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 suspect it's a generation thing and people my (our?) age still have a BBC tab in our browsers and sometimes watch its TV news and current affairs programmes (though I personally don't any more), but the under 25s or 30s probably don't.
Which, if it means they limit their exposure to the likes of obvious Conservative Party shills like Kuenssberg and the dreadful Fiona Bruce, can only be a good thing.
I suspect it's a generation thing and people my (our?) age still have a BBC tab in our browsers and sometimes watch its TV news and current affairs programmes (though I personally don't any more), but the under 25s or 30s probably don't.
Which, if it means they limit their exposure to the likes of obvious Conservative Party shills like Kuenssberg and the dreadful Fiona Bruce, can only be a good thing.
Yh i can buy the key personas are shills. Andrew neil was just so obviously biased
But the day to day im less sure on
34 fwiw
I suspect it's a generation thing and people my (our?) age still have a BBC tab in our browsers and sometimes watch its TV news and current affairs programmes (though I personally don't any more), but the under 25s or 30s probably don't.
Which, if it means they limit their exposure to the likes of obvious Conservative Party shills like Kuenssberg and the dreadful Fiona Bruce, can only be a good thing.
We do in italy... at least those among us interested in british affairs.
That explains a lot.
for actual serious crimes I find 20% of agree/strong agree quite absurdly high actually.
maybe I overestimate people?
No, that's still 80% against, and the poll was taken on 7-8 August, at the height of the riots, before people started appearing in court and getting banged up for those crimes, which has evidently had a severe dampening effect.
A Muslim man has been sentenced to 20 months in prison for throwing missiles at far-right protesters who had thrown alcohol at him after the judge told him he should “rise above their simply obnoxious racism”.
Amer Walid, 24, of Central Park Towers in Plymouth, was seen throwing cans back at far-right rioters on four occasions in the south-west city on Monday 5 August.
Far-right rioters tried to confront an anti-racist rally for several hours, throwing missiles and fireworks. The clash was one of several across the country as racists attacked mosques and residential areas, wrongly attributing the murder of three children in Stockport to a migrant.
Walid, who has no previous convictions, said he became angry after a bottle or can of alcohol was thrown at him, as he doesn’t drink.
The court heard he shouted Allah Akbar, in reaction to racist slurs being chanted by far-right rioters.
Sentencing Walid, Judge Robert Linford said he accepted he had not been “looking for trouble” and that far-right rioters had been throwing missiles and making “deeply offensive racist chants”.
“What you should have done was rise above their simply obnoxious racism”, he said.
“You were capable of doing that but you didn’t, instead what you did was throw four missiles of one sort or another at the group opposite.”
what a pompous ****
Doesn't do much for Elon's claim of 'two-tier policing' prejudiced against white people, though.
Doesn't do much for Elon's claim of 'two-tier policing' prejudiced against white people, though.
Given in the same article, for the same offense, a presumably white person got 30 months, no
Ryan Bailey, 41, was given 30 months for throwing missiles at the anti-fascist counter-protest and was heard shouting “immigrants not welcome here”.
Given in the same article, for the same offense, a presumably white person got 30 months, no
Ryan Bailey, 41, was given 30 months for throwing missiles at the anti-fascist counter-protest and was heard shouting “immigrants not welcome here”.
I thought your philosophy was that responding to violence with violence was justified so wouldn't you be prefer if the retaliation wasn't prosecuted at all?
Under the actual law, being provoked doesn't justify the actions but can make sentencing more lenient, which explains the discrepency in this instance.
Given in the same article, for the same offense, a presumably white person got 30 months, no
Ryan Bailey, 41, was given 30 months for throwing missiles at the anti-fascist counter-protest and was heard shouting “immigrants not welcome here”.
I found the BBC article of what happened, as it was pretty obvious Chez's link was an activist left wing site that was going to be selective of the facts. The right-wing guy who was given 30 months threw one firework. The Muslim guys threw 4 "missiles". The article didn't elaborate what the "missile" was, so I have no clue what the Muslim guy actually threw and how that should relate to the sentencing.
They both were being verbally antagonistic, which would be irrelevant in American context, but given Brits are being give 1+ year sentences just for verbal "crimes," it presumably played some factor in these cases.
Other mitigating factors were the right wing guy was basically a career petty criminal and the Muslim guy had no record.
The irony is that Britain has a major problem in that it doesn't pay white collar skilled labor enough, and it is absolutely bleeding high net worth individuals; which has devastated growth over the last decade. If Britain wanted to actually compete with the rest of the world (especially the rest of the Anglosphere) and grow economically; those discrepancies should be larger.
Maybe the ultra marxist Plymouth Live will help clear things up
Man who was 'defending religion' jailed after Plymouth riots
Amer Walid was told by the Judge he should have risen above the "obnoxious racism" he encountered on Royal Parade
A 24-year-old Muslim man who felt offended after having a can of beer thrown at him by anti-immigration protestors at a Plymouth protest, has been jailed.
Amer Walid, aged 24 of Central Park Avenue, Plymouth, appeared at Plymouth Crown Court on Tuesday August 13 to be sentenced after he admitted the charge of violent disorder in Plymouth on August 5.
Prosecutor Lewis Aldous told the court how Walid threw "at least" four objects towards the opposing group on the night and was seen chanting and gesturing towards police officers keeping the two sets of protestors apart.
The court heard Walid had been to a mosque before going to the protest on the Civic Centre side of Royal Parade. He told police he was aware of the protest on social media and attended to defend his religion.
Mr Aldous said the can of beer landed at his feet and that it made him angry. He did not drink alcohol and threw it back.
He initially claimed he only threw one item but after being shown BodyWornVideo footage taken by police he accepted he threw a number of items.
When it was explained that this was an act of violence and a criminal offence Mr Aldous told the court that Walid said he said he "did not know that and the law should have been explained to him before".
He said he was angry and he and others were shouting "things like 'Allahu Akbar' at the opposing side". Mr Aldous noted that Walid, who listened to proceedings through a Sorani Kurdish interpreter, had no previous convictions.
In mitigation, his advocate Zoe Kuyken, said that given the fireworks being thrown and the "very religiously offensive phrases being said" on that night there was an "unsurprisingly a level of fear both in Mr Walid and those around him".
She said he told police he attended the event not expecting it to be violent was expecting to be shown solidarity with those in his community.
She referenced the number of people from his community in the public gallery of the courtroom and how important his religion was to him, adding that Walid, who worked in a car wash, "was particularly offended to have alcoholic beverages thrown at him when he doesn't drink for religious reasons".
He told police that the terms he shouted were in praise of Allah in reply to the phrases being shouted at him which were offensive to the Muslim community.
Ms Kuyken emphasised that he had never been in trouble before, lived alone, was self employed and had a good background in his community.
She also emphasised that he he had "only positive" feelings towards the police. She said he apologised and was remorseful for what he had done.
Judge Robert Linford told Walid that a number of people had come into the city to protest - and counter- protest peacefully and Walid was "one of those", adding "you did not come into the city looking for trouble."
He added: "People on the other side of Royal Parade were looking for trouble. They were throwing missiles and they were chanting deeply offensive, racist chants.
"You're 24 years old and you've never been in any trouble in your life. What you should have done was simply rise above their obnoxious racism."
He said Walid was capable of doing that but instead he threw four missiles at the group opposite which started because a tin containing alcohol had been thrown at him and he became angry.
Judge Linford said he was "more than satisfied" that what took place was "as a result of provocation" by people on the other side of the divide issuing racist words towards people on your side of Royal Parade".
As such he said this combined to reduce the sentence to 20 months adding that what had taken place was "too serious for any other than immediate custody".
Jalfrezi and I have much argued this before. I oppose this sort of violence but once the judge finds the bit in bold then a suspended sentance should have been the absolute maximum punishment.
and this
What you should have done was simply rise above their obnoxious racism.
makes him a pompous pillock as well
I found the BBC article of what happened, as it was pretty obvious Chez's link was an activist left wing site that was going to be selective of the facts. The right-wing guy who was given 30 months threw one firework. The Muslim guys threw 4 "missiles". The article didn't elaborate what the "missile" was, so I have no clue what the Muslim guy actually threw and how that should relate to the sentencing.
They both were being verbally antagonistic, which would be irrelevant in American context,
"how surprising", but anyway even chez article clearly (if you read the small print) told us that the UK has 2 tiers. White 30 months, other ethnicities 20 months, for (at least) the same offence.
It does not
so going forward are all these fat blokes getting 20-30 months in prison?
actually, they could use the footage and punish them retroactively
I thought your philosophy was that responding to violence with violence was justified so wouldn't you be prefer if the retaliation wasn't prosecuted at all?
Under the actual law, being provoked doesn't justify the actions but can make sentencing more lenient, which explains the discrepency in this instance.
Counterprotesting is going there to **** up with people on purpose to **** up. Your point being you deny the protestors they right to make their claims, even if authorities don't.
If a place is targeted by lviolent protests , the place owner should be allowed to self defend without limit if he is the victim of violence.
If you know people will go to protest somewhere and you go there on purpose to counterprotest you are already doing something very close to a crime (looking for an extra-legal violence opportunity on purpose), which in general shouldn't be allowed at all (protests, as they happen in public places and make them unusable by the taxpayers who built and upkept them, should be approved by authorities, and counterprotests basically should never be approved).
Counterprotesting is a very heinous activity per se (yes that's true for rightwing counterprotests as well), and doesn't give you self defense justifications. You are there on purpose to mess up with people.
So pompouse to tell adults that other people speech never justifies a violent reaction. "how pompous" to teach a lesson normal people internalize between the age of 6 and 8 and live with that lesson their entire existence.
How can you be part of civil society if you feel you have a right to use physical violence when people say things you disagree with, including things that you find personally deeply insulting? If you are a decent person it never even comes into mind the possibility of being violent toward someone who simple speaks stuff.
"it should be illegal to resist the blackshirts" is a pretty weird thing for a supposed libertarian to say
Defending against rioters and racist attacks is okay. I argue against violence but a suspended sentence for this should heve been the absolute max.
This was not speech. This was communities under racist attack.
I argue against violence but a suspended sentence for this should heve been the absolute max.
This was not speech. This was communities under racist attack.
So pompouse to tell adults that other people speech never justifies a violent reaction. "how pompous" to teach a lesson normal people internalize between the age of 6 and 8 and live with that lesson their entire existence.
How can you be part of civil society if you feel you have a right to use physical violence when people say things you disagree with, including things that you find personally deeply insulting? If you are a decent person it never even comes into mind the possibility of being vio
Leftists (and Islamists if you consider them a separate category) have been pretty much given carte blanche to engage in mild violence over the last few years. The fact they would be prosecuted and punished at all must come as a shock given precedent.
I argue against violence but a suspended sentence for this should heve been the absolute max.
This was not speech. This was communities under racist attack.
Were the missiles thrown specifically against people waging PHYSICAL violence ? was that the finding of the court? because maybe that's the part we are analyzing VERY differently.
Say the guy sees someone doing violence toward "his group" and throws missiles at him. For me that's ok. not even a suspended sentence. There is nothing illegal in self defence and that can be generalized to trying to defend members of your group. All fine.
But if the missiles are generically thrown toward a crowd which is chanting racist stuff, with a few members of that crowd ELSEWHERE doing physical violence, that's violence vs speech, and yes, that's a huge, dramatic difference.
Do you see the enormous difference? the chanting people are protesting peacefully and have a right to do so.
Were the missiles thrown specifically against people waging PHYSICAL violence ? was that the finding of the court? because maybe that's the part we are analyzing VERY differently.
Say the guy sees someone doing violence toward "his group" and throws missiles at him. For me that's ok. not even a suspended sentence. There is nothing illegal in self defence and that can be generalized to trying to defend members of your group. All fine.
But if the missiles are generically thrown toward a crowd which
They aren't as bad as the activists sites, but even BBC is going to slant the reporting to conform to their preferred narrative. I think you and Chez are both falling into the trap (you less than him) of interpreting the events in a way the media wants you to, where reality of what actually happened is likely to be very different.
