?t=97>

And in that clip did she say that "she could not rule out delaying
the next General Election"? Or did she in fact not say that?

When asked to rule it out, she would not / failed to / refused to do
that.

She could easily have ruled it out had she wished to do so.

So now you see that you made a mistake. You said she "said" that she
could not rule it out. In fact she was silent and chose not to answer.

A distinction.

NOT a difference.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 27/12/2025 10:07 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-27, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 27/12/2025 05:27 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-27, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 26/12/2025 05:39 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> I also suspect that she wasn't expecting to be asked about the next >>>>>> general election (since the possibility hadn't been raised in

interviews before), and therefore didn't have any prepared response. >>>>>> So, again, her choice at the time, rather than trying to wing it on >>>>>> air, was to firstly ignore and then, when pushed, close down the
question rather than give an unprepared response. That, too, is
normal political interview behaviour[1], and doesn't tell us much, >>>>>> if anything, about the real answer to the question.

You can argue that it was a poor response, and possibly she should >>>>>> have been more forceful in rebutting any suggestions that the next >>>>>> general election will be delayed. But not every politician has
perfect interview technique. And you can't assume from a less than >>>>>> fully ept answer that the answer is the one you think it is.

I think she probably was a bit confused and alarmed by such a bizarre >>>>> and stupid question being asked, and suspected it might be a trap in >>>>> some way. Which it kind've was, in that the interviewer was trying to >>>>> manufacture a story out of nothing.

Well that's very odd.

After all, and as you must admit, according to you in your first post in >>>> the thread, the whole thing was simply someone's imagination running
wild in some unidentified Facebook post.

I said nothing of the sort - that's, er, your imagination running wild.

It's also a bit rich for you to go on about "unidentified Facebook post" >>> when it's you that failed to identify where you read what you claimed.

I had forgotten. I have already made that clear.

All sorts of links come up when reading political news.

Someone else has identified the original source as Sky News, which of
course, has a news website. Other sites carried references to the
conversation.

On 23rd December, I had written:

QUOTE:
I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.
ENDQUOTE

And you answered (this is verbatim):

QUOTE:
I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.
ENDQUOTE

Oddly, you were *sure* [my emphasis, but your word] that I had not read
what I had already said I had read.

What your motivation for that denial of the absolute truth might have
been is not for me to know or explain.

"Denial of the absolute truth", eh?

So: in the Sky News interview, did she "[say] ... that she could not
rule out delaying the next General Election", as you claim?

Or did she in fact not say that?

Now that your memory has been conveniently refreshed, and you have
easy access to quotes from the interview, could you perhaps provide
the exact words she used to convey what you say she conveyed?

Or perhaps admit that one of us is indeed "denying the absolute truth"
- and it isn't me.

There is no difference between refusing to rule out illegal further gerrymandering by a Labour government and failing to rule out illegal
further gerrymandering by a Labour government.

Had she wanted to rule it out, she could easily have done so. The
question was put in a straightforward manner. That she did not do so
(and according to another poster, could not do so while a member of the
Labour government) speaks volumes.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 28/12/2025 04:33 am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mraornFcv52U4@mid.individual.net>, at 19:03:19 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 05:41 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mraf9dFbf44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:19:56 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 02:06 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

-aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of
Parliament Act-a 2022-a and if I have read it correctly if not >>>>>>>>>>> dissolved earlier-a Parliament-a automatically dissolves at the >>>>>>>>>>> beginning of the day-a that is the fifth-a anniversary of the >>>>>>>>>>> day on which it first met.

-aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may >>>>>>>>>>> delay-a the-a General election. I know one has to be very >>>>>>>>>>> careful about-a Facebook-a but can government delay the next >>>>>>>>>>> GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July >>>>>>>>>> 24,-a we-a see-a a UK Government delay local elections,

-aDamned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, >>>>>>>>> and the-a councils concerned were abolished a year later,
everyone would-a be-a screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

-aOnly banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury >>>>>>>>> trials have-a been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

-aAgain, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life >>>>>>>>> doesn't-a mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount,-a "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent
offences-a deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading >>>>>>> Usenet-a postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

-aSo you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

-aHas been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George >>>>>>>> Brown-a have said?

-aThe Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're >>>>>>> not here-a for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

-aAre you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years", >>>>> for-a example.

What would that have to do with the Labour Party (the subject of
this discussion)?

I thought the topic of this subthread was anti-semitism.

Labour Party anti-semitism.

Read the OP.

You are mistaken:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament
Act 2022 and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved
earlier Parliament automatically dissolves at the beginning of
the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it
first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay
the General election. I know one has to be very careful about
Facebook but can government delay the next GE?

That was not the only thing stated in the OP.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

-aIf the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who >>>>>>>>> also think-a there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they >>>>>>>>> should be beaten to a-a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

-aWhy, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.
What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

-aJust to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish--a looking folks to be beaten up?

No. I'd have preferred that the police had done their job properly
and prevented it from happening without denying anyone the right to
walk abroad for their lawful occasions at a time of their choosing.

Very often when there are protesters, and anti-protest activists,
the only way to ensure everyone's safety is to keep them apart.

You know... like the police did for the anti-resident protestors at
Epping.

False dichotomy.

So you say (or at least, strongly imply) that the police do not have a
duty to protect citizens and other members of the public from physical
attack.

The complete opposite. I was suggesting that the police *did* have such
a duty, even if the people being protected resent the police's
intervention.

And that, by implication, the potential victim must be treated as the
perpetrator.

I have do idea what you mean by that.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 29/12/2025 15:32, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 09:30 pm, The Todal wrote:

On 27/12/2025 16:22, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 02:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 27 Dec 2025 at 14:06:18 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>

In message <mr86a4FuejpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:34:28 on Fri, 26 >>>>> Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:50 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr7m03FrqrcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:03 on
Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 12:42 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on Thu, 25 >>>>>>>>> Dec-a 2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

-a I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament >>>>>>>>>>> Act-a 2022-a and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved >>>>>>>>>>> earlier-a Parliament-a automatically dissolves at the beginning of >>>>>>>>>>> the day-a that is the fifth-a anniversary of the day on which >>>>>>>>>>> it first met.

-a There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may >>>>>>>>>>> delay
the-a General election. I know one has to be very careful about >>>>>>>>>>> Facebook-a but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - July >>>>>>>>>> 24,
we-a see-a a UK Government delay local elections,

-a Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, and >>>>>>>>> the-a councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone >>>>>>>>> would
be-a screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

-a Only banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury trials >>>>>>>>> have-a been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

-a Again, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life >>>>>>>>> doesn't-a mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount,-a "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent
offences-a deserve a whole life tariff.

-a Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading >>>>>>> Usenet-a postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

So you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

-a Has been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George >>>>>>>> Brown-a have said?

-a The Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not >>>>>>> here-a for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

Are you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years", for >>>>> example.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

-a If the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who also >>>>>>>>> think-a there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be >>>>>>>>> beaten to a-a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

-a Why, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.

What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

Just to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish-looking folks to be beaten up?

They weren't "Jewish looking", they were known pro-Israeli
propagandists
carrying or wearing Israel supporting emblems and seeking to confront a >>>> pro-Palestine march. But never let truth get in the way of a good
story.

"Jewish looking" was the phrase used by the police, as reported in
the media at the time.


And why should *anyone* be prevented by the police from "confronting"
a "pro-Palestine march"?

Please try to provide an answer which does not rely upon an a priori
acceptance that "pro-Palestine marchers" have more rights than other
people.

The answer is that the entire event was a wholly inaccurate and
misleading anecdote from a notorious pro-Israel campaigner who was out
to provoke a confrontation with demonstrators.

Isn't that the whole point of a counter-demonstration?

No.
A counter-demonstration, like a demonstration, is to show the world that
a large number of people feel a particular way.

Not so that one individual fuckwit who wants to be punched on the nose
and have someone film it, can be allowed his six minutes of fame.

Isn't it exactly the reason that "pro-Palestine activists" (the ones
with rights no-one else has, apparently) confronted the residents of
Epping?

Did they? I doubt it. What would have been the point?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 29/12/2025 15:33, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 09:33 pm, The Todal wrote:

On 27/12/2025 19:03, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 05:41 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mraf9dFbf44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:19:56 on Sat,
27 Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 02:06 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

-aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of >>>>>>>>>>>> Parliament Act-a 2022-a and if I have read it correctly if not >>>>>>>>>>>> dissolved earlier-a Parliament-a automatically dissolves at >>>>>>>>>>>> the beginning of the day-a that is the fifth-a anniversary of >>>>>>>>>>>> the day on which it first met.

-aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may >>>>>>>>>>>> delay-a the-a General election. I know one has to be very >>>>>>>>>>>> careful about-a Facebook-a but can government delay the next GE? >>>>>>>

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - >>>>>>>>>>> July 24,-a we-a see-a a UK Government delay local elections, >>>>>>>

-aDamned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, >>>>>>>>>> and the-a councils concerned were abolished a year later, >>>>>>>>>> everyone would-a be-a screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

-aOnly banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury >>>>>>>>>> trials have-a been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

-aAgain, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life >>>>>>>>>> doesn't-a mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for >>>>>>>>> discount,-a "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent >>>>>>>>> offences-a deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when
reading Usenet-a postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

-aSo you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

-aHas been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or
George Brown-a have said?

-aThe Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're >>>>>>>> not here-a for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

-aAre you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of
years", for-a example.

What would that have to do with the Labour Party (the subject of
this discussion)?

I thought the topic of this subthread was anti-semitism.

Labour Party anti-semitism.

Read the OP.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

-aIf the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who >>>>>>>>>> also think-a there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they >>>>>>>>>> should be beaten to a-a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

-aWhy, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.
What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

-aJust to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish--a looking folks to be beaten up?

No. I'd have preferred that the police had done their job properly
and prevented it from happening without denying anyone the right to >>>>> walk abroad for their lawful occasions at a time of their choosing.

Very often when there are protesters, and anti-protest activists,
the only way to ensure everyone's safety is to keep them apart.

You know... like the police did for the anti-resident protestors at >>>>> Epping.

False dichotomy.

So you say (or at least, strongly imply) that the police do not have
a duty to protect citizens and other members of the public from
physical attack.

And that, by implication, the potential victim must be treated as the
perpetrator.

And you say that the police do not have a duty to prevent fights and
acrimonious confrontations, and that they should stand by and meekly
observe when the chief executive of the self-styled Campaign Against
Antisemitism wants to strut his stuff in front of a peaceful pro-
Palestine demonstration.

And that his determination to become a "victim" for publicity purposes
should be respected and even encouraged.

A police two-tier double-standard in operation there, it seems to me.
Ask the Epping residents.

Hallo? Epping residents? Can you hear me? No, I don't think they can.

They probably don't speak with one voice or listen with one pair of ears
and maybe a number of them won't have read this sensible letter from the Council Leader, imploring them to be sensible and avoid being led astray
by fuckwit bigots.

https://www.essex.gov.uk/news/2025/open-letter-calling-calm-epping

quote

Local civic leaders support the right to protest. However, there have
been several well-documented instances of lawlessness associated with
the demonstrations, considerably adding to the anxiety and concern of
our residents. Local high street businesses are not immune to the impact
of the demonstrations. Shop and office workers are also affected.

The scenes of violence have been played out on social media and national
news. The Police continue to make arrests and bring people to court.

We appeal to the organisers of the twice-weekly demonstrations to
consider the wider feelings of the people of Epping they seek to
represent. As we come to the end of the summer, our community needs some respite from the on-going disruption.

We therefore say to you directly. Your demonstrations have placed Epping
in the news headlines for weeks. Your voices have been heard. Now give
our community breathing space. Allow Epping High Street to return to
normal so that our businesses can trade, our children can go to school
and our residents can go about their daily lives again.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-29, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 27/12/2025 10:07 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-27, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 27/12/2025 05:27 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-27, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 26/12/2025 05:39 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> I also suspect that she wasn't expecting to be asked about the next >>>>>>> general election (since the possibility hadn't been raised in

interviews before), and therefore didn't have any prepared response. >>>>>>> So, again, her choice at the time, rather than trying to wing it on >>>>>>> air, was to firstly ignore and then, when pushed, close down the >>>>>>> question rather than give an unprepared response. That, too, is
normal political interview behaviour[1], and doesn't tell us much, >>>>>>> if anything, about the real answer to the question.

You can argue that it was a poor response, and possibly she should >>>>>>> have been more forceful in rebutting any suggestions that the next >>>>>>> general election will be delayed. But not every politician has
perfect interview technique. And you can't assume from a less than >>>>>>> fully ept answer that the answer is the one you think it is.

I think she probably was a bit confused and alarmed by such a bizarre >>>>>> and stupid question being asked, and suspected it might be a trap in >>>>>> some way. Which it kind've was, in that the interviewer was trying to >>>>>> manufacture a story out of nothing.

Well that's very odd.

After all, and as you must admit, according to you in your first post in >>>>> the thread, the whole thing was simply someone's imagination running >>>>> wild in some unidentified Facebook post.

I said nothing of the sort - that's, er, your imagination running wild. >>>>
It's also a bit rich for you to go on about "unidentified Facebook post" >>>> when it's you that failed to identify where you read what you claimed.

I had forgotten. I have already made that clear.

All sorts of links come up when reading political news.

Someone else has identified the original source as Sky News, which of
course, has a news website. Other sites carried references to the
conversation.

On 23rd December, I had written:

QUOTE:
I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.
ENDQUOTE

And you answered (this is verbatim):

QUOTE:
I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.
ENDQUOTE

Oddly, you were *sure* [my emphasis, but your word] that I had not read
what I had already said I had read.

What your motivation for that denial of the absolute truth might have
been is not for me to know or explain.

"Denial of the absolute truth", eh?

So: in the Sky News interview, did she "[say] ... that she could not
rule out delaying the next General Election", as you claim?

Or did she in fact not say that?

Now that your memory has been conveniently refreshed, and you have
easy access to quotes from the interview, could you perhaps provide
the exact words she used to convey what you say she conveyed?

Or perhaps admit that one of us is indeed "denying the absolute truth"
- and it isn't me.

There is no difference between refusing to rule out illegal further gerrymandering by a Labour government and failing to rule out illegal further gerrymandering by a Labour government.

Well, indeed. That would be more or less true. But you claimed, falsely,
that she did neither of those things and instead explicitly stated that
an extension of Parliament beyond the current legal limit could not be
ruled out. The difference between what you claimed she did and what she actually did is night and day.

(I think you are confused about the meaning of the word "gerrymander",
by the way - and "illegal", for that matter.)

Had she wanted to rule it out, she could easily have done so. The
question was put in a straightforward manner. That she did not do so
(and according to another poster, could not do so while a member of the Labour government) speaks volumes.

It was utterly meaningless. It was a "journalist" trying to create
a story out of nothing. If she had done what you *claimed* she had
done, on the other hand, then that *would* have "spoken volumes" -
hence why I pulled you up on it.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-29, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 28/12/2025 04:33 am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mraornFcv52U4@mid.individual.net>, at 19:03:19 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 05:41 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

I thought the topic of this subthread was anti-semitism.

Labour Party anti-semitism.

Read the OP.

You are mistaken:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament
Act 2022 and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved
earlier Parliament automatically dissolves at the beginning of
the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it
first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay
the General election. I know one has to be very careful about
Facebook but can government delay the next GE?

That was not the only thing stated in the OP.

That was literally every word from the original post.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 29/12/2025 16:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-29, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 28/12/2025 04:33 am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mraornFcv52U4@mid.individual.net>, at 19:03:19 on Sat, 27
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 05:41 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

I thought the topic of this subthread was anti-semitism.

Labour Party anti-semitism.

Read the OP.

You are mistaken:

I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament >>> Act 2022 and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved
earlier Parliament automatically dissolves at the beginning of >>> the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it
first met.

There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may delay >>> the General election. I know one has to be very careful about
Facebook but can government delay the next GE?

That was not the only thing stated in the OP.

That was literally every word from the original post.

In that case, my memory has failed me and the words were from a follow
up. But either way, they set the thread off in more than one direction.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 29/12/2025 16:05, The Todal wrote:

On 29/12/2025 15:32, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 09:30 pm, The Todal wrote:

On 27/12/2025 16:22, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 02:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 27 Dec 2025 at 14:06:18 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <mr86a4FuejpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:34:28 on Fri, 26 >>>>>> Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 03:50 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mr7m03FrqrcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:03 on >>>>>>>> Fri, 26
Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 26/12/2025 12:42 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <10ijfof$1smus$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:27 on >>>>>>>>>> Thu, 25
Dec-a 2025, Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

On 22/12/2025 12:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:

-a I have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of >>>>>>>>>>>> Parliament
Act-a 2022-a and if I have read it correctly if not dissolved >>>>>>>>>>>> earlier-a Parliament-a automatically dissolves at the >>>>>>>>>>>> beginning of
the day-a that is the fifth-a anniversary of the day on which >>>>>>>>>>>> it first met.

-a There are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may >>>>>>>>>>>> delay
the-a General election. I know one has to be very careful about >>>>>>>>>>>> Facebook-a but can government delay the next GE?

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - >>>>>>>>>>> July 24,
we-a see-a a UK Government delay local elections,

-a Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, >>>>>>>>>> and
the-a councils concerned were abolished a year later, everyone >>>>>>>>>> would
be-a screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

-a Only banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury >>>>>>>>>> trials
have-a been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

-a Again, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life >>>>>>>>>> doesn't-a mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for
discount,-a "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent >>>>>>>>> offences-a deserve a whole life tariff.

-a Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when reading >>>>>>>> Usenet-a postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

So you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

-a Has been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or George >>>>>>>>> Brown-a have said?

-a The Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're not >>>>>>>> here-a for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

Are you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of years", >>>>>> for
example.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

-a If the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who >>>>>>>>>> also
think-a there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they should be >>>>>>>>>> beaten to a-a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

-a Why, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.

What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

Just to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the
Jewish-looking folks to be beaten up?

They weren't "Jewish looking", they were known pro-Israeli
propagandists
carrying or wearing Israel supporting emblems and seeking to
confront a
pro-Palestine march. But never let truth get in the way of a good
story.

"Jewish looking" was the phrase used by the police, as reported in
the media at the time.


And why should *anyone* be prevented by the police from
"confronting" a "pro-Palestine march"?

Please try to provide an answer which does not rely upon an a priori
acceptance that "pro-Palestine marchers" have more rights than other
people.

The answer is that the entire event was a wholly inaccurate and
misleading anecdote from a notorious pro-Israel campaigner who was
out to provoke a confrontation with demonstrators.

Isn't that the whole point of a counter-demonstration?

No.
A counter-demonstration, like a demonstration, is to show the world that
a large number of people feel a particular way.

Not so that one individual fuckwit who wants to be punched on the nose
and have someone film it, can be allowed his six minutes of fame.

Isn't it exactly the reason that "pro-Palestine activists" (the ones
with rights no-one else has, apparently) confronted the residents of
Epping?

Did they? I doubt it. What would have been the point?

You tell me. They didn't need to be there. They could have made their
"point" (to the limited extent that they had one) in Trafalgar Square.
Or outside Broadcasting House. The had no need to attempt to bully the
Epping residents.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 29/12/2025 16:09, The Todal wrote:

On 29/12/2025 15:33, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 09:33 pm, The Todal wrote:

On 27/12/2025 19:03, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 05:41 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <mraf9dFbf44U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:19:56 on Sat,
27 Dec 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

On 27/12/2025 02:06 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:

Brian <inv@lid.com> remarked:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

-aI have got a copy of the Dissolution and Calling of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Parliament Act-a 2022-a and if I have read it correctly if >>>>>>>>>>>>> not dissolved earlier-a Parliament-a automatically dissolves >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the beginning of the day-a that is the fifth-a anniversary >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the day on which it first met.

-aThere are lots of posts on Facebook saying government may >>>>>>>>>>>>> delay-a the-a General election. I know one has to be very >>>>>>>>>>>>> careful about-a Facebook-a but can government delay the next GE? >>>>>>>>

In theory, probably not but then who would thought, pre - >>>>>>>>>>>> July 24,-a we-a see-a a UK Government delay local elections, >>>>>>>>

-aDamned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went ahead, >>>>>>>>>>> and the-a councils concerned were abolished a year later, >>>>>>>>>>> everyone would-a be-a screaming about the waste of money.

propose banning Jury trials,

-aOnly banning a few more such trials. The majority of jury >>>>>>>>>>> trials have-a been banned for ages.

letting violent criminals out of jail early,

-aAgain, this has been happening for ages. In the limit, "Life >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't-a mean life" since 1967.

"early" means before the release date under usual rules for >>>>>>>>>> discount,-a "good behaviour" (as used to be), etc.

We can be certain that the PP did not imply that all violent >>>>>>>>>> offences-a deserve a whole life tariff.

Certainty isn't something we can often be sure about when
reading Usenet-a postings.

Perhaps. But not "never".

-aSo you agree. Good.

ignoring anti-semitism,

-aHas been going on for thousands of years.

In the Labour Party? Really? What would Manny Shinwell or >>>>>>>>>> George Brown-a have said?

-aThe Labour Party was only formed in 1900, so I presume you're >>>>>>>>> not here-a for the hunting.

We are speaking of the period from about 2010 to about 2019.

-aAre you? We aren't. I specifically mentioned "thousands of
years", for-a example.

What would that have to do with the Labour Party (the subject of
this discussion)?

I thought the topic of this subthread was anti-semitism.

Labour Party anti-semitism.

Read the OP.

UK police threatening someone for 'looking Jewish', .....

-aIf the objective is keeping them safe, away from others who >>>>>>>>>>> also think-a there's a Jewish-look about them and hence they >>>>>>>>>>> should be beaten to a-a pulp, what's the problem?

Dear God, that latter is a bottom of the barrel argument.
I wouldn't have expected to read it here.

-aWhy, does the truth hurt?

I am well aware that it happened, if that's what you mean.
What shocks me is reading an attempted justification for it.

-aJust to be clear - You'd have preferred the police allowed the >>>>>>> Jewish--a looking folks to be beaten up?

No. I'd have preferred that the police had done their job properly >>>>>> and prevented it from happening without denying anyone the right
to walk abroad for their lawful occasions at a time of their
choosing.

Very often when there are protesters, and anti-protest activists,
the only way to ensure everyone's safety is to keep them apart.

You know... like the police did for the anti-resident protestors
at Epping.

False dichotomy.

So you say (or at least, strongly imply) that the police do not have
a duty to protect citizens and other members of the public from
physical attack.

And that, by implication, the potential victim must be treated as
the perpetrator.

And you say that the police do not have a duty to prevent fights and
acrimonious confrontations, and that they should stand by and meekly
observe when the chief executive of the self-styled Campaign Against
Antisemitism wants to strut his stuff in front of a peaceful pro-
Palestine demonstration.

And that his determination to become a "victim" for publicity
purposes should be respected and even encouraged.

A police two-tier double-standard in operation there, it seems to me.
Ask the Epping residents.

Hallo? Epping residents? Can you hear me? No, I don't think they can.

They probably don't speak with one voice or listen with one pair of ears
and maybe a number of them won't have read this sensible letter from the Council Leader, imploring them to be sensible and avoid being led astray
by fuckwit bigots.

https://www.essex.gov.uk/news/2025/open-letter-calling-calm-epping

quote

Local civic leaders support the right to protest. However, there have
been several well-documented instances of lawlessness associated with
the demonstrations, considerably adding to the anxiety and concern of
our residents. Local high street businesses are not immune to the impact
of the demonstrations. Shop and office workers are also affected.

The scenes of violence have been played out on social media and national news. The Police continue to make arrests and bring people to court.

We appeal to the organisers of the twice-weekly demonstrations to
consider the wider feelings of the people of Epping they seek to
represent. As we come to the end of the summer, our community needs some respite from the on-going disruption.

We therefore say to you directly. Your demonstrations have placed Epping
in the news headlines for weeks. Your voices have been heard. Now give
our community breathing space. Allow Epping High Street to return to
normal so that our businesses can trade, our children can go to school
and our residents can go about their daily lives again.

Law-abiding residents cannot and must not be blamed for the lawless
actions of others.

And as it happens, hasn't that council plea been answered positively?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mrafe5FbgduU1@mid.individual.net...

On 27/12/2025 02:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

They weren't "Jewish looking", they were known pro-Israeli propagandists
carrying or wearing Israel supporting emblems and seeking to confront a
pro-Palestine march. But never let truth get in the way of a good story.

"Jewish looking" was the phrase used by the police, as reported in the media at the
time.

And why should *anyone* be prevented by the police from "confronting" a "pro-Palestine
march"?

In order to prevent a potential Breach of the Peace; which would originally have been
in accordance with Section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1936

Which has now been updated by section 4 of the Public Order Act of 1986; entitled
"Fear or provocation of violence."

Such that such potential confrontations, however described, have been the subject of
preventive legislation for at least the last 89 years. If not more.

Please try to provide an answer which does not rely upon an a priori acceptance that
"pro-Palestine marchers" have more rights than other people.

Given that all lawful marches and demonstrations, can only take place as a result
of prior arrangement with the police including giving 6 days notice, in accordance with
Section 11, "Advance notice of public processions."subsections 5 and 6 of the Public Order Act of 1986, that fact in itself gives all those taking part in such
marches
more "rights" - a reasonable expectation of being able to march or demonstrate without fear of violent opposition for one - than it does those seeking to disrupt such
marches, by whatever means


bb





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 29/12/2025 15:33, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 09:33 pm, The Todal wrote:

On 27/12/2025 19:03, JNugent wrote:

So you say (or at least, strongly imply) that the police do not have
a duty to protect citizens and other members of the public from
physical attack.

And that, by implication, the potential victim must be treated as the
perpetrator.

And you say that the police do not have a duty to prevent fights and
acrimonious confrontations, and that they should stand by and meekly
observe when the chief executive of the self-styled Campaign Against
Antisemitism wants to strut his stuff in front of a peaceful pro-
Palestine demonstration.

And that his determination to become a "victim" for publicity purposes
should be respected and even encouraged.

A police two-tier double-standard in operation there, it seems to me.
Ask the Epping residents.

I live in an area with a "Hebrew Congregation" claiming to have nearly
800 members, a number of whom are committed enough to their faith to
have made a successful planning application for the installation of an
eruv enclosing large sections of a number of local villages.

Opposite the local synagogue [^2] is a car park. At numerous times
throughout the year, one will find a police van parked there with a sign
in the windscreen that reads: "Report incidents of anti-Semitism here".

Earlier this year, a neighbour approached the police van with the aim of reporting a religiously motivated hate incident not anti-Semetic in
nature. The police in the van advised that they were only collecting
reports of anti-Semitism and other incidents must be reported using the
usual methods.

Do you consider this to be "a police two-tier double standard in
operation there"?

If not, what phrase would you use to describe it?

Regards

S.P.

[^1] This is the term they use to describe themselves on their web-site.

[^2] I use the more commonly known and neutral term "synagogue" to
describe the building whilst acknowledging that the "Hebrew
Congregation" [^1] refer to it as a "shule".

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 29/12/2025 11:03 pm, Simon Parker wrote:

On 29/12/2025 15:33, JNugent wrote:

On 27/12/2025 09:33 pm, The Todal wrote:

On 27/12/2025 19:03, JNugent wrote:

So you say (or at least, strongly imply) that the police do not have
a duty to protect citizens and other members of the public from
physical attack.

And that, by implication, the potential victim must be treated as
the perpetrator.

And you say that the police do not have a duty to prevent fights and
acrimonious confrontations, and that they should stand by and meekly
observe when the chief executive of the self-styled Campaign Against
Antisemitism wants to strut his stuff in front of a peaceful pro-
Palestine demonstration.
And that his determination to become a "victim" for publicity
purposes should be respected and even encouraged.

A police two-tier double-standard in operation there, it seems to me.
Ask the Epping residents.

I live in an area with a "Hebrew Congregation" claiming to have nearly
800 members, a number of whom are committed enough to their faith to
have made a successful planning application for the installation of an
eruv enclosing large sections of a number of local villages.

Opposite the local synagogue [^2] is a car park.-a At numerous times throughout the year, one will find a police van parked there with a sign
in the windscreen that reads: "Report incidents of anti-Semitism here".

Earlier this year, a neighbour approached the police van with the aim of reporting a religiously motivated hate incident not anti-Semetic in nature.-a The police in the van advised that they were only collecting reports of anti-Semitism and other incidents must be reported using the usual methods.

Do you consider this to be "a police two-tier double standard in
operation there"?

No. Not as you have described it.

If not, what phrase would you use to describe it?

I would describe it as a police team having been given a specific
specialist job to do, with orders that anyone reporting or enquiring
about any other sort of potential police business should be signposted
to a team detailed to deal with that query.

Regards

S.P.

[^1] This is the term they use to describe themselves on their web-site.

To what does your "^1" refer?

[^2] I use the more commonly known and neutral term "synagogue" to
describe the building whilst acknowledging that the "Hebrew
Congregation" [^1] refer to it as a "shule".

In everyday English, it's "synagogue". You are right to use the term

In the beautiful late Georgian / early Victorian house in which I was
brought up for the first seven years of my life, there was a synagogue
right across the street. Oddly, I cannot remember ever seeing anyone
enter or leave it.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 29/12/2025 04:09 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-29, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 27/12/2025 10:07 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-27, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 27/12/2025 05:27 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-27, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 26/12/2025 05:39 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> I also suspect that she wasn't expecting to be asked about the next >>>>>>>> general election (since the possibility hadn't been raised in

interviews before), and therefore didn't have any prepared response. >>>>>>>> So, again, her choice at the time, rather than trying to wing it on >>>>>>>> air, was to firstly ignore and then, when pushed, close down the >>>>>>>> question rather than give an unprepared response. That, too, is >>>>>>>> normal political interview behaviour[1], and doesn't tell us much, >>>>>>>> if anything, about the real answer to the question.

You can argue that it was a poor response, and possibly she should >>>>>>>> have been more forceful in rebutting any suggestions that the next >>>>>>>> general election will be delayed. But not every politician has >>>>>>>> perfect interview technique. And you can't assume from a less than >>>>>>>> fully ept answer that the answer is the one you think it is.

I think she probably was a bit confused and alarmed by such a bizarre >>>>>>> and stupid question being asked, and suspected it might be a trap in >>>>>>> some way. Which it kind've was, in that the interviewer was trying to >>>>>>> manufacture a story out of nothing.

Well that's very odd.

After all, and as you must admit, according to you in your first post in >>>>>> the thread, the whole thing was simply someone's imagination running >>>>>> wild in some unidentified Facebook post.

I said nothing of the sort - that's, er, your imagination running wild. >>>>>
It's also a bit rich for you to go on about "unidentified Facebook post" >>>>> when it's you that failed to identify where you read what you claimed. >>>>

I had forgotten. I have already made that clear.

All sorts of links come up when reading political news.

Someone else has identified the original source as Sky News, which of
course, has a news website. Other sites carried references to the
conversation.

On 23rd December, I had written:

QUOTE:
I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - >>>> saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the
next General Election.
ENDQUOTE

And you answered (this is verbatim):

QUOTE:
I am sure you didn't. Well, unless you mean you read it in a lunatic
Facebook post or something.
ENDQUOTE

Oddly, you were *sure* [my emphasis, but your word] that I had not read >>>> what I had already said I had read.

What your motivation for that denial of the absolute truth might have
been is not for me to know or explain.

"Denial of the absolute truth", eh?

So: in the Sky News interview, did she "[say] ... that she could not
rule out delaying the next General Election", as you claim?

Or did she in fact not say that?

Now that your memory has been conveniently refreshed, and you have
easy access to quotes from the interview, could you perhaps provide
the exact words she used to convey what you say she conveyed?

Or perhaps admit that one of us is indeed "denying the absolute truth"
- and it isn't me.

There is no difference between refusing to rule out illegal further
gerrymandering by a Labour government and failing to rule out illegal
further gerrymandering by a Labour government.

Well, indeed. That would be more or less true. But you claimed, falsely,
that she did neither of those things and instead explicitly stated that
an extension of Parliament beyond the current legal limit could not be
ruled out. The difference between what you claimed she did and what she actually did is night and day.

(I think you are confused about the meaning of the word "gerrymander",
by the way - and "illegal", for that matter.)

I don't mind whatever you say. "Gerrymander" fits election rigging in
any number of ways. Giving children the vote, for instance. They're not
doing that for nothing, are they?

Had she wanted to rule it out, she could easily have done so. The
question was put in a straightforward manner. That she did not do so
(and according to another poster, could not do so while a member of the
Labour government) speaks volumes.

It was utterly meaningless.

That is your usual modus, of course. Anything you don't agree with is
either "untrue" or "meaningless", without further argument.

Seen it all before.

It was a "journalist" trying to create
a story out of nothing. If she had done what you *claimed* she had
done, on the other hand, then that *would* have "spoken volumes" -
hence why I pulled you up on it.

See other posts on the non-difference between failing to rule out and
refusing to rule out.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 29/12/2025 15:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

On 24/12/2025 17:19, JNugent wrote:

On 24/12/2025 11:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Jon Ribbens wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it
happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the >>>>>>> next General Election.

I am sure you didn't.

It was Anna Turley being interviewed by Trevor Phillips on Sky

<https://youtu.be/9VkCgbdmHxY?t=97>

And in that clip did she say that "she could not rule out delaying
the next General Election"? Or did she in fact not say that?

When asked to rule it out, she would not / failed to / refused to do that. >>>
She could easily have ruled it out had she wished to do so.

So now you see that you made a mistake. You said she "said" that she
could not rule it out. In fact she was silent and chose not to answer.

Indeed. Actually stating "I cannot rule it out" would have been a very different situation and would genuinely have been major news.

Might be just me, but, I feel that is exactly what she should have said. And added she also couldn't - personally - rule out WW111, another pandemic, or any
other major event that might cause such a delay.

Instead, a refusal to say anything sounded worse.
--
kat
>^..^<

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mrafe5FbgduU1@mid.individual.net...

On 27/12/2025 02:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

They weren't "Jewish looking", they were known pro-Israeli propagandists
carrying or wearing Israel supporting emblems and seeking to confront a
pro-Palestine march. But never let truth get in the way of a good story.

"Jewish looking" was the phrase used by the police, as reported in the media at the
time.

And why should *anyone* be prevented by the police from "confronting" a "pro-Palestine
march"?

In order to prevent a potential Breach of the Peace; which would originally have been
covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1936

Which has now been updated by section 4 of the Public Order Act of 1986; entitled
"Fear or provocation of violence."

So that such potential confrontations, however described, have been the subject of
preventive legislation for at least the last 89 years. If not more.

Please try to provide an answer which does not rely upon an a priori acceptance that
"pro-Palestine marchers" have more rights than other people.

Given that all lawful marches and demonstrations, can only take place as a result
of prior arrangement with the police including giving 6 days notice, in accordance with
Section 11, "Advance notice of public processions."of the Public Order Act of 1986,
that fact in itself gives all those taking part in such marches more "rights" - a reasonable expectation of being able to march or demonstrate without fear of
violent opposition for one - than it does those seeking to disrupt such marches,
by whatever means
.
bb







--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mrhqcdFi4n7U2@mid.individual.net...

On 29/12/2025 15:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

On 24/12/2025 17:19, JNugent wrote:

On 24/12/2025 11:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-24, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Jon Ribbens wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it
happens -
saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the >>>>>>>> next General Election.

I am sure you didn't.

It was Anna Turley being interviewed by Trevor Phillips on Sky

<https://youtu.be/9VkCgbdmHxY?t=97>

And in that clip did she say that "she could not rule out delaying
the next General Election"? Or did she in fact not say that?

When asked to rule it out, she would not / failed to / refused to do that. >>>>
She could easily have ruled it out had she wished to do so.

So now you see that you made a mistake. You said she "said" that she
could not rule it out. In fact she was silent and chose not to answer.

Indeed. Actually stating "I cannot rule it out" would have been a very
different situation and would genuinely have been major news.

Might be just me, but, I feel that is exactly what she should have said. And added she
also couldn't - personally - rule out WW111, another pandemic, or any other major
event that might cause such a delay.

Instead, a refusal to say anything sounded worse.

Eh ?

"I cannot rule it out. Just as I cannot rule out Word War III or another pandemic
or any other major event which might cause such a delay -

"A major event" such as Keir Starmer changing the rules, for instance.?

Which would certainly be described as a "major event" by his opponents.

Same as Bojo's lying to the Queen

The point being surely, that while there are some "major events" which everyone would agree are a legitimate reason to postpone elections, there are plenty of others which would be open to dispute.

And to expect somebody to be able to rattle them all off, with all the pros
and cons at the drop of a hat, in the middle of an interview, is expecting
a bit much IMO


bb




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-12-29, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 29/12/2025 04:09 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-29, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 27/12/2025 10:07 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

So: in the Sky News interview, did she "[say] ... that she could not
rule out delaying the next General Election", as you claim?

Or did she in fact not say that?

Now that your memory has been conveniently refreshed, and you have
easy access to quotes from the interview, could you perhaps provide
the exact words she used to convey what you say she conveyed?

Or perhaps admit that one of us is indeed "denying the absolute truth" >>>> - and it isn't me.

There is no difference between refusing to rule out illegal further
gerrymandering by a Labour government and failing to rule out illegal
further gerrymandering by a Labour government.

Well, indeed. That would be more or less true. But you claimed, falsely,
that she did neither of those things and instead explicitly stated that
an extension of Parliament beyond the current legal limit could not be
ruled out. The difference between what you claimed she did and what she
actually did is night and day.

(I think you are confused about the meaning of the word "gerrymander",
by the way - and "illegal", for that matter.)

I don't mind whatever you say. "Gerrymander" fits election rigging in
any number of ways. Giving children the vote, for instance. They're not doing that for nothing, are they?

Calling changing the age limit "gerrymandering" would be unreasonable
and rather hysterical, but it wouldn't be straight-up wrong as it does
involve, in a sense, changing the "shape" of an electorate - unlike
using it to refer to delaying an election, which does not.

And "illegal" is a false and weird thing to say given there has been
no suggestion whatsoever that the government is proposing to do anything illegal - indeed I'm not sure it's even *possible* for them to do these
things illegally. If they lower the voting age to 16, for example, then
they will - they must - do it by changing the law. Calling it "illegal"
is just silly.

Had she wanted to rule it out, she could easily have done so. The
question was put in a straightforward manner. That she did not do so
(and according to another poster, could not do so while a member of the
Labour government) speaks volumes.

It was utterly meaningless.

That is your usual modus, of course. Anything you don't agree with is
either "untrue" or "meaningless", without further argument.

That is false, and an inappropriate thing to say in the moderated group.
And rather ironic given you yourself have provided no argument whatsoever
to support your bare assertion that the difference between what you
falsely claimed she said and what she actually said is trivial and
unimportant.

I'm happy that any reasonable person reading this thread would agree
that explicitly saying "I cannot rule out delaying the election" is
an utterly different thing to simply not saying anything about delaying
the election, and I frankly don't care whether you are able to admit it publically or not.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 12/30/25 12:30, billy bookcase wrote:

The point being surely, that while there are some "major events" which everyone
would agree are a legitimate reason to postpone elections, there are plenty of
others which would be open to dispute.

And to expect somebody to be able to rattle them all off, with all the pros and cons at the drop of a hat, in the middle of an interview, is expecting
a bit much IMO

Yes, it was a "When did you stop beating your wife" question. Which a
media inexperienced MP probably thought she had addressed. Her mistake
was being agreeable, being polite to the interviewer, rather than
calling out a stupid question.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 30/12/2025 13:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-12-29, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

I don't mind whatever you say. "Gerrymander" fits election rigging in
any number of ways. Giving children the vote, for instance. They're not
doing that for nothing, are they?

Calling changing the age limit "gerrymandering" would be unreasonable
and rather hysterical, but it wouldn't be straight-up wrong as it does involve, in a sense, changing the "shape" of an electorate - unlike
using it to refer to delaying an election, which does not.

And "illegal" is a false and weird thing to say given there has been
no suggestion whatsoever that the government is proposing to do anything illegal - indeed I'm not sure it's even *possible* for them to do these things illegally. If they lower the voting age to 16, for example, then
they will - they must - do it by changing the law. Calling it "illegal"
is just silly.

Since changing the voting age is a fundamental change to our
constitution, it should actually have been put to the people in a
referendum. That's the normal, honourable way even at local bowls club levels.

It may not be 'illegal' to reduce voting age by a Parliament dominated
by a party such a move will benefit, but it's certainly shady, rather
shabby, and decidedly 'unconstitutional'.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2