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 dont think that's the correct analsysis.
He was in the wrong and being found guilty is correct. However defense even ill advised is totally different to violent attackers who went looking to make trouble. So he should be sentence very differently.
That's going by the judges own summing up.
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.
According to jalfrezi and the other guy, BBC is heavily skewed against the left...
I dont think that's the correct analsysis.
He was in the wrong and being found guilty is correct. However defense even ill advised is totally different to violent attackers who went looking to make trouble. So he should be sentence very differently.
That's going by the judges own summing up.
It is not defense if you aren't acting against physical violence. Speech is never violence. And if you counterprotest you are there to make trouble. That's what you guys said about rittenhouse. But he defended against actual violence, and that was legal.
fwiw I think the BBC is in the center. We just dont like where the center is.
It is not defense if you aren't acting against physical violence. Speech is never violence. And if you counterprotest you are there to make trouble. That's what you guys said about rittenhouse. But he defended against actual violence, and that was legal.
This was not speech. This was communities under racist attack.
I think we're going round in circles
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
Did you even read any part of the articles? He had something thrown at him so he threw things back at the people who threw at him first. Your argument is directly supporting his actions as being justified.
Did you even read any part of the articles? He had something thrown at him so he threw things back at the people who threw at him first. Your argument is directly supporting his actions as being justified.
No he had a can thrown at him and he later threw missiles at the crowd, not at the specific individual who threw him (or his friends) something. And btw PER ARTICLE, the can of beer LANDED AT HIS FEET, so he wasn't hit. He got offended because it's alcohol, not halal, not sure if you got the trigger right here.
Responsibility is strictly individual in western countries, we aren't at the mao tsetung stage yet.
I understand it can be close to impossible to properly identify who in a crowd acted violently against you to exact proper (and justified) revenge. Which is why you don't throw missiles at crowds
Did you even read any part of the articles? He had something thrown at him so he threw things back at the people who threw at him first. Your argument is directly supporting his actions as being justified.
He ddin't help his case by saying he was offended by the drink rather than the fact of a missile.
but it's just not reasonable to expect people defending in such a heated, scary environment to have great judgement. First offence - suspended sentence is more than enough.
They aren't DEFENDING, they are there to oppose the merits of the original protest, you can't work with the idea that you AGREE with their counter protest merits, that's immaterial.
You are justifying him because you agree with his political position
This was not speech or protest. This was communities under racist attack.
I think we're going round in circles
I'm also btw against ott punishment of some on the other side. Those actually being done for just saying stuff should be kept out of prison wherever possible imo.
I'm also btw against ott punishment of some on the other side. Those actually being done for just saying stuff should be kept out of prison wherever possible imo.
It shouldn't be a crime to be a racist and talk as one, but it is in your country (although it's unclear when exactly that becomes a crime), against basic freedom of speech unalienable rights.
Unfortunately the glorious "unwritten constitution" allows for that and much else.
No he had a can thrown at him and he later threw missiles at the crowd, not at the specific individual who threw him (or his friends) something. And btw PER ARTICLE, the can of beer LANDED AT HIS FEET, so he wasn't hit. He got offended because it's alcohol, not halal, not sure if you got the trigger right here.
Responsibility is strictly individual in western countries, we aren't at the mao tsetung stage yet.
I understand it can be close to impossible to properly identify who in a crowd acted viol
The trigger for him to retaliate was that it was alcohol rather than that he was hit with something but it also explicitly says that he threw the thing that was thrown at him back (as well as a few other things), not that he "later threw missiles at a crowd" - as far as I can tell you made that claim up entirely as there's nothing in the articles at all about there being any length of time between the provocation of having the beer can thrown at him and his retaliation.
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.
It shouldn't be a crime to be a racist and talk as one, but it is in your country (although it's unclear when exactly that becomes a crime), against basic freedom of speech unalienable rights.
Unfortunately the glorious "unwritten constitution" allows for that and much else.
I support hate crime legislation if that's what you mean. That's doesn't mean offenders should just be locked up.
I dont agree that wise men interpreting an old piece of paper would help in anyway at all.
The trigger for him to retaliate was that it was alcohol rather than that he was hit with something but it also explicitly says that he threw the thing that was thrown at him back (as well as a few other things), not that he "later threw missiles at a crowd" - as far as I can tell you made that claim up entirely as there's nothing in the articles at all about there being any length of time between the provocation of having the beer can thrown at him and his retaliation.
Oh you sweet summer child. You really will believe any openly biased media that confirms your pre-existing biases. The entire beer can provocation is probably complete BS. It is just the rationale the defense attorney gave and we have no indication it is true or not, or when this alleged provocation happened temporally in relation to the violent criminal activity perpetuated by Walid.
We do know he threw 4 missiles into a crowd (I dont personally know what a "missile" is in this context, but that is another question for another day I guess) while chanting religious war cries, and that is what he is being prosecuted for.
FWIW
Mr Aldous said he had thrown “four missiles in the direction of the opposing crowd” and had been shouting “things like ‘Allahu Akbar’”.
I support hate crime legislation if that's what you mean. That's doesn't mean offenders should just be locked up.
I dont agree that wise men interpreting an old piece of paper would help in anyway at all.
You want some actions to be crime, but acting in a criminal way not to entail prison sentences???
Absolutely
Btw can we all agree that being vehemently against alcohol consumption means you cannot integrate with British culture at all ? Or we want to pretend there is long term compatibility? And that alone is an absolutely rational reason to oppose immigration of anyone, who for any reason, religious or otherwise, is super against alcohol consumption in any country where alcohol consumption is a cultural norm?
Not drinking is ok.
I'd be tempted to get rid of those who drink marketed pisswater
Non drinking is ok.
Becoming violent because a can of beer lands near you isn't.
If it that happens for cultural reason, that culture is incompatible with any country where drinking alcohol is normal and legal, correct?
It's seems like a huge red herring but I still dont agree.
Anyway wild contention that given the guy threw back the can, then the entirety of the response was immediate, is a complete nonsense.
Ofc they don't define "missiles", but if the can was one they would say that, so it's 4 different ulterior items sent toward the crowd in a subsequent moment, in between the religious war cries as found by the court I guess.
It's unclear to me why chez wants to justify people acting violent for religious reasons, unclear to me.
He claims it was defense but it clearly wasn't according to the court
He was there defending his community against violent racist attacks.
He threw missiles which he shouldht have done . He has been tried and found guilty. Given what the judge said there is no way he should be in prison for it.
