Jump to content

news & politics:discussion

zahidf

By zahidf,
in Discussions

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Neil

    4946

  • steviewevie

    13383

  • Crazyfool01

    2320

  • Ozanne

    6897

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Kurosagi
Kurosagi

Don't post on here often, but read it every day. Can't sit by and watch @Ozanne getting picked on for doing little other than make a polite 'point of order' request without my saying something. F

maelzoid
maelzoid

Obviously horrible news. But I think pointing the finger at Rayner is not only unfair to her, but also serves to help silence critics of the Tories. Don't forget that over the years, BJ's words h

Zoo Music Girl
Zoo Music Girl

Man I'm furious. He's not remotely apologetic. Look at his face while Starmer is talking. I've tried to avoid taking this too personally but my mum died in hospital last summer and I wasn't allow

Posted Images

topmarksbri Collaborator

topmarksbri

Posted
Posted
On 3/12/2021 at 7:59 AM, mattiloy said:


Lollll. Maybe you're right, I mean Starmer is so easily mockable for everything else so yes, whilst he does have a big fat chin AND yes, whilst he also sounds like Brian Badonde - the real comedy element is that he is completely out of touch and utterly garbage at his job.

If that's what you think then completely fair enough, mock him for that. Calling someone fat doesn't really help your argument just makes you seem petty. 

Quote

Labour in name only. Just using the brand. A Starmer government hardly looks discernible to a tory one at the moment. What a 2% rise for nurses instead of a 1%? Stop the press! So those in desperate need of a, I would say left wing government rather than a labour government, are going to be disappointed either way.

I too would rather a much more progressive taxation system than the one Starmer is offering but the public have 0 desire for it, as proven by Corbyn losing twice. In which case you're much better off supporting the more progressive party than the less progressive party - again, if you're in a position where you can afford to be so ideologically pure that this doesn't matter to you then I'm glad for you. But many, many aren't.

Quote

I see, so its ad hominem is it? Okay well if I'm conceited, I'll say that your posts are those of a man trying very hard to appear smart but instead coming across as a bland, humourless dullard.

I think this is fair enough and I agree that calling you conceited when I've criticised you for ad hominem attacks is hypocritical. So to rephrase what you're saying is presenting you as being conceited. And how can I be humourless when your political beliefs are so laughable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why the left struggle for votse George Orwell quote

Quote

left-wing circles it is always 
felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman 
and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse 
racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably 
true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of 
standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a 
poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping 
away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes 
squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always 
anti-British.”

 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites
steviewevie Grand Master

steviewevie

Posted
Posted

Stephen Bush's morning call...

Good morning. Who's to blame for the scenes on Clapham Common, where the vigil for Sarah Everard and all women lost to violence ended with clashes between protestors and police saw women arrested and forced to the ground, and police officers punched, kicked and spat at?

One argument is to blame the protestors: which requires you to believe that the difference between the peaceful, socially distanced vigils in cities like Nottingham is that the women of London are just a little bit more prone to violence than the women in Nottingham, an argument that lacks credibility or seriousness. 

Another argument is to blame the elected politicians: with a handful of exceptions, politicians across the House have been slow to recognise the need to explicitly secure an opt-out for protest within the lockdown regulations, and have instead given a great deal of latitude to individual police forces, a mistake that the Conservative government is set to repeat with its new Policing Bill, which will pass huge discretionary powers over protest to the police. 

There's a lot of truth in that, and that is one reason why Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and Keir Starmer are all opting to hide between the looming reports into the incident: because they know that their decisions last March mean they are, at the least, at risk of being found to be co-authors of Saturday's events.

But it's not the whole story: thanks to the efforts of the women behind the Reclaim These Streets campaign, who went to court to find out, we now know that the coronavirus laws do contain an implicit guarantee of the right to protest. That implicit guarantee meant that socially distanced vigils did go ahead in parts of the United Kingdom, and they did not end with the disturbing scenes that we saw at Clapham Common. So something went wrong that can't wholly be blamed on elected politicians, do they do bear a share of the blame.

At least part of the problem from the decision to ban the vigil rather than to work with its organisers - on the Metropolitan Police's decision to police the vigil in Clapham Common more strictly than Nottinghamshire Police opted to vigil in Nottingham, to police the vigil more strictly than Police Scotland opted to police Rangers' title celebrations. 

That, inevitably, led to the scenes at Clapham Common. It's not a failure that can be pinned on the women involved, nor one that can solely be blamed on the elected politicians or the police given the task of enforcing it. The crucial decision came from the top of the Metropolitan Police: and the question we should ask ourselves is why London's police force cannot, at the least, treat a vigil with the sensitivity that Glasgow's police managed to extend to a league triumph. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eFestivals Mentor

eFestivals

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Stephen Bush's morning call...

Good morning. Who's to blame for the scenes on Clapham Common, where the vigil for Sarah Everard and all women lost to violence ended with clashes between protestors and police saw women arrested and forced to the ground, and police officers punched, kicked and spat at?

One argument is to blame the protestors: which requires you to believe that the difference between the peaceful, socially distanced vigils in cities like Nottingham is that the women of London are just a little bit more prone to violence than the women in Nottingham, an argument that lacks credibility or seriousness. 

Another argument is to blame the elected politicians: with a handful of exceptions, politicians across the House have been slow to recognise the need to explicitly secure an opt-out for protest within the lockdown regulations, and have instead given a great deal of latitude to individual police forces, a mistake that the Conservative government is set to repeat with its new Policing Bill, which will pass huge discretionary powers over protest to the police. 

There's a lot of truth in that, and that is one reason why Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and Keir Starmer are all opting to hide between the looming reports into the incident: because they know that their decisions last March mean they are, at the least, at risk of being found to be co-authors of Saturday's events.

But it's not the whole story: thanks to the efforts of the women behind the Reclaim These Streets campaign, who went to court to find out, we now know that the coronavirus laws do contain an implicit guarantee of the right to protest. That implicit guarantee meant that socially distanced vigils did go ahead in parts of the United Kingdom, and they did not end with the disturbing scenes that we saw at Clapham Common. So something went wrong that can't wholly be blamed on elected politicians, do they do bear a share of the blame.

At least part of the problem from the decision to ban the vigil rather than to work with its organisers - on the Metropolitan Police's decision to police the vigil in Clapham Common more strictly than Nottinghamshire Police opted to vigil in Nottingham, to police the vigil more strictly than Police Scotland opted to police Rangers' title celebrations. 

That, inevitably, led to the scenes at Clapham Common. It's not a failure that can be pinned on the women involved, nor one that can solely be blamed on the elected politicians or the police given the task of enforcing it. The crucial decision came from the top of the Metropolitan Police: and the question we should ask ourselves is why London's police force cannot, at the least, treat a vigil with the sensitivity that Glasgow's police managed to extend to a league triumph. 

The police are to blame for not working with the organisers on the protest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...