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...
In your own words - you believing the Conservative Party is on the left is an admission of how far to the right you are.
Not that we really needed your fascism spelled out to us, with your repeated desire to see mass executions for civil disobedience etc.
In your own words - you believing the Conservative Party is on the left is an admission of how far to the right you are.
Not that we really needed your fascism spelled out to us, with your repeated desire to see mass executions for civil disobedience etc.
"Being against net0 carbon emissions and lockdowns for COVID, and hate speech laws, and considering them leftist policy preferences, is fascism"
Rant rant, burble burble.
^ Good grief.
I have ITT vigorously defend the BBC for its high-quality new output and impartiality, but it's getting to the stage where it's no longer fit for purpose. Once again, as soon as someone mentioned ethnicity, someone mentions how the majority of rapes are committed by while people and think's they have made a salient counterpoint.
I think we all know about BBC Three, though.
The 10% is from the fairly moderate conservatives who like to think they are labour.
the people who still think tony blair was good.
It's more likely to be public-sector interest groups who think they benefit. Although they are quite likely to bite the hand that feeds them, as they did in the 1970s.
Police state
You're confusing two separate things.
In this incident (which you clearly haven't read about) the police claimed that the protestors "pushed through" police lines but the video clearly shows the police saying "Please move through".
This is politicisation of the law.
they dont have to be identical incidents to have a common root, being police overreach
you were cheering on the police state itt a few weeks ago when they were hassling some telegraph journo, which means you do not get to complain when the utterly predictable happens and the same forces are aimed at you and yours. this is what you want, this is what you like, this is what you support
Let's revisit the questioning of a far right Muslim-hating journalist who you support for obvious reasons, after she printed deliberately inflammatory lies about people to incite the public:
She claimed it was a "non-hate crime incident", and lied again. And you believed her because you let your prejudices get the better of you, again.
can i just underline how foolish it is for someone with fringe political beliefs such as yourself to be supportive of the police getting involved in twitter posts, as if its not going to happen to your lot. babe in the woods stuff
I'm in favour of anti-hate crime law as long as it's applied sensibly in cases where there's been a clear breach.
(This has nothing to do with the police intimidating peaceful protestors.)
How about you?
you're in favour of the politicisation of the police as long as they dont turn their guns on your side, which they now have, and you are now mad
Can I take it that you don't like anti-hate laws, presumably because these days they're most likely to be applied to the far right (who you support) posting racist lies about Muslims?
ok, so the judicial system will decide whether corbyn is innocent
what's the problem, why are you mad
I'm not "mad". I think that using the law to attack peaceful protests because they oppose government policy in this way is a very dangerous step for democracies, don't you?
That's peaceful protest as opposed to, say, inciting racial hatred which isn't at all peaceful in nature of intention.
Now how about answering the question I asked you?
I'm afraid that, in an actual police state, like Cuba, they wouldn't have been mildly inconvenienced by attending a voluntary interview and wandering off home afterwards, they'd have vanished into the torture cellars and possibly never been seen again at all.
Not all of the 77 arrests were for breaching conditions (attempting to move a static demonstration out of the agreed Whitehall area). Some of them relate to more serious criminal matters, including supporting a proscribed organisation, inciting racial hatred, common assault, assault on an emergency worker and sexual assault.
Of 48 remaining in custody, nine including Piers Corbyn have been charged.
Police 'overrreach' has laways been a massive problem.
It's relevant but not itself a winning argument against having good laws. A lack of laws doesn't protect protester, radicals, the vulnerable etc from the establishment. it never has but i supposeit's inevitable that somehow progesive will be balmed for what goes on anyway.
We have to constantly fight police 'overreach' but not by abandoning laws and justice.
depends on who you ask, as one man's peaceful protest is another's hate march,
which is why speech laws are problematic, and why its so naive of you personally to support them given your non-approved views
Supporting peaceful protests is naive now.
The end of the freedom to protest peacefully is here, heralding the beginning of the end of democracy and cheered in by the Islamophobes, who refuse to answer simple questions about anti-hate laws. No surprises there.
Maybe stick to posting about football where the fat bloke in pub impressions are well received.