It was 40 years ago. The questions are entirely irrelevant.https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...it-Nelson-Mandela-apartheid-Margaret-Thatcher
Her attempts at question dodging are cringe worthy.
It was trying to compare to Corbyn who famously got himself arrested in the name of protesting against apartheid.It was 40 years ago. The questions are entirely irrelevant.
It was 40 years ago. The questions are entirely irrelevant.
To what end? What is the relevance to her job today as PM? It's nothing more than a "gotcha" line of questioning to make someone look foolish based on what they did 30 or 40 years ago, well before they were on the national political scene.Not really, she's the Prime Minister, she could have easily clarified her position. And should have.
It was 40 years ago. The questions are entirely irrelevant.
To what end? What is the relevance to her job today as PM? It's nothing more than a "gotcha" line of questioning to make someone look foolish based on what they did 30 or 40 years ago, well before they were on the national political scene.
To what end? If she went along party lines or went her own way, so what? It was 30 or 40 years ago. What possible relevance does it have today?She was a member of the party serving in local government. Many people at the time protested against the South African government in one way or another, mostly by boycotting their goods. It seems reasonable to ask a party member if their views at the time were in line with the whip or if they protested in some way.
To what end? If she went along party lines or went her own way, so what? It was 30 or 40 years ago. What possible relevance does it have today?
There's no mention of the Windrush scandal in the interview or the linked article. So she was being grilled over the Windrush scandal or because she happened to be visiting South Africa? Of course I'd be all over Trudeau if it were relevant to his position today, which is my point here. I don't see anything in this interview or the linked article that looks like anything but a gotcha question in an attempt to embarrass the PM.It's very relevant in light of the Windrush scandal and her part in it both as Prime Minister and Home Secretary. It's also relevant for many British people to understand how their Prime Minister felt when they were a member of a party whose official line was that anti-segregationist parties were just terrorists.
I'm pretty sure that if Trudeau was accused of possibly being in the wrong many years ago you'd be on it like a tramp on chips.
There's no mention of the Windrush scandal in the interview or the linked article.
It looks like a reflection of All Souls' Church which is just outside the BBC building.Hopefully just a precautionary measure for an abandoned vehicle. Has the window been smashed in or is that an illusion caused by the light?
Hopefully just a precautionary measure for an abandoned vehicle. Has the window been smashed in or is that an illusion caused by the light?
I wondered that myself. The apparent remaining glass appears to display the crazing that typically affects broken tempered glass, but it could just as easily be a reflection of the sky (odd that it appears to be blue and cheerful rather than the gloomy grey that I tend to associate with England*). It's low resolution though, so it's hard to say.It looks like a reflection of All Souls' Church which is just outside the BBC building.
It looks like a reflection of All Souls' Church which is just outside the BBC building.
Of all the colours to have a massive transit like that, they went with bright orange
The boxes seemed to be in fairly good condition, all things consideredBBC News says the van only contained cardboard boxes and a motorbike.
It's been seen in the area quite often according to these local twitterati.
It's bewildering that this has happened and ****ed up to such a monumental extentThe Novichok story has picked up.
BBC - Two Russian nationals named as suspects
They currently are in Russia and cannot be extradited as Russia does not allow extradition of its citizens but the CPS says that there is sufficient evidence to charge them and that a case would be in the public interest.
If you want the circumstantial short story: they flew to London, went to Salisbury, then went to Moscow.
The British Prime Minister announced in the House of Commons today that the two suspects are officers from the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU. There's no chance of them being brought to justice, which probably explains how they could afford to be so brazen about it.
The consequences could (and probably will) be dire for Western-Russian relations.
The consequences could (and probably will) be dire for Western-Russian relations.