• HIBEESBOUNCE PICKEM PRIZE LEAGUE Season 2026-2027

    Info on how to buy an Entry Pass HERE

Labour

Forums New posts
hibbybilly said:
Oh dear.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

She said she knew nothing about his businesses but it appears her consultancy business received £28k in interest free loans from two companies of which he is sole director. Oops.
 
Polanski's letter nailing Mahmood is brilliant. What the hell happens to people when they get a sniff of power? Seems like some can just ditch all their principles, shed their skin and become a completely different person.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2026-03-06 at 08.48.54.png
    Screenshot 2026-03-06 at 08.48.54.png
    1,021.2 KB · Views: 22
baggageandfibs said:
Polanski's letter nailing Mahmood is brilliant. What the hell happens to people when they get a sniff of power? Seems like some can just ditch all their principles, shed their skin and become a completely different person.
Click to expand...
The same Polanski who has mainstreamed racial and sectarian politics. The same Polanksi who cant even condemn the vandalism of Churchill's monument by people angry at history 's most famous opponent of Anti Zionists.

One can agree or not with Shabana Mahmood, but at least she is an adult.
 
egb_hibs said:
The same Polanski who has mainstreamed racial and sectarian politics. The same Polanksi who cant even condemn the vandalism of Churchill's monument by people angry at history 's most famous opponent of Anti Zionists.

One can agree or not with Shabana Mahmood, but at least she is an adult.
Click to expand...
Playing the man instead of the ball as per usual with you.
How about addressing what is actually in the letter?
 
Beagle said:
Playing the man instead of the ball as per usual with you.
How about addressing what is actually in the letter?
Click to expand...
So the fact that migrants are living in tents in freezing conditions, in France FFS, is the British govts fault. Really???
 
paigntonhibby said:
So the fact that migrants are living in tents in freezing conditions, in France FFS, is the British govts fault. Really???
Click to expand...
Not entirely but if the uk government had facilitated the immigration centre it was supposed to then these people would have been processed in France. Had they crossed the channel to reach the uk following such a screening, or bypassed the process that would have decided one way or the other, THEN it couldn’t be argued that their entry wasn’t legal as they haven’t gone through the legal process.
That no processing centre exists is self defeating for the uk.
 
I should add that I think the guy has a valid argument in respect of the Home Secretary but Eegie just went after the guy rather than address his point about her.
 
Beagle said:
Not entirely but if the uk government had facilitated the immigration centre it was supposed to then these people would have been processed in France. Had they crossed the channel to reach the uk following such a screening, or bypassed the process that would have decided one way or the other, THEN it couldn’t be argued that their entry wasn’t legal as they haven’t gone through the legal process.
That no processing centre exists is self defeating for the uk.
Click to expand...
You seem to me overlooking the implications of Zack's wider position: that ultimately he wants to open the border and let anyone come in. In the meantime he wants to legalise those that make it in and demolish entry requirements so there would be little need for most to take this route. His 'screening' is unlikely to be the most rigorous.

From the most basic practical point of view if they got bumped in France we would be back to square one: they'd come anyway and we would have great difficulty removing them, even if Zack wasnt in charge of it all.

Go after the ball, but you'll need to spot it first.
 
Last edited:
Beagle said:
Not entirely but if the uk government had facilitated the immigration centre it was supposed to then these people would have been processed in France. Had they crossed the channel to reach the uk following such a screening, or bypassed the process that would have decided one way or the other, THEN it couldn’t be argued that their entry wasn’t legal as they haven’t gone through the legal process.
That no processing centre exists is self defeating for the uk.
Click to expand...
You might have the answer i don't know , but why are the French not putting them up in hotels like we do? But we are the horrible bastards
 
paigntonhibby said:
You might have the answer i don't know , but why are the French not putting them up in hotels like we do? But we are the horrible bastards
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone has the answer. Certainly not the Bounce’s very own ‘world leading authority on fuck all’ no matter how many paragraphs he runs to.
Anyhoo, I expect the French are only too happy to see them off so rather than make them comfortable…….
I don’t think anyone can point the finger at the British authorities being horrible bastards for trying to deal with things in a humanitarian way. Only the folk who would see these people drown in the channel can be described as having absolutely no moral conscience. The story of Christianity starts with destitute travellers being turned away from the inn. Some Christians don’t seem to understand the nuance of that situation.
 
Beagle said:
I don’t think anyone has the answer. Certainly not the Bounce’s very own ‘world leading authority on fuck all’ no matter how many paragraphs he runs to.
Anyhoo, I expect the French are only too happy to see them off so rather than make them comfortable…….
I don’t think anyone can point the finger at the British authorities being horrible bastards for trying to deal with things in a humanitarian way. Only the folk who would see these people drown in the channel can be described as having absolutely no moral conscience. The story of Christianity starts with destitute travellers being turned away from the inn. Some Christians don’t seem to understand the nuance of that situation.
Click to expand...
You're away wi the goalie B. Nobody on this board takes these positions. You meanwhile seem to be having a good chuckle at folks quoting nazis denying the holocaust.
 
egb_hibs said:
You're away wi the goalie B. Nobody on this board takes these positions. You meanwhile seem to be having a good chuckle at folks quoting nazis denying the holocaust.
Click to expand...
My chuckle wasn’t at the video, it was for your expected response and you haven’t disappointed.
As for said video, I initially thought it was one of those Harry Enfield parodies he does of the old newsreel styles - watching on the small screen on my phone the eyes aren’t up to it nowadays. Suffice to say it was rather jaw dropping once it’s clear it’s not a comedy sketch.
 
Beagle said:
My chuckle wasn’t at the video, it was for your expected response and you haven’t disappointed.
As for said video, I initially thought it was one of those Harry Enfield parodies he does of the old newsreel styles - watching on the small screen on my phone the eyes aren’t up to it nowadays. Suffice to say it was rather jaw dropping once it’s clear it’s not a comedy sketch.
Click to expand...
Glad to see the penny has finally dropped. Look at the feckin account it's on an all.

This is where this crap ultimately comes from B and folk would do well to remember that. Jewish controlled media, zionist controlled governments, zionist and particularly zio as euphemism (the former goes back to the Soviets an all), world domination schemes and all the everyday little lies an all.
 
Beagle said:
Not entirely but if the uk government had facilitated the immigration centre it was supposed to then these people would have been processed in France. Had they crossed the channel to reach the uk following such a screening, or bypassed the process that would have decided one way or the other, THEN it couldn’t be argued that their entry wasn’t legal as they haven’t gone through the legal process.
That no processing centre exists is self defeating for the uk.
Click to expand...
Would they bother being screened in France if they knew a knock back was likely.
They'd still come here because they know once they're here it's fuckin difficult tae send them back and there's also a financial incentive to go home
 
egb_hibs said:
Glad to see the penny has finally dropped. Look at the feckin account it's on an all.

This is where this crap ultimately comes from B and folk would do well to remember that. Jewish controlled media, zionist controlled governments, zionist and particularly zio as euphemism (the former goes back to the Soviets an all), world domination schemes and all the everyday little lies an all.
Click to expand...
I think I’ve been consistent on here so there’s no penny needing picked up. I’ve never denied what the Nazis did but I don’t go looking for anti semitism in every post as you seem to even when it’s explicit that the focus is on Israeli barbarism and not Jews.
As for the account it’s on, I have no idea about it as I binned Twitter last year due to the toxic rabbit holes one ends up in.
 
paigntonhibby said:
Would they bother being screened in France if they knew a knock back was likely.
They'd still come here because they know once they're here it's fuckin difficult tae send them back and there's also a financial incentive to go home
Click to expand...
The latter bit is how it’s played out because of the uk government’s policies.
What I was saying previously was that if, as you say, they avoid the screening in France but arrive on these shores then the border agency should have a legally justified option to immediately return them. The person in question and their ambulance chasing lawyers would be told that since there was an acceptable means that they chose to avoid then it would mean immediate deportation. The biggest obstacle to being able to enforce this is the lack of a processing facility on the European side
 
Beagle said:
I think I’ve been consistent on here so there’s no penny needing picked up. I’ve never denied what the Nazis did but I don’t go looking for anti semitism in every post as you seem to even when it’s explicit that the focus is on Israeli barbarism and not Jews.
As for the account it’s on, I have no idea about it as I binned Twitter last year due to the toxic rabbit holes one ends up in.
Click to expand...
You've bought plenty of the lies tbh. The genocide lie, the controlling tentacles and world domination plans etc.

These things originate with neo nazis, from where they have spread to the rest of the left, with an additional dollop of input from islamism - which has fellow travelled with nazis from the start.

Billy has just taken the next logical step. I'd encourage others to look before they leap. And I'd encourage those who otherwise want to see racists under the bed to wake up and recognise by far and away the most virulent and pervasive form of our day, as of so many others. One that no longer even has to hide it's face because so many heads have been turned: just one symptom among many of a society that is in deep crisis.
 
egb_hibs said:
You've bought plenty of the lies tbh. The genocide lie, the controlling tentacles and world domination plans etc.

These things originate with neo nazis, from where they have spread to the rest of the left, with an additional dollop of input from islamism - which has fellow travelled with nazis from the start.

Billy has just taken the next logical step. I'd encourage others to look before they leap. And I'd encourage those who otherwise want to see racists under the bed to wake up and recognise by far and away the most virulent and pervasive form of our day, as of so many others. One that no longer even has to hide it's face because so many heads have been turned: just one symptom among many of a society that is in deep crisis.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I just want to buy you a coke eegie
 
Jack said:
So?
Click to expand...
Professor Mitchell is a very highly regarded academic who has studied Scottish politics for many years. He is particularly knowledgeable about devolution. He thinks claims that this is undermining devolution are 'just plain daft'. I think his opinion is worthy of consideration.
 
Archie said:
Professor Mitchell is a very highly regarded academic who has studied Scottish politics for many years. He is particularly knowledgeable about devolution. He thinks claims that this is undermining devolution are 'just plain daft'. I think his opinion is worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...
I've considered his opinion and I don't agree. Neither do labour in Wales.

It obviously affects Scotland as well. Why hasn't the BBC included the article on their Scottish pages? They quite often include stories from elsewhere if there's a mere mention of anything Scottish.
 
Jack said:
I've considered his opinion and I don't agree. Neither do labour in Wales.

It obviously affects Scotland as well. Why hasn't the BBC included the article on their Scottish pages? They quite often include stories from elsewhere if there's a mere mention of anything Scottish.
Click to expand...
It's obviously a conspiracy. The Glasgow fire, Assisted Dying legislation, university funding crises - all false flags to divert from a Plaid Cymru press release.

And of course you wouldn't agree with Professor Mitchell.
 
Jack said:
I've considered his opinion and I don't agree. Neither do labour in Wales.

It obviously affects Scotland as well. Why hasn't the BBC included the article on their Scottish pages? They quite often include stories from elsewhere if there's a mere mention of anything Scottish.
Click to expand...
BBC only include Scotland tae have a go at the SNP Jack.
 
Jack said:
How sad from the party that brought devolution.

www.bbc.co.uk

Keir Starmer: Leaked memo says ministers can go against Wales and Scotland

The memo was obtained by Plaid Cymru, which has accused Labour of turning its back on devolution.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

No mention, at the moment on BBC Scotland website.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite getting this Jack, it says Starmer says folk should be happy to go spend money in Scotland even if its against the wishes of their Scottish members? Who in Scotland would be against having money spent here? I know I must be missing something but no sure what it is
 
Keepitgreen said:
I'm not quite getting this Jack, it says Starmer says folk should be happy to go spend money in Scotland even if its against the wishes of their Scottish members? Who in Scotland would be against having money spent here? I know I must be missing something but no sure what it is
Click to expand...
Unionist bluster. Of course the devolved nations are happy to have money spent on them.

There is a creep though where Westminster, torys now Labour, are directly spending on reserved areas whereas the agreement was that the money available would be given to the devolved nations to spend. Otherwise what's the point in having devolution?

Well that is the point. They are undermining devolution.
 
Archie said:
It's obviously a conspiracy. The Glasgow fire, Assisted Dying legislation, university funding crises - all false flags to divert from a Plaid Cymru press release.

And of course you wouldn't agree with Professor Mitchell.
Click to expand...
All these are important stories and worthy of note above this story.

It's on the Scotland news page now after 16 hours of appearing on the Welsh page. They've managed to find space among the top 20 stories, second story on the politics page. I can only assume the employee responsible starts at 10 am. Must have skived off early yesterday 😆
 
Jack said:
Unionist bluster. Of course the devolved nations are happy to have money spent on them.

There is a creep though where Westminster, torys now Labour, are directly spending on reserved areas whereas the agreement was that the money available would be given to the devolved nations to spend. Otherwise what's the point in having devolution?

Well that is the point. They are undermining devolution.
Click to expand...
Ah I see, I get it now, thanks.

Makes me wonder what the rationale is, beyond just pissing off the SNP (and by extension, a lot of Scottish people). Labour are in a perilous state up here. Well, most places really. Building bridges would be more advised rather than burning them shirley.
 
Keepitgreen said:
Ah I see, I get it now, thanks.

Makes me wonder what the rationale is, beyond just pissing off the SNP (and by extension, a lot of Scottish people). Labour are in a perilous state up here. Well, most places really. Building bridges would be more advised rather than burning them shirley.
Click to expand...
I think it's jealousy.

Scotland appear to be doing well in many areas so the SNP remain annoyingly popular, as does independence. That's the opposite of what was supposed to happen 😆

Labour, despite introducing devolution, has never got to grips with it. Many, most English Labour politicians don't understand it at all!

When devolution kicked off Labour pretty much just tartanised English policies which meant Scotland was pretty much just a little England to them. Scotland was best ignored and kept in its box.

When the SNP came to power it showed there was an alternative, diverging in many ways making Scotland a better place for the people living here. The unionists were like pure ragin min!

Labour has long hated the SNP, twisting their own failures and blaming the SNP. Building bridges between Westminster and Holyrood has never been a thing.

Spending in devolved areas of responsibility is just the current fashionable thing for Westminster to do.
 
Jack said:
All these are important stories and worthy of note above this story.

It's on the Scotland news page now after 16 hours of appearing on the Welsh page. They've managed to find space among the top 20 stories, second story on the politics page. I can only assume the employee responsible starts at 10 am. Must have skived off early yesterday 😆
Click to expand...
I'm really surprised at you pushing this one. Firstly, as a former civil servant you would know that the first check before you do any activity is whether you have the power to do it? Are you suggesting the UKG doesn't have the power? Secondly, if you follow the logic of your position, which appears to be that the Scottish Government must approve any UKG spending, then the City of Edinburgh could object to Scottish Government spending in their area. That doesn't make any sense.
 
Archie said:
I'm really surprised at you pushing this one. Firstly, as a former civil servant you would know that the first check before you do any activity is whether you have the power to do it? Are you suggesting the UKG doesn't have the power? Secondly, if you follow the logic of your position, which appears to be that the Scottish Government must approve any UKG spending, then the City of Edinburgh could object to Scottish Government spending in their area. That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
@Keepitgreen an example of a labour unionist not understanding devolution 😆
 
Jack said:
Unionist bluster. Of course the devolved nations are happy to have money spent on them.

There is a creep though where Westminster, torys now Labour, are directly spending on reserved areas whereas the agreement was that the money available would be given to the devolved nations to spend. Otherwise what's the point in having devolution?

Well that is the point. They are undermining devolution.
Click to expand...

Archie said:
I'm really surprised at you pushing this one. Firstly, as a former civil servant you would know that the first check before you do any activity is whether you have the power to do it? Are you suggesting the UKG doesn't have the power? Secondly, if you follow the logic of your position, which appears to be that the Scottish Government must approve any UKG spending, then the City of Edinburgh could object to Scottish Government spending in their area. That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

So gents, is this cash that should be given to the SG for them to use as they see fit according to devo rules, or is it more that it would be the nicer thing to do? Cos I agree theres a difference (putting aside whether its a good idea by UKG or not)
 
Keepitgreen said:
So gents, is this cash that should be given to the SG for them to use as they see fit according to devo rules, or is it more that it would be the nicer thing to do? Cos I agree theres a difference (putting aside whether its a good idea by UKG or not)
Click to expand...
If it's a reserved area then the UKG is at liberty to spend as it sees fit. If it's an area not covered by a reservation (devolved) then it's a matter for the Scottish Government. So you wouldn't get the UKG deciding to build a hospital in Scotland.

Ideally there would be cooperation between the two administrations, but relationships haven't always been great.

On the money point, Scotland receives funding consequentials. If UKG increases funding on health for England then a consequential payment is made to SG.

But politically SG would like to be responsible for all spending in Scotland - hardly surprising as they are a nationalist party. As part of that they are not supportive of direct spend from Westminster in Scotland. SG would prefer they were given the cash.

But as Prof Mitchell argued it's normal for UKG to spend in Scotland on reserved issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom