British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
I mean the media went for a couple of days with "suspect of Trump attempted assassination is a republican" so it can't really get more nefarious and ill intended than that, really.
Classic way to report a crime in Italy is putting age/sex/location of origin for suspect/perpetrator.
Initials as well when available (full name only when a judge clears that).
When it's an italian (and remember here italian citizens are 98%+ white, unlike residents who are "only" 94-95% white) they write italian as well.
So like "police stopped E.R, 42 y old italian man from Ancona, for the robbery at the bank in Pesaro" is the normal way we get news on violent crimes.
When ethnicity is known and it's not italian, they tend to report it but buried in the article (which as we all know, more than 80% of people on social media never read)
Everyone with an Italian passport or citizenship can and should be described as Italian, right?
And why are you citing immigrants and crime when the graph I posted shows crime levels have been dropping?
it can yes but given we tend to give ancestry even for italians (like a person from Sicily who commits a crime in Milan would be something that gets mentioned), if ancestry isn't italian it should be mentioned as well.
But anyway as i said above, for now the vast majority of italian citizens are of italian ancestry anyway so the point (for now) very rarely matters.
Naturalization is very hard in Italy (compared to other countries), there is no birth right to citizenship and no automatica naturalization path even if born here. You can start naturalization processes after 10 years here and you are required not to have left the country for long ever so it's complicated, we are keeping italian citizenship actually italian, for now.
And why are you citing immigrants and crime when the graph I posted shows crime levels have been dropping?
If the graph is from Italy, crime is expected to drop like a stone to "close to no crime at all" because almost all violent crime is committed by young uneducated poor adult males, and in some regions, we would have approx 0 actually italian young uneducated poor adult males if it wasn't for immigration.
Ie, the expected violent street crime in Italy with the aging population would be that of Japan (at least in northern italy). Like almost none at all ever. That's the baseline.
We would have 0 riots ever about anything, almost no car break in, clean stations and so on and on. Again, Japan is our baseline in a no-immigration scenario.
We would have like 0-1 machete attacks per year in the streets for example. 0-1 raped old women in parks. And so on. 0 unvoluntary homeless people,
We would have completly solved street crime for all practical purposes like Japan did.
Anyway this is one of the videos of the arrests for speech.
The police woman says clearly that he is being arrested and taken for questioning because of "obscene comments" on a facebook page, that people complained about.
No participation in riots, no mentioning of violent riots at all
https://x.com/PeterSweden7/status/182055...
Pls disregard the source which, as i said, i know is bad. But the video speaks for itself i suppose.
Unclear why he can't be questioned at home btw.
That X account looks pretty sus. How does he know the suspect is "elderly"?
A 28-year-old man has been charged with posting content online intending to stir up racial hatred, in relation to this past week's violent disorder.
Jordan Parlour, of Seacroft in Leeds, is the first individual to face prosecution for posting allegedly criminal messages linked to the violence.
Nick Price, of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said that it had authorised West Yorkshire Police to charge Parlour with using threatening words or behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred.
The charge relates to alleged Facebook posts between 1 and 5 August in connection with the public disorder.
"It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings," Price said.
Parlour is due to appear at Leeds Magistrates’ Court today, although the precise timing is unclear as racial hatred prosecutions must be authorised by the attorney general. The maximum sentence is seven years.
As we have hate crimes covering things said verbally it's only logical to have the equivalent for online comments imo.
Police should tell people what they know about suspects as soon as they confirm information, everytime ethnicity/religion/sex/age/sexual leaning can be material to the motive of heinous crimes.
And when suspects are white heterosexual christians or atheists we always get to know that IMMEDIATLY.
And media should put ethnicity/religion and so on *in the headlines* , as that's by far the most sought after information every time, and we are accostumed by now to presume it's non-white and minority rel
I can't think of any good reason for the police to reveal that informnation. Especially urgently when mistakes will inevitably be made. Sure there's lot of noise from those demanding to know but not for any good reason.
The courts decide what incitment is. I wouldn't block social media sites at all - fine them significantly and they can chose to comply or block themselves. Regulated media is the norm and it doesn't stiffle public debate. Social media will cope just fine.
Your 'Hungary' argument is basically that laws can be bad therefore we shouldnt have laws. It's obviously false.
I can't think of any good reason for the police to reveal that informnation. Especially urgently when mistakes will inevitably be made. Sure there's lot of noise from those demanding to know but not for any good reason.
The courts decide what incitment is. I wouldn't block social media sites at all - fine them significantly and they can chose to comply or block themselves. Regulated media is the norm and it doesn't stiffle public debate. Social media will cope just fine.
Your 'Hungary' argument is
Well the judge could. And the reason would be, to reduce the impact of misinformation about those exact details, which matter for a lot of people.
As i said, information has to be released immediatly *upon confirmation*.
Anyway from jalfrezi links, it appears in order to be arrested for a facebook comment, the judiciary has to authorize that, so it's less insane than i thought.
My Hungary comment was about laws of a single nation affectiing other nations. Again i ask: what is a social media company going to do, if the UK bans some content which is legal in Italy, Spain and the USA (for example)? what should they do and why?
I think the regulations should be about "make content unaccessible to people in my country when so ordered by authorities under the law", the expectation of self-censorship for platform that work on user-generated content is completly absurd, it automatically leads to huge self-censorship to cover your ass.
And btw, not sure you have noticed, but social media proved beyond reasonable doubt that "normal", regulated media did indeed suck balls horribly.
They completly invented stuff all the times, directed the narrative the way they wanted on everything destroying truth, and gaslighted generations of people. Truly the enemy of the people. And not only recently.
Yes the judges job is to decide if the accused details should be kept private. That is how it should be.
I agree self-censorship is absurd. That's what laws and regulation are for. But no-one is gong to force a company to operate here- if they dont like the laws/regulation in the UK they are free not to operate here.
Social media has much to offer but it can't be unregulated.
Yes the judges job is to decide if the accused details should be kept private. That is how it should be.
I agree self-censorship is absurd. That's what laws and regulation are for. But no-one is gong to force a company to operate here- if they dont like the laws/regulation in the UK they are free not to operate here.
Social media has much to offer but it can't be unregulated.
No that was about the name because he was a minor from what i read.
Again what would you have against simple rules where social media is obliged to remove content if ordered to do so by authorities according to the law? because that would be the normal way, not fining a company for not removing content "quickly" before it has been flagged as objectively unlawful by a legal authority.
Self censorship happens if you can be liable without authorities having notified you that the content does indeed break the line
No that was about the name because he was a minor from what i read.
Again what would you have against simple rules where social media is obliged to remove content if ordered to do so by authorities according to the law? because that would be the normal way, not fining a company for not removing content "quickly" before it has been flagged as objectively unlawful by a legal authority.
Self censorship happens if you can be liable without authorities having notified you that the content does indeed b
The press work from the name. They can publish details to their hearts content unless the courts say otherwise. it's not the job of the police.
The authoriities having to tell them what to remover after the fact is not normal at all. The companies are responsible for their content. If it breaches the rules then they get punished.
I woke up this morning and my whole Twitter feed seems to be showing gangs of armed "Muslim" men walking around menacingly, including menacing reporters; and occasionally beating up white people who dont run away fast enough.
Who is it that is rioting again?
You with disinformation, in this thread.
By disinformation, if you mean true, but doesn't fit the narrative, then fair enough.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are completely unaware of this, as there is a complete MSM media blackout. But if you want I can post tweets. Lots of weapons, lots of intimidation (especially of media), and sporadic violence always targeting white people.
I am guessing it is temporary (this time) and things will cool down. But the way things are going I think it is definitely in the cards that Britain will eventually go the way of Lebanon; with sectarian violence and armed ethno-religious vigilante militias/gangs claiming territory and forming states within a state.
It appears it is in Birgimham that armed non-white thugs assaulted reporters and a pub yes
--And of course you get the standard harassment of Jews for being Jews, that is pretty much just part and parcel of being a Jew in Britain at this point.
Race/religion/resident status of suspects and/or perpetrators of crimes is routinely withheld in Italy, France, Germany, Spain and so on as well.
In Italy we just assume it's an immigrant if we aren't explicitly told otherwise, and that's correct 98%+ of the times.
yh well it doesn't happen here, in the uk, where you are commenting
Anyway this is one of the videos of the arrests for speech.
The police woman says clearly that he is being arrested and taken for questioning because of "obscene comments" on a facebook page, that people complained about.
No participation in riots, no mentioning of violent riots at all
https://x.com/PeterSweden7/status/182055...
Pls disregard the source which, as i said, i know is bad. But the video speaks for itself i suppose.
Unclear why he can't be questioned at home btw.
but you haven't seen the actual comments?
Following online rumours of another far right riot in an area of Birmingham a group of masked people armed with knives attacked the pub slated to be the focal point of the far right.
A bad mistake and poor behaviour but at least
Muslim elders visited the Clumsy Swan on Monday night “to apologise to the staff for Muslim youths attacking a customer who they believed was a far-right rioter”.
which is something you’ll never get from the neo fascists.
