Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Isn't it simply that the word 'Committee' has got left out malumbu, and that a stray 'A' has been added to the end of COBR? The committee in question being formed of ministers (among others) who would meet in the COBR to manage army deployment to quell civil unrest in the event of No Deal? So less 'poppycock', more 'typo'?


I quite agree that we will need to fully deploy 'chin up' as the weeks advance....

Correct Jenny, I inadvertently missed out 'committee' after emergency, Cobra was how it was written in the ST piece though. I'll correct the quote so it looks like malumbu is talking poppycock ;-)

Here's more...https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1089459695331524610

I guess if the ST meant 'Cabinet Office Briefing Room A' - then the 'A' is fine. I think malumbu was making a general point that there's often confusion between the acronym COBR or COBRA and the people who meet there to take decisions. But the most important point is clearly that our government should not be even considering such things.

Diable...


"advocating the so-called positives of No Deal"


I don't ever recall having done that.


I think a few weeks ago I asked the question of what people though would be the impact of no deal, as I have been trying to understand better what the impacts might be. I don't ever recall 'advocating' the benefits of no deal. Perhaps you're referring to me saying that 'leaving' would likely see short term disruption, perhaps even recession, and at the time of the vote I feltthat was a risk worth taking...yes I said that, but not specifically about no deal, which is whole other ketlle of fish.


In anycase, on the questioning in any second referendum. I don't have a strong view. That's was my off the cuff thoughts. You asked (after politley putting your hand up:)) and I answered. But unlike some other topics we've discused on here I haven't really though about it enough to have a strong view to be honest.

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bottom line is that Brexit is a ruinous idea. If

> it goes through we are in serious trouble. The

> only people who could possibly think it worthwhile

> are bankers or racists.


The majority of bankers think it?s a terrible idea. The current proposal from May leaves our services industries (including banking) with none of the trade benefits we currently enjoy.

COBR is a facility where ministers make collective decisions. Meeting rooms, briefing rooms, whatever. It's not an operations room. 'Popycock' is that the army will be quelling civil unrest. Law and order is for the police services and the Home Office. It would be surprising if COBR was even being used at this moment seeing as we are not yet in crisis. Although it is a convenient facility/location and at times announcing that "COBR has met" is good for government, to show that they are taking action.


Of course there can be these discussions around the cabinet table or between TM and the relevant Secretaries of States or through Cabinet Committees, and through correspondence. It's called machinery of government, and essentially part of representational democracy.


Not bothered in the slightest if it is quoted as COBRA. Easier to announce than COBR.

malumbu Wrote:

-----------------------------------

It would be surprising if

> COBR was even being used at this moment seeing as

> we are not yet in crisis.


Yes. But the reference was to potential future action. As to the specific role of the armed forces. I see the Times Defence Correspondent saying the army doesn't have the training to quell domestic unrest at the moment as it's too long since they were active on the streets of Northern Ireland. This means army and defence insiders she's spoken to in recent weeks are cool about the idea. Thus reinforcing your comment that it would likely be the job of the police to deal with any civil unrest post No-Deal.

Realistically? It would require Cressida Dick requesting such assistance, or the govt declaring martial law.



Both circumstances are so unlikely as to be in the realm of fantasy.



Govts make contingency plans for all possible situations. That doesn?t mean they envisage needing them.

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> malumbu Wrote:

> -----------------------------------

> It would be surprising if

> > COBR was even being used at this moment seeing

> as

> > we are not yet in crisis.

>

> Yes. But the reference was to potential future

> action. As to the specific role of the armed

> forces. I see the Times Defence Correspondent

> saying the army doesn't have the training to quell

> domestic unrest at the moment as it's too long

> since they were active on the streets of Northern

> Ireland. This means army and defence insiders

> she's spoken to in recent weeks are cool about the

> idea. Thus reinforcing your comment that it would

> likely be the job of the police to deal with any

> civil unrest post No-Deal.


A few of us remember 2011 - there was about 100+ policemen in a line outside my flat in a row with riot shields - for some reason my flat was the point of defence - I couldn't get home, the pubs closed so I wandered and watched the looting of East Dulwich Road Tesco's.

Alex_b wrote: "This is leaving aside no-deal where the loss of GDPR equivalence will make working with European customers essentially impossible overnight."


Just interested - why do you think we will lose GDPR equivalence? What about the Data Protection Act 2018 and the EU Withdrawal Act?


Also, what would be so difficult for an organisation to incorporate some standard EU approved GDPR compliant clauses (regarding the handling of confidential data)into their contracts? It's not rocket science, particularly for a financial services company with access to lawyers.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jenny1 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > malumbu Wrote:

> > -----------------------------------

> > It would be surprising if

> > > COBR was even being used at this moment

> seeing

> > as

> > > we are not yet in crisis.

> >

> > Yes. But the reference was to potential future

> > action. As to the specific role of the armed

> > forces. I see the Times Defence Correspondent

> > saying the army doesn't have the training to

> quell

> > domestic unrest at the moment as it's too long

> > since they were active on the streets of

> Northern

> > Ireland. This means army and defence insiders

> > she's spoken to in recent weeks are cool about

> the

> > idea. Thus reinforcing your comment that it

> would

> > likely be the job of the police to deal with

> any

> > civil unrest post No-Deal.

>

> A few of us remember 2011 - there was about 100+

> policemen in a line outside my flat in a row with

> riot shields - for some reason my flat was the

> point of defence - I couldn't get home, the pubs

> closed so I wandered and watched the looting of

> East Dulwich Road Tesco's.


The riots were pretty scary and demonstrated how thin the veneer of order actually is. Police numbers have significantly reduced since then. If there are delays to supply chains and shortages in the shops, I don't think it would take much / long for people to kick off.

If a certain brand of cotton wool buds was a few days delayed hitting the Waitrose shelves, you could go out and shout "down with this sort of thing" just to prove you were right!


Oh, hang on a minute, with martial law and snipers around every sandbagged corner, you might be best just to post something on tweeter.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The riots were pretty scary and demonstrated how

> thin the veneer of order actually is. Police

> numbers have significantly reduced since then. If

> there are delays to supply chains and shortages in

> the shops, I don't think it would take much / long

> for people to kick off.


That's the logical conclusion, sadly.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> A few of us remember 2011 - there was about 100+

> policemen in a line outside my flat in a row with

> riot shields - for some reason my flat was the

> point of defence - I couldn't get home, the pubs

> closed so I wandered and watched the looting of

> East Dulwich Road Tesco's.


I think it was from that Tesco's that one of the looters posted a pic of himself that went viral, all moody gangsta stylee showing off his ill-gotten gains...a large bag of rice. I guess a man can't live off plasma screens alone...

David Allen Green on top form this morning...:)


This evening the officers' committee of the Titanic will move an amendment that the iceberg must move away from the ship.


"This sends a clear signal to the iceberg that we are determined to carry on," said Officer Brady.

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alex_b wrote: "This is leaving aside no-deal where

> the loss of GDPR equivalence will make working

> with European customers essentially impossible

> overnight."

>

> Just interested - why do you think we will lose

> GDPR equivalence? What about the Data Protection

> Act 2018 and the EU Withdrawal Act?

>

> Also, what would be so difficult for an

> organisation to incorporate some standard EU

> approved GDPR compliant clauses (regarding the

> handling of confidential data)into their

> contracts? It's not rocket science, particularly

> for a financial services company with access to

> lawyers.


My understanding is that as an EU member state we are automatically deemed compliant. When we become a third country we will need to be assessed by the European Commission as compliant, but crucially this cannot take place until we are a third country. I believe in the current draft withdrawal agreement has clauses to cover this, but clearly in the case of no-deal there would be a gap from the 29th March until such time as the Commission has made it's assessment.


Just because we've maintained our standards doesn't mean that either the Commission will declare conformance on the 30th March without the proper review they would do with other third countries (that would probably be unlawful under EU and WTO rules) or that they'd necessarily find conformance (e.g. our domestic surveillance legislation may be an issue without EUCJ supervision).


Of course this may be able to be resolved in the majority of cases by rewriting every contract with new GDPR compliant clauses, but this isn't necessarily possible in the next two months and in any case may not be agreed by counterparts in other EU states (who would bear a lot of the risk if the clauses weren't sufficient).


As with most of these no-deal problems it isn't that other countries haven't found ways of resolving these issues without being part of the EU, but that those solutions have been built over time, on lower volumes of trade, with less tightly linked systems and their alternatives are more cumbersome and more expensive than the current relationship we enjoy. It would over time be possible to minimise the pain of this divergence, but in a no-deal scenario we would lose many of the legal agreements we depend on and would need to replace them with different agreements as a Third Country. In the interim there is no legal basis for a lot of cross border activities.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...