I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about
being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy
in Gaza.
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about being unable to
say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy in Gaza.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p6vm0p2aijuv036@news.individual.net...
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about being
unable to
say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy in >> Gaza.
They weren't told to resign at all.
They were simply being informed, as has always been the case, that if
they felt their concerns weren't being satisfactorily addressed
through the usual channels, then thay always had the honourable
option of resigning.
That's par for the course in the Civil Service no more than in any
other job. When you join an organisation whether its Tesco's
or the Civil Service* you do so on the basis that you'll
necessarily have to implement company policy that you might not
necessarily agree with, however it changes rather than expecting
the employer to change policy simply in order to suit you.
More especially in the Civil Service whose function is simply to
implement policies decided on by a democratically elected government
And that if you're not prepared to suck it up then basically the only honourable course remaining for you, is to resign.
Yet another BBC non-story IOW.
Closely following on from "MI5 lied in Court to protect source"
bb
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about
being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy
in Gaza.
On 10 Jun 2025 08:25:54 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about >>being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy
in Gaza.
They haven't been "told to resign". They've been told that if they have "profound" disagreement with government policy as regards the department
they work in then they should consider whether resignation might be the best course of action.
FWIW, I don't think that's particularly uncontroversial. Civil servants are professionally obliged to remain politically impartial. If they have such strong disagreement with government policy that it is affecting their
ability to do their job with sufficient impartiality, then being a civil servant is probably not their best career option.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:25:54 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here
about being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's
policy in Gaza.
What makes Gaza - the happenings in what is a far away land - unique
in governmental policy that it requires the explicit support of the
civil service ?
Do they get similar instructions if they don't support the
governments economic policy ?
Are we as taxpayers expected to sign documents stating our support
for the governments policy before we can access services ?
On 2025-06-10, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 10 Jun 2025 08:25:54 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about >>>being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy >>>in Gaza.
They haven't been "told to resign". They've been told that if they have
"profound" disagreement with government policy as regards the department
they work in then they should consider whether resignation might be the best >> course of action.
FWIW, I don't think that's particularly uncontroversial. Civil servants are >> professionally obliged to remain politically impartial. If they have such
strong disagreement with government policy that it is affecting their
ability to do their job with sufficient impartiality, then being a civil
servant is probably not their best career option.
The issue of course is when the government has a policy like "supporting
a genocide", which you would hope essentially *all* civil servants would
have a problem with.
On 10 Jun 2025 08:25:54 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about
being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy
in Gaza.
They haven't been "told to resign". They've been told that if they have "profound" disagreement with government policy as regards the department
they work in then they should consider whether resignation might be the best course of action.
FWIW, I don't think that's particularly uncontroversial. Civil servants are professionally obliged to remain politically impartial. If they have such strong disagreement with government policy that it is affecting their
ability to do their job with sufficient impartiality, then being a civil servant is probably not their best career option.
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about
being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy
in Gaza.
On 10 Jun 2025 at 10:34:09 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p6vm0p2aijuv036@news.individual.net...
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about being
unable to
say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy in >>> Gaza.
They weren't told to resign at all.
They were simply being informed, as has always been the case, that if
they felt their concerns weren't being satisfactorily addressed
through the usual channels, then thay always had the honourable
option of resigning.
That's par for the course in the Civil Service no more than in any
other job. When you join an organisation whether its Tesco's
or the Civil Service* you do so on the basis that you'll
necessarily have to implement company policy that you might not
necessarily agree with, however it changes rather than expecting
the employer to change policy simply in order to suit you.
More especially in the Civil Service whose function is simply to
implement policies decided on by a democratically elected government
And that if you're not prepared to suck it up then basically the only
honourable course remaining for you, is to resign.
Yet another BBC non-story IOW.
Closely following on from "MI5 lied in Court to protect source"
bb
On a point of fact, MI5 did *not* lie in court to protect their source, they lied in court to protect their senior officers from the revelation that they had already sold out their source to a journalist.
On 6/10/25 13:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about
being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy >>> in Gaza.
They haven't been "told to resign". They've been told that if they have
"profound" disagreement with government policy as regards the department
they work in then they should consider whether resignation might be
the best
course of action.
FWIW, I don't think that's particularly uncontroversial.
Civil servants are
professionally obliged to remain politically impartial. If they have such
strong disagreement with government policy that it is affecting their
ability to do their job with sufficient impartiality, then being a civil
servant is probably not their best career option.
If they are being asked to do stuff that is illegal, or profoundly
immoral, it is their duty to raise the issue.
Impartially following
orders does not absolve them of responsibility.
It might be "honourable" for them to resign, but there is also an aspect
of constructive dismissal.
On 2025-06-10, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 10 Jun 2025 08:25:54 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about
being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy >>> in Gaza.
They haven't been "told to resign". They've been told that if they have
"profound" disagreement with government policy as regards the department
they work in then they should consider whether resignation might be the best >> course of action.
FWIW, I don't think that's particularly uncontroversial. Civil servants are >> professionally obliged to remain politically impartial. If they have such
strong disagreement with government policy that it is affecting their
ability to do their job with sufficient impartiality, then being a civil
servant is probably not their best career option.
The issue of course is when the government has a policy like "supporting
a genocide", which you would hope essentially *all* civil servants would
have a problem with.
On 10/06/2025 03:02 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/10/25 13:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about >>>> being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy >>>> in Gaza.
They haven't been "told to resign". They've been told that if they have
"profound" disagreement with government policy as regards the department >>> they work in then they should consider whether resignation might be
the best
course of action.
FWIW, I don't think that's particularly uncontroversial.
Did you mean "controversial"?
It would make sense.
Civil servants are
professionally obliged to remain politically impartial. If they have such >>> strong disagreement with government policy that it is affecting their
ability to do their job with sufficient impartiality, then being a civil >>> servant is probably not their best career option.
If they are being asked to do stuff that is illegal, or profoundly
immoral, it is their duty to raise the issue.
That's true enough if it is asserted that the action is illegal. If the
claim is "immorality", not so much.
But either way it isn't up to the officer or a trade union official to
decide the strength of the "case".
Impartially following
orders does not absolve them of responsibility.
It might be "honourable" for them to resign, but there is also an aspect
of constructive dismissal.
On 10 Jun 2025 at 19:17:47 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 03:02 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/10/25 13:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about >>>>> being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy >>>>> in Gaza.
They haven't been "told to resign". They've been told that if they have >>>> "profound" disagreement with government policy as regards the department >>>> they work in then they should consider whether resignation might be
the best
course of action.
FWIW, I don't think that's particularly uncontroversial.
Did you mean "controversial"?
It would make sense.
Civil servants are
professionally obliged to remain politically impartial. If they have such >>>> strong disagreement with government policy that it is affecting their
ability to do their job with sufficient impartiality, then being a civil >>>> servant is probably not their best career option.
If they are being asked to do stuff that is illegal, or profoundly
immoral, it is their duty to raise the issue.
That's true enough if it is asserted that the action is illegal. If the
claim is "immorality", not so much.
But either way it isn't up to the officer or a trade union official to
decide the strength of the "case".
It was strongly suggested at Nuremburg that it was indeed up to the individual.
Impartially following
orders does not absolve them of responsibility.
It might be "honourable" for them to resign, but there is also an aspect >>> of constructive dismissal.
On 10 Jun 2025 at 19:17:47 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 03:02 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/10/25 13:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about >>>>> being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy >>>>> in Gaza.
They haven't been "told to resign". They've been told that if they have >>>> "profound" disagreement with government policy as regards the department >>>> they work in then they should consider whether resignation might be
the best
course of action.
FWIW, I don't think that's particularly uncontroversial.
Did you mean "controversial"?
It would make sense.
Civil servants are
professionally obliged to remain politically impartial. If they have such >>>> strong disagreement with government policy that it is affecting their
ability to do their job with sufficient impartiality, then being a civil >>>> servant is probably not their best career option.
If they are being asked to do stuff that is illegal, or profoundly
immoral, it is their duty to raise the issue.
That's true enough if it is asserted that the action is illegal. If the
claim is "immorality", not so much.
But either way it isn't up to the officer or a trade union official to
decide the strength of the "case".
It was strongly suggested at Nuremburg that it was indeed up to the individual.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:25:54 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about >>being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy
in Gaza.
What makes Gaza - the happenings in what is a far away land - unique in >governmental policy that it requires the explicit support of the civil >service ?
Do they get similar instructions if they don't support the governments >economic policy ?
Are we as taxpayers expected to sign documents stating our support for
the governments policy before we can access services ?
On 10/06/2025 in message <1028qiq$oebg$2@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:25:54 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about >>>being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy >>>in Gaza.
What makes Gaza - the happenings in what is a far away land - unique in >>governmental policy that it requires the explicit support of the civil >>service ?
Do they get similar instructions if they don't support the governments >>economic policy ?
Are we as taxpayers expected to sign documents stating our support for
the governments policy before we can access services ?
My concern as well. At my age if there had been similar action in the past
I would have read about it but haven't. So what makes Israel/Gaza
special, is there some lobbying going on?
So what makes Israel/Gaza special, is there some lobbying going on?
On 2025-06-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 in message <1028qiq$oebg$2@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:25:54 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about >>>> being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's policy >>>> in Gaza.
What makes Gaza - the happenings in what is a far away land - unique in
governmental policy that it requires the explicit support of the civil
service ?
Do they get similar instructions if they don't support the governments
economic policy ?
Are we as taxpayers expected to sign documents stating our support for
the governments policy before we can access services ?
My concern as well. At my age if there had been similar action in the past >> I would have read about it but haven't. So what makes Israel/Gaza
special, is there some lobbying going on?
Quite the opposite - it's because there are quite a lot of civil
servants who are unhappy about the genocide.
If one or two civil servants don't like a policy then the government
doesn't need to take any notice and it certainly won't be in the news.
But as the article says, there are over 300 foreign office civil
servants who are so unhappy about the Gaza situation that they signed
a letter to the Minister.
On 10/06/2025 04:39 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-10, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 10 Jun 2025 08:25:54 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about >>>> being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's
policy
in Gaza.
They haven't been "told to resign". They've been told that if they have
"profound" disagreement with government policy as regards the department >>> they work in then they should consider whether resignation might be
the best
course of action.
FWIW, I don't think that's particularly uncontroversial. Civil
servants are
professionally obliged to remain politically impartial. If they have
such
strong disagreement with government policy that it is affecting their
ability to do their job with sufficient impartiality, then being a civil >>> servant is probably not their best career option.
The issue of course is when the government has a policy like "supporting
a genocide", which you would hope essentially *all* civil servants would
have a problem with.
IOW, the issue never arises.
No British government has ever had a policy of supporting genocide.
In a supposedly representative democracy, it is natural to question why
the representatives are not reflecting the views of the electorate.
I think the point was that Government policy with respect to Gaza has sharply diverged
from the opinions of many civil servants, and a large proportion of the population.
In a supposedly representative democracy, it is natural to question why the representatives are not reflecting the views of the electorate. A natural suspicion is
that the elected representatives are not being transparent about their motivations.
Corruption, personal incentives, being a natural suspicion,
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p6x1tm3rlje6038@news.individual.net...
snip
So what makes Israel/Gaza special, is there some lobbying going on?
Do you really consider it necessary for there to be "lobbying going on" >before anyone could consider Israel/Gaza "special" ?
On 10/06/2025 19:18, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2025 04:39 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-10, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 10 Jun 2025 08:25:54 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>
I found this interesting in view of the recent discussion in here about >>>>> being unable to say that some bodies have an undue influence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8nzx1475ro
Civil Servants told to resign if they don't like the government's
policy
in Gaza.
They haven't been "told to resign". They've been told that if they have >>>> "profound" disagreement with government policy as regards the department >>>> they work in then they should consider whether resignation might be
the best
course of action.
FWIW, I don't think that's particularly uncontroversial. Civil
servants are
professionally obliged to remain politically impartial. If they have
such
strong disagreement with government policy that it is affecting their
ability to do their job with sufficient impartiality, then being a civil >>>> servant is probably not their best career option.
The issue of course is when the government has a policy like "supporting >>> a genocide", which you would hope essentially *all* civil servants would >>> have a problem with.
IOW, the issue never arises.
No British government has ever had a policy of supporting genocide.
You mustn't say such things!
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:102br14$1us73$1@dont-email.me...
I think the point was that Government policy with respect to Gaza has sharply diverged
from the opinions of many civil servants, and a large proportion of the population.
In a supposedly representative democracy, it is natural to question why the >> representatives are not reflecting the views of the electorate. A natural suspicion is
that the elected representatives are not being transparent about their motivations.
Corruption, personal incentives, being a natural suspicion,
Or more likely, simply not wishing to demonstrate the UK's total
impotence in the matter, by giving Israel the opportunity to totally
ignore or dismiss out of hand whatever it is she may to say. In public
at least. Which can be simply dismissed as virtue signalling gesture
politics in any case, in view of the UK's total impotence *
Whereas whatever might be said behind closed doors, might
be an entirely different matter
Nevertheless, it does sort of make you wonder, what exactly they're teaching them
nowadays, in the Foreign Office,
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 12:58:28 +0100, Pancho wrote:
In a supposedly representative democracy, it is natural to question why
the representatives are not reflecting the views of the electorate.
Maybe they know better ?
On 11/06/2025 in message <102bpar$1uql5$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0p6x1tm3rlje6038@news.individual.net...
snip
So what makes Israel/Gaza special, is there some lobbying going on?
Do you really consider it necessary for there to be "lobbying going on" >>before anyone could consider Israel/Gaza "special" ?
Not sure I understand that?
Our government seems happy for Israel to respond to a terrorist attack by slaughtering
civilians when we actually have experience in dealing with such matters, and managed to
negotiate a peaceful ending.
We usually manage a few weasel-words by which we can support it while wringing
our hands about how awful it is. We must have got pretty close to supporting genocide in the Biafra war.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p6x9og428udn03a@news.individual.net...
On 11/06/2025 in message <102bpar$1uql5$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0p6x1tm3rlje6038@news.individual.net...
snip
So what makes Israel/Gaza special, is there some lobbying going on?
Do you really consider it necessary for there to be "lobbying going on" >>>before anyone could consider Israel/Gaza "special" ?
Not sure I understand that?
Our government seems happy for Israel to respond to a terrorist attack by >>slaughtering civilians when we actually have experience in dealing with >>such matters, and managed to negotiate a peaceful ending.
Really ? So what did we do about all the refugees ?
Hint: there weren't any.
So not the same at all, then.
So to repeat my question: why do you consider it necessary for there to
be "lobbying going on" before anyone should consider Israel/Gaza "special"
?
On 11/06/2025 15:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
We usually manage a few weasel-words by which we can support it while
wringing
our hands about how awful it is. We must have got pretty close to
supporting
genocide in the Biafra war.
You could say that the British caused the Biafra war. With the end of colonisation, we rapidly cobbled together countries without proper
regard to enmities going back hundreds of years. We then gave them a constitution, and told them to get on with things. It's really a tribute
to their good sense that things have not been an awful lot worse.
On 11/06/2025 15:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
We usually manage a few weasel-words by which we can support it while
wringing
our hands about how awful it is. We must have got pretty close to
supporting
genocide in the Biafra war.
You could say that the British caused the Biafra war. With the end of colonisation, we rapidly cobbled together countries without proper
regard to enmities going back hundreds of years. We then gave them a constitution, and told them to get on with things. It's really a tribute
to their good sense that things have not been an awful lot worse.
On 11/06/2025 17:32, GB wrote:
On 11/06/2025 15:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
We usually manage a few weasel-words by which we can support it while
wringing
our hands about how awful it is. We must have got pretty close to
supporting
genocide in the Biafra war.
You could say that the British caused the Biafra war. With the end of
colonisation, we rapidly cobbled together countries without proper
regard to enmities going back hundreds of years. We then gave them a
constitution, and told them to get on with things. It's really a tribute
to their good sense that things have not been an awful lot worse.
And if we had not, there would have been the usual action against those 'awful colonists and empire builders', etc. If Britain had even simply retained some form of advice or guidance, the same would have resulted. Either way, you can't win.
On 11/06/2025 in message <102c3h3$21a0r$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0p6x9og428udn03a@news.individual.net...
On 11/06/2025 in message <102bpar$1uql5$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>news:xn0p6x1tm3rlje6038@news.individual.net...
snip
So what makes Israel/Gaza special, is there some lobbying going on?
Do you really consider it necessary for there to be "lobbying going on" >>>>before anyone could consider Israel/Gaza "special" ?
Not sure I understand that?
Our government seems happy for Israel to respond to a terrorist attack by slaughtering
civilians when we actually have experience in dealing with such matters, and managed
to negotiate a peaceful ending.
Really ? So what did we do about all the refugees ?
What refugees?
Hint: there weren't any.
I expect a few people moved but doubt they qualify as refugees.
So not the same at all, then.
??
So to repeat my question: why do you consider it necessary for there to
be "lobbying going on" before anyone should consider Israel/Gaza "special" ?
And to repeat myself I don't understand that.
On 6/11/25 14:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:102br14$1us73$1@dont-email.me...
I think the point was that Government policy with respect to Gaza has sharply
diverged
from the opinions of many civil servants, and a large proportion of the population.
In a supposedly representative democracy, it is natural to question why the >>> representatives are not reflecting the views of the electorate. A natural suspicion
is
that the elected representatives are not being transparent about their motivations.
Corruption, personal incentives, being a natural suspicion,
Or more likely, simply not wishing to demonstrate the UK's total
impotence in the matter, by giving Israel the opportunity to totally
ignore or dismiss out of hand whatever it is she may to say. In public
at least. Which can be simply dismissed as virtue signalling gesture
politics in any case, in view of the UK's total impotence *
The issue is with respect to the UK's active support of Israel, nothing
to do with pride or fear of impotence. Reasonable people do not want to
be complicit with ethnic cleansing.
Israel is not a big country, it is not self-sufficient. It is dependent upon the
support of the USA, Europe and UK. Zionist influence is powerful, but it is also
fragile.
Whereas whatever might be said behind closed doors, mightI don't know what you mean? Concern about our government enabling war
be an entirely different matter
Nevertheless, it does sort of make you wonder, what exactly they're
teaching them nowadays, in the Foreign Office,
crimes seems reasonable to me.
On 11/06/2025 15:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
We usually manage a few weasel-words by which we can support it while >>wringing
our hands about how awful it is. We must have got pretty close to >>supporting
genocide in the Biafra war.
You could say that the British caused the Biafra war. With the end of >colonisation, we rapidly cobbled together countries without proper regard
to enmities going back hundreds of years. We then gave them a
constitution, and told them to get on with things. It's really a tribute
to their good sense that things have not been an awful lot worse.
So to repeat my question: why do you consider it necessary for there to >>>be "lobbying going on" before anyone should consider Israel/Gaza "special" >>>?
And to repeat myself I don't understand that.
You asked above "So what makes Israel/Gaza special" ?
And I'm asking you, why you don't think it's special.
When it appears that everyone else does.
Unless of course you can think of any examples of other
people, public figures, who just like yourself, don't
think it's special either
On 11/06/2025 in message <102cdam$23kck$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
So to repeat my question: why do you consider it necessary for there to >>>>be "lobbying going on" before anyone should consider Israel/Gaza "special" ?
And to repeat myself I don't understand that.
You asked above "So what makes Israel/Gaza special" ?
And I'm asking you, why you don't think it's special.
When it appears that everyone else does.
Unless of course you can think of any examples of other
people, public figures, who just like yourself, don't
think it's special either
I said that in the context of not having heard of a similar edict from government
before, so why is there one for Gaza?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p6xjsmb62md003@news.individual.net...
On 11/06/2025 in message <102cdam$23kck$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
So to repeat my question: why do you consider it necessary for there to >>>>>be "lobbying going on" before anyone should consider Israel/Gaza "special" >>>>>?
And to repeat myself I don't understand that.
You asked above "So what makes Israel/Gaza special" ?
And I'm asking you, why you don't think it's special.
When it appears that everyone else does.
Unless of course you can think of any examples of other
people, public figures, who just like yourself, don't
think it's special either
I said that in the context of not having heard of a similar edict from >>government
before, so why is there one for Gaza?
As has already been pointed out, this is simply a re-iteration
of Standard Civil Service Policy and Procedure. There is
nothing new here, at all.
The two questions you need to ask yourself are
a) If there had been similar "edicts" from Government in the past
is it likely you would ever have heard of them ? Would they be
considered newsworthy ? And why would anyone release such
information to a journalist ? What purpose would it have served ?
b) Why has someone gone out of their way to release this particular >information now ? Why do they want people to know about
this ?
One possible answer to b) is that the information had been "Leaked"
by an Anti-SZ* leaning Civil Servant in the FO to a named BBC
correspondent ** apparently eager for a "scoop". While appearing to be >totally oblivious to the fact' that it could clearly serve as soft
Anti-SZ propoganda.
As it clearly seems to have done, in your case.
Just because some people may demand the "right to know" doesn't mean
others aren't going to spoon feed them selected snippets of information
in order to serve their own purposes.
The first question to ask yourself in respect of any piece of information,
is "why is this person telling me this" ?
The BBC correspondent was obviously being paid, and was glad of the story; >but why should someone have gone out of their way to feed it to him ?
What were "they" hoping to achieve ?
** This is assuming the story is a BBC scoop. Given the BBC correspondent
is actually named, it's probably best to leave things at that.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p6xjsmb62md003@news.individual.net...
On 11/06/2025 in message <102cdam$23kck$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
So to repeat my question: why do you consider it necessary for there to >>>>> be "lobbying going on" before anyone should consider Israel/Gaza "special" ?
And to repeat myself I don't understand that.
You asked above "So what makes Israel/Gaza special" ?
And I'm asking you, why you don't think it's special.
When it appears that everyone else does.
Unless of course you can think of any examples of other
people, public figures, who just like yourself, don't
think it's special either
I said that in the context of not having heard of a similar edict from
government
before, so why is there one for Gaza?
As has already been pointed out, this is simply a re-iteration
of Standard Civil Service Policy and Procedure. There is
nothing new here, at all.
The two questions you need to ask yourself are
a) If there had been similar "edicts" from Government in the past
is it likely you would ever have heard of them ? Would they be
considered newsworthy ? And why would anyone release such
information to a journalist ? What purpose would it have served ?
b) Why has someone gone out of their way to release this particular information now ? Why do they want people to know about
this ?
One possible answer to b) is that the information had been "Leaked"
by an Anti-SZ* leaning Civil Servant in the FO to a named BBC
correspondent ** apparently eager for a "scoop". While appearing to be totally oblivious to the fact' that it could clearly serve as soft
Anti-SZ propoganda.
As it clearly seems to have done, in your case.
Just because some people may demand the "right to know" doesn't mean
others aren't going to spoon feed them selected snippets of information
in order to serve their own purposes.
The first question to ask yourself in respect of any piece of information,
is "why is this person telling me this" ?
The BBC correspondent was obviously being paid, and was glad of the story; but why should someone have gone out of their way to feed it to him ?
What were "they" hoping to achieve ?
bb
* Anti Semitic and/or Anti Zionist
** This is assuming the story is a BBC scoop. Given the BBC correspondent
is actually named, it's probably best to leave things at that.
** This is assuming the story is a BBC scoop. Given the BBC correspondent >>is actually named, it's probably best to leave things at that.
One very obvious reason why this policy is newsworthy is that there may not >have been any previous occasions when hundreds of civil servants have put >their names to a protest about a particular policy.
While it may always have been the case that people with a conscientious >objection to government policy should resign from the Civil Service, it may >not have been newsworthy if there were only one or two of them at a time.
One very obvious reason why this policy is newsworthy is that there may not have been any previous occasions when hundreds of civil servants have put their names to a protest about a particular policy.
While it may always have been the case that people with a conscientious objection to government policy should resign from the Civil Service, it may not have been newsworthy if there were only one or two of them at a time.
On 12/06/2025 in message <102e1e7$2ilcj$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0p6xjsmb62md003@news.individual.net...
On 11/06/2025 in message <102cdam$23kck$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
So to repeat my question: why do you consider it necessary for there to >>>>>>be "lobbying going on" before anyone should consider Israel/Gaza "special" ?
And to repeat myself I don't understand that.
You asked above "So what makes Israel/Gaza special" ?
And I'm asking you, why you don't think it's special.
When it appears that everyone else does.
Unless of course you can think of any examples of other
people, public figures, who just like yourself, don't
think it's special either
I said that in the context of not having heard of a similar edict from government
before, so why is there one for Gaza?
As has already been pointed out, this is simply a re-iteration
of Standard Civil Service Policy and Procedure. There is
nothing new here, at all.
The two questions you need to ask yourself are
a) If there had been similar "edicts" from Government in the past
is it likely you would ever have heard of them ? Would they be
considered newsworthy ? And why would anyone release such
information to a journalist ? What purpose would it have served ?
I think so, I keep fairly up to date with the news, if there had been other similar
incidents wouldn't people have pointed them out in this thread?
b) Why has someone gone out of their way to release this particular >>information now ? Why do they want people to know about
this ?
Because it is one of the topics that is constantly in the news so very news worthy.
One possible answer to b) is that the information had been "Leaked"
by an Anti-SZ* leaning Civil Servant in the FO to a named BBC
correspondent ** apparently eager for a "scoop". While appearing to be >>totally oblivious to the fact' that it could clearly serve as soft
Anti-SZ propoganda.
As it clearly seems to have done, in your case.
It's about Israel slaughtering Palestinian civilians in Gaza, there is nothing to stop
anybody expressing sympathy for the Palestinians.
Just because some people may demand the "right to know" doesn't mean
others aren't going to spoon feed them selected snippets of information
in order to serve their own purposes.
Don't understand that, I had hoped that people might point out when it has happened
before but no, does that mean it hasn't happened before?
The first question to ask yourself in respect of any piece of information, >>is "why is this person telling me this" ?
The BBC correspondent was obviously being paid, and was glad of the story; >>but why should someone have gone out of their way to feed it to him ?
What were "they" hoping to achieve ?
Because it is one of the topics that is constantly in the news so very news worthy.
** This is assuming the story is a BBC scoop. Given the BBC correspondent >>is actually named, it's probably best to leave things at that.
Why?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p6yjhe16d2ul007@news.individual.net...
On 12/06/2025 in message <102e1e7$2ilcj$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0p6xjsmb62md003@news.individual.net...
On 11/06/2025 in message <102cdam$23kck$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>wrote:
So to repeat my question: why do you consider it necessary for there >>>>>>>to
be "lobbying going on" before anyone should consider Israel/Gaza "special"
?
And to repeat myself I don't understand that.
You asked above "So what makes Israel/Gaza special" ?
And I'm asking you, why you don't think it's special.
When it appears that everyone else does.
Unless of course you can think of any examples of other
people, public figures, who just like yourself, don't
think it's special either
I said that in the context of not having heard of a similar edict from >>>>government
before, so why is there one for Gaza?
As has already been pointed out, this is simply a re-iteration
of Standard Civil Service Policy and Procedure. There is
nothing new here, at all.
The two questions you need to ask yourself are
a) If there had been similar "edicts" from Government in the past
is it likely you would ever have heard of them ? Would they be >>>considered newsworthy ? And why would anyone release such
information to a journalist ? What purpose would it have served ?
I think so, I keep fairly up to date with the news, if there had been
other similar
incidents wouldn't people have pointed them out in this thread?
So don't you imagine there was similar unease among some Civil
Servants during the Iraq War ? Do you not think they would also
have been offered the option to resign ? And then it was British
forces actually killing Iraqi civilians; and for what purpose ?
Did Iraq ever pose a direct threat to the UK ?
Er no.
And yet now just, because the UK is simply offering proxy support
to a State which is fighting for its very existence, as it has
been doing with the West's blessing, ever since 1948, all these
civil servants are all getting so upset, when the Govt tells them
to just get on with their jobs.
The BBC correspondent was obviously being paid, and was glad of the >>>story;
but why should someone have gone out of their way to feed it to him ? >>>What were "they" hoping to achieve ?
Because it is one of the topics that is constantly in the news so very
news worthy.
** This is assuming the story is a BBC scoop. Given the BBC correspondent >>>is actually named, it's probably best to leave things at that.
Why?
Because accusing journalists of being unwitting stooges in relaying >Anti-Semitic propaganda, which can be interpreted as implying that the >Foreign Office is being controlled by Zionists intent on stifling
Civil Service criticism of Israel - thus offering succour to knuckle
dragging anti-semites - is highly defamatory.
Which is why I would never be party to any such accusations.
I said that in the context of not having heard of a similar edict from government before, so why is there one for Gaza?
If you have any ideas about what Israel can do about Hamas I'm sure they'd >love to hear.
On 11/06/2025 21:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I said that in the context of not having heard of a similar edict from
government before, so why is there one for Gaza?
I read the article, and did one quick google.
The reason for the "edict" is that about 300 of the 17,000 or so Foreign Office staff wrote to their management saying they were unhappy about
what Israel was doing in Gaza.
To quote the BBC,
"They [senior management] wrote that officials were entitled to their personal views, but added it "might be helpful" to "remind" them of mechanisms available to those uncomfortable with policy.
"It went on to list a series of ways staff could raise issues, before
adding that resignation was an "ultimate recourse" and "honourable
course" for those with profound disagreements over government policy"
If you have any ideas about what Israel can do about Hamas I'm sure
they'd love to hear.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:43:36 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |