Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 198

Thread: Life, Politics, Society, Beer

  1. #151
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    I think Brexit is suffering from the same issues Communism/Socialism always has, namely the people in charge of implementing it have never truly believed in it and ended up making a balls up. You can argue for the merits of socialism but opponents will cry “Stalin, Castro, Mao, etc” as a means to say it has always been a disaster, as if any of those leaders was actually really a socialist.

    Same rules for Brexit. I’m in the old Labour Bennite school of opposition to the European Union and whatever came before it, but others opposed it for different reasons, meaning you struggle to end up with a Brexit that actually pleases all of those who voted for it. And, Johnson is not a Brexiteer, he eyed it as a chance to win the leadership and assume control, and every decision made since shows him as a leader who isn’t really that keen on Brexit but knows his entire reason for being PM is linked to him supporting it.

    It’s a mess, and we suffer from the wrong people being in charge when these things come around. Had Corbyn had the spirit of his convictions and actually supported Brexit for the reasons he’s opposed the EU all his political life then we may have had a true left wing Brexit which supported workers, but he sold out and pandered to the middle class liberals in his party who view being in the EU as more important than anything.

    I assume we’ll revisit our membership at some point when the Tories are no longer in office, but when that is is still up for debate.


    You raise some very interesting points, Gray.

    You're spot on that Bozo isn't really a Brexiteer. He was always pro-EU. But he is a particularly narcissistic sociopath who had a pervading ambition to be a PM (old schoolmates tell the story of him often pointing to the wall-mounted honours board at Eton that listed Old Etonian Prime Ministers and boast that he'd be up there one day). His gambit in opting to back Leave was to become the champion of the anti-EU element of the Tory membership (which was and still is a majority), to put him in prime position to succeed Cameron. Obviously, Gove spiked his first leadership bid, but he built his base in time for the second attempt.

    The most key point you make from my perspective is that different people who voted for Brexit had different ideas of what it should look like. There were polls after the result showing a large proportion of Leave voters wanted an arrangement like Norway had, with others wanting to leave the EU as a political entity but stay in the Single Market. May used her first major speech after becoming PM to explicitly rule out continued membership of both the SM and Customs Union. I found the Customs Union aspect particularly depressing, as the Customs Union not only provides a minimum regulatory framework, but would have allowed us to retain the excellent trade agreements that the economic strength of the EU allowed us to benefit from.

    I don't think any government would touch full rejoining for many years.

    I do, however, think a Norway-style arrangement is a strong possibility.

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Its surprising to hear the brass neck of the left bleating about culture wars when they were the orchestrators of it. It was their disgusting identity politics meant anyone who was a Brexit in a Blue collar town was dismissed as a ‘gammon’ which just characterises the downright contempt and low regard that this Labour party holds those in such constituencies.
    I dislike 'identity politics'*, but labelling people 'gammon' isn't identity politics.

    The 'gammon' phrase also has specific meaning - ie, generally middle-aged men who get irate (and red-faced as a result) over socially progressive politics. They're not 'gammon' because they support Brexit; rather that supporting Brexit seems to all too often come with the territory of opposing things like racial equality, LGBTQ freedoms, etc.

    * Back in the 90's when I was more politically active through being a union rep, and we'd do work on combating racism, the ethos was generally that skin colour and cultural background was irrelevant; we were all human beings first and foremost, and we should focus on a broadly common goal based on socialist economic policy. Differences in race and cultural background were ignored or glossed-over. 'Identity Politics' started in the US, and actually embraces and champions differences in race or cultural background. It is insular and can aggressively exclude people from outside that 'identity' clique. And they're often protective of traits and customs unique to their culture (witness the anger when someone is accused of 'cultural appropriation'). The criticism I share with many on the more broad-based 'left' is that it allows the Establishment to 'divide and conquer', when people should be collectivising to oppose the economic and political dominance of the 'owners of capital'.

    Saying all that, I vehemently disagree that the Labour Party holds blue-collar working people in 'downright contempt'. I do think that Old Etonian Tories (actually Tories in general) have far more contempt. But they need to harvest votes for electoral success reasons, so whip-up anger, point the finger of blame (at immigrants, 'identity politics lefties', benefit 'scroungers', Brussels bureaucrats, etc) and declare a phoney war on them to attract votes.

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Its often the FBPE twitter brigade with ‘Europe’ in their profile town who cant accept a democratic vote. Most these people have spent a fraction of their life there, mainly on holiday and yet there they are… European.
    Just want to point out that it's a geographical fact that the UK is in Europe...




    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Many of these people can’t accept that there are many places in the UK that are socially conservative;
    This seems to be a catch-all phrase that's not only become a bit cliched, but can mean different things to different people. To me, 'socially conservative' always meant a Mary Whitehouse type; someone who hates permissiveness, sexual freedoms, drinking & recreational drug use, hedonism. Prefers going to church, disapproving of swearing and sends their kids to boy scouts.

    Nowadays, it all too often seems like a cover for not being allowed to be openly casually racist.

    I'm curious to know your definition of 'socially conservative', as it would help the discussion along.

  3. #153
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,527
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Get ready for Brexiters blaming the EU for the fact the UK gov can’t implement a racist policy of deporting black and brown people to Africa. Or do socially conservative people agree with this.

    (The ECHR came into being in 1953, and that leader of the wokerati Winston Churchill was it’s champion.)

  4. #154
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    Get ready for Brexiters blaming the EU for the fact the UK gov can’t implement a racist policy of deporting black and brown people to Africa. Or do socially conservative people agree with this.

    (The ECHR came into being in 1953, and that leader of the wokerati Winston Churchill was it’s champion.)

    It's part of Bozo's 'culture war'. Whip up anger and resentment, train the crosshairs of that anger on political opponents.

    To withdraw from the ECHR would be catastrophic. It was the UK that drove the formation of the ECHR, drafted by British lawyers, under the guidance - as you say - of Churchill.

    Bozo's own grandfather was a sitting member of the ECHR for 20 years, its president for 10 of those. Bozo's cousin has written an open letter that eviscerates him (https://bylinetimes.com/2022/06/10/d...d-be-appalled/)

    Then there's the idiocy over the Northern Ireland Protocol. The Hansard Society has studied the proposed NIP Bill and their conclusions are chilling. Another stride toward dictatorship as the Bill would sideline Parliament further and place more arbitrary powers into the hands of the Executive (https://twitter.com/HansardSociety/s...65886386741250)

    This after moves to remove judicial oversight of government activity. After taking direct control of the Electoral Commission, which prior to was independent. After introducing US Repugnican-style voter-suppression rules to weaken the non-Tory vote (given the demographics of people who tend not to have ID). After illegally proroguing Parliament.

    This corrupt, evil, lying government is the biggest threat to democracy that this country has faced in generations.

  5. #155
    Learning All The Songs sinkers89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,297
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Just been listening to BBC Merseysides rugby club.

    10 years since the inceptipn of "state of mind" which is really incredible!

    Think they should bring back a round for them.

    The work they have done is amazing.

  6. #156
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,428
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    It's part of Bozo's 'culture war'. Whip up anger and resentment, train the crosshairs of that anger on political opponents.
    I disagree with you on this mainly because I don't believe Johnson and co. actually have the ideological or emotional willpower to actually conduct such a culture war. They talk a good game every now and again but what do they actually do? They mainly sit back and let others argue about these things, they very rarely actually govern and make decisions on these issues. Rwanda was the first time they actually cemented a policy, but few people in the know actually thought it would solve anything because the will to achieve it is very very low.

    I'm not sure illegal immigration on our south coast is really a right wing/left wing issue to be fair. I don't agree that human traffickers and people smugglers basically get to determine who enters the country, and I don't particularly like thousands of people making dangerous journeys across the channel either. The debate though awful from all sides. On one side we have the usual 'send them back' and the other side it's 'let them all in, you're racist if you don't.' It's all sixth form level nonsense.

    It always worries me as well that the people most vociferous in opposition to stopping illegal immigration are the people who are most vociferous in support of the EU, yet there is no condemnation of the fact that France does not want these people and turns a blind eye to leaving their waters on a daily basis. Is the French attitude to these people not racist, or do they get a free pass because they're Europeans and not horrible Anglo types? The people arriving on our south coast have long since been in personal danger, as they all entered Europe a good while ago. They are making the decision to commit an unlawful act to move from one developed country to another for reasons of choice, whether that be economic, language, family, whatever. But they aren't walking on to our beaches to escape torture and persecution, and it is disingenuous of anyone to say that they are.

    But that's where we are when we argue about politics, here included.

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    .

  8. #158
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,527
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Another step on the way to fascism in this country

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61869650

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/20/w...son-times.html

    Try and fit that into a three world sound bite, because the idiots will still ignore their own eyes and ears and put it down to woke lefty propaganda.
    Last edited by Bostik Bailey; 21st June 2022 at 07:20.

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    Another step on the way to fascism in this country

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61869650

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/20/w...son-times.html

    Try and fit that into a three world sound bite, because the idiots will still ignore their own eyes and ears and put it down to woke lefty propaganda.
    In what way is that a step to ‘fascism?’. Faux outrage and hyperbole seems to be in vogue; witness the FBPE mob going into meltdown because of the Jubilee celebration.

  10. #160
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,527
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    In what way is that a step to ‘fascism?’. Faux outrage and hyperbole seems to be in vogue; witness the FBPE mob going into meltdown because of the Jubilee celebration.
    Just the government suppression of news that shows their Dear Leader lacking any morals and up to his neck in corrupt practices.

  11. #161
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    Just the government suppression of news that shows their Dear Leader lacking any morals and up to his neck in corrupt practices.
    Are you effectively saying that the Prime Minister should have no right to dialogue with Fleet Street?
    The Times, also, haven't claimed to have been 'suppressed.'
    The moral outrage over things the vast majority of the country would be involved in (the claim that the PM helped his wife secure a new job) is surprising, moreso as the same people who claim to be so outraged and/or astonished (e.g a clown like Jo Maugham) are often the ones trying to create a drumbeat of pessimism in confidence in Westminster.

  12. #162
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,527
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Are you effectively saying that the Prime Minister should have no right to dialogue with Fleet Street?
    The Times haven't claimed to have been 'suppressed.' The faux moral outrage over things the vast majority of the country would be involved in (PM trying to help his wife get a job) is surprising, moreso as the same people who always claim to be so outraged and astonished are the ones trying to create a drumbeat of pessimism.

    He wasn’t trying to get his wife a job, his wife was in the later stages of cancer, and had four children. He was trying to get his mistress a job she was not remotely qualified for. Number ten have confirmed that they sought to get this story pulled.

    It’s not faux outrage. If a government is able to control what is news, then we are well on our way to fascism.

  13. #163
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    He wasn’t trying to get his wife a job, his wife was in the later stages of cancer, and had four children. He was trying to get his mistress a job she was not remotely qualified for. Number ten have confirmed that they sought to get this story pulled.

    It’s not faux outrage. If a government is able to control what is news, then we are well on our way to fascism.
    Except that they have'nt "controlled" the news. The Times made its decision after a long call. Again to point out for posterity, it was The Times that made its own decision and has issued a robust statement to that effect.
    I know many people who have pulled the quintessential mickey deal; relied on a relative for a job at Pilks, bummed a reference off a colleague etc. I'm not going to live in a psychosis that we are in 1930's Germany when the reality is that there is a lot to be proud of in a largely tolerant and diverse country.

  14. #164
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,527
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Another step on the way to fascism in this country

    Repealing section 3 of human rights act 1998 - removes the courts requirement to enact laws that are compatible with human rights. So here we have a government removing basic human rights from the main piece of legislation that is supposed to protect our freedoms.

    Also removing the power of the ECHR, which was set up by Churchill (and British Judges sit on) to prevent nation states removing human rights.


    Bill of Rights Bill
    [AS INTRODUCEDI
    BILL
    TO
    Reform the law relating to human rights.
    Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
    Introductory
    Introduction
    (1)
    This Act reforms the law relating to human rights by repealing and replacing
    the Human Rights Act 1998.
    (2)
    In particular, this Act clarifies and re-balances the relationship between courts
    in the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights and Parliament
    by ensuring -
    (a) that it is the Supreme Court (and not the European Court of Human
    Rights) that determines the meaning and effect of Convention rights
    for the purposes of domestic law (see section 3(1));
    (b)
    that courts are no longer required to read and give effect to legislation,
    so far as possible, in a way which is compatible with the Convention
    rights (see paragraph 2 of Schedule 5, which repeals section 3 of the
    Human Rights Act 1998);
    (c)
    that courts must give the greatest possible weight to the principle that,
    in a Parliamentary democracy, decisions about the balance between
    different policy aims, different Convention rights and Convention
    rights of different persons are properly made by Parliament (see section
    7)
    (3) It is affirmed that judgments, decisions and interim measures of the European
    Court of Human Rights
    (a) are not part of domestic law, and
    (b)
    do not affect the right of Parliament to legislate.

  15. #165
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    Another step on the way to fascism in this country

    Repealing section 3 of human rights act 1998 - removes the courts requirement to enact laws that are compatible with human rights. So here we have a government removing basic human rights from the main piece of legislation that is supposed to protect our freedoms.

    Also removing the power of the ECHR, which was set up by Churchill (and British Judges sit on) to prevent nation states removing human rights.


    Bill of Rights Bill
    [AS INTRODUCEDI
    BILL
    TO
    Reform the law relating to human rights.
    Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
    Introductory
    Introduction
    (1)
    This Act reforms the law relating to human rights by repealing and replacing
    the Human Rights Act 1998.
    (2)
    In particular, this Act clarifies and re-balances the relationship between courts
    in the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights and Parliament
    by ensuring -
    (a) that it is the Supreme Court (and not the European Court of Human
    Rights) that determines the meaning and effect of Convention rights
    for the purposes of domestic law (see section 3(1));
    (b)
    that courts are no longer required to read and give effect to legislation,
    so far as possible, in a way which is compatible with the Convention
    rights (see paragraph 2 of Schedule 5, which repeals section 3 of the
    Human Rights Act 1998);
    (c)
    that courts must give the greatest possible weight to the principle that,
    in a Parliamentary democracy, decisions about the balance between
    different policy aims, different Convention rights and Convention
    rights of different persons are properly made by Parliament (see section
    7)
    (3) It is affirmed that judgments, decisions and interim measures of the European
    Court of Human Rights
    (a) are not part of domestic law, and
    (b)
    do not affect the right of Parliament to legislate.


    I don't think Bozo is a natural fascist. But some of the current party definitely have fascist tendencies (many of them are like the scum left around a dirty glass after the good stuff has long gone - misanthropes and incompetents like Patel, Schapps, Truss would never be in with a sniff of great Tory Cabinets of the past). What's clear is that Bozo is an opportunist, a chancer, a narcissist, who will grasp any and every branch to keep him in power; embrace any and every policy - no matter how unsavoury when you step back to look at the bigger picture.

    In the brief (but it feels much longer!) time he's been PM, we've seen:

    * The illegal prorogation of Parliament
    * The powers of the judiciary to oversee government actions (to make sure they adhere to the law of the land) weakened
    * The formerly independent Electoral Commission be brought under direct control of the Government
    * Introduction of 'identity checks' for voting, when there wasn't any problem with electoral fraud (one case last GE) and it's fact that those who will be handicapped most by this are from demographics that heavily vote non-Tory
    *The most draconian laws to stifle protests and make protesting an arrestable offence for the most spurious and mild reasons
    * The protecting from sanctions of post-Soviet kleptocrats who have collectively donated £milliosn to the Tory Party
    * The general whipping-up of pernicious nationalism and 'British exceptionalism'
    * The inhumane 'Rwanda' policy (that is costly and will do next to sod all in combating illegal crossings - but does trigger the racists & bigots that form a large part of the current Tory Party electoral 'base')
    * Seeking to amend the Ministerial Code to help him and his colleagues from having to resign for breaking the Ministerial Code

    Democracy is at a dangerous point. It's been teetering for a few years. You'll remember the shocking 'Enemies of the People' headlines in the far-right Daily Heil and such after a panel of some of most senior Judges merely applied the law to the Government's attempts to circumvent the law in its Brexit manouevrings. It's this whipping-up of hate and far-right, nationalist memes that is dangerous, and reminiscent of 1930's Germany. It's a playbook that has been updated and deployed by the Steve Bannon crowd. And that has worked to create massive divisions in the US (to such an extent that the medievalist cretins are on the verge of banning abortions, and Texas Repugnicans voting to declare homosexuals as 'abnormal')

  16. #166
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,428
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Did you both back the “People’s Vote” campaign, which would have been the biggest middle finger to a democratic decision of the lot?

    I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above, I genuinely think we have the worst government of my lifetime, for various reasons, the main one being a singular lack of quality and conviction which means a lot of these things you mention get pushed through in the absence of a true long term set of ideas. Poor politicians pushed way beyond their pay grade, led by a man who is PM basically because he thought it would be a good laugh and the kind of thing people like him should have a go at.

    But as ever with you lads, it’s entirely one sided and lacks any real attempt at balance. Not partisan balance mind, I don’t want you triangulating and giving the Tories the benefit of the doubt, but societal balance. Plenty on the left seek to close down any debate on issues that they don’t like, and our universities and many work places are now controlled by people on the left who are no less rigorous in stifling diversity of opinion. They do not of course run the country in a literal sense, but their power and influence transcends whoever is in government and they will be here regardless of whether Tories, Labour or anyone else is in power. Your lack of any real analysis of this, and only mentioning the stuff the Tories do that annoys you means that you aren’t fully grasping the full seriousness of the issues that are slowly bringing us down.

    I generally have the argument with my missus where she tells me I focus too much on what the left does that annoys me and not enough time on what the right does. And I suspect that will be your opinion as well based on my posts on here. Fair enough, but my answer is always the same. I hold no standards of the right, I do not feel a responsibility for what they do, they do not speak for me. I expect little, I get little. But I demand and expect a lot from the left and I feel a deeper sense of sadness and anger when people on the left do stuff that I feel is wrong. Much like with the other thing we chat about on the other side of the forum, when someone on the other team acts the tit you roll your eyes, but when one of ours does it we are more disappointed because we kind of expected more. That’s where I am these days. Not shocked by what the right does. Annoyed yes, but not shocked and not really disappointed. What the left does, yes, really let down by some people, and it gets me down more.

    Tory governments come and go, and most of the decisions of this lot will be reversible and all of the main figures will be an irrelevance in a decade. But the decisions of those people on the left will resonate for years and will hold us back, and this for me is a bigger issue as I want us to be better.

    And using terms like fascism, Germany in the 30s, far right etc just dilutes what those things actually are or were.

    You oppose the Rwandan flights, fair enough, but did they take off? What fascist state would even listen to legal arguments?

    Some Tories oppose trans issues like transwomen in prisons, NHS wards, female toilets etc, but all of those things happen and the government doesn’t care. Is that a sign of a far right fascist government?

    Thousands of immigrants attempt to get into this country illegally every month. Is that a sign of a fascist state?

    Universities up and down the country ban people from speaking at events because they don’t like their opinions. A stifling of free speech by those who should be promoting it and giving young people the credit to make up their own minds. It goes on every week, and mainly right wing speakers are banned leaving the door open for only those who oppose this supposedly fascist government to have their voices heard, and the government allows it. Is that a sign of a fascist state?

    The recent findings of the child exploitation scandals pretty much told us that those in power tried to hush up the true extent because of fears of inflaming racial tensions in those areas. Does a fascist state that eyes up 1930s Germany as a role model do that? Did the Nazi’s hush up any crimes by Jews because they were worried what anti-semites might do in response? Can’t believe I’m even typing this, but that’s basically what the dumbed down level of debate leads to.

    We voted for Brexit, but only after an actual general election allowing the governing party a democratic majority big enough to vote it through did it become fully enacted. Does a fascist state wait for parliamentary arithmetic to sort that out?

    Our rail network is currently out of use because of strikes (which as a union member I 100% support). Does a fascist state allow that to happen? Yes, unions are crippled compared to yesteryear, but only because people voted for the party that told them they’d do it.

    The list is endless. The Tories are awful, they are incompetent, they are cruel, they are not a party that deserves to be in power. But labelling them as you both do and comparing them with the actual far right, Nazis and those people in the 30s is dumbed down sixth form level stuff.

    Win the arguments by being better, have policies and convictions, and don’t accuse those you disagree with of being obsessed by cheap slogans and then use terms like ‘far right’ ‘fascist’ and ‘1930s Germany’ in response, because that is no better and indicates you can’t get your opinions over without similar sound bites.

    We live in shit times, and we’re all to blame at times. This thread depresses me and I’ll leave you all to it from here,
    Last edited by Gray77; 24th June 2022 at 08:37.

  17. #167
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,527
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Fascism doesn’t arrive overnight with a phalanx of smart uniforms goosestepping down the Mall.

    Yes we currently have strikes, but the government are going to legislate that temporary workers can be brought in to cover strike thus making strikes irrelevant.

    Yes the flight to Rwanda didn’t go ahead so the government are bringing in a law that gives the executive power to enact anything without consideration to any human rights. Let that sink in. Unlike the USA we don’t have any formal constitution, with this bill laws can be changed to inhibit free speach, freedom of expression etc.

    Under this bill of rights, the power is now in the executive and there is no legal document that enshrines any basic human right. Now why would a government want to remove basic human rights?

  18. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    Fascism doesn’t arrive overnight with a phalanx of smart uniforms goosestepping down the Mall.

    Yes we currently have strikes, but the government are going to legislate that temporary workers can be brought in to cover strike thus making strikes irrelevant.

    Yes the flight to Rwanda didn’t go ahead so the government are bringing in a law that gives the executive power to enact anything without consideration to any human rights. Let that sink in. Unlike the USA we don’t have any formal constitution, with this bill laws can be changed to inhibit free speach, freedom of expression etc.

    Under this bill of rights, the power is now in the executive and there is no legal document that enshrines any basic human right. Now why would a government want to remove basic human rights?

    Exactly.

    We still have a functioning judiciary, with the security apparatus that goes with it. But it's power is being steadily whittled away.

    I accept that talking about 1930s Germany is hyperbole on my part, but the attempts to subvert the democratic process and judicial powers to keep themselves in power are a serious worry, and a threat to democracy.

  19. #169
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Anyway, bad as this country is, we're not as bad as the cesspit of medievalism that is the USA.

    What a shitshow the warped Christianists are trying to impose on everyone

  20. #170
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    Anyway, bad as this country is, we're not as bad as the cesspit of medievalism that is the USA.

    What a shitshow the warped Christianists are trying to impose on everyone
    If it is so bad here when are you and BB leaving?

    It is wrong that a single judge in Strasbourg overuled a democratically mandated policy from being executed. The decree of one judge (at the behest of careerist, narcissistic activists like Jo Maugham) overruled all democratic processes that led to the policy coming into force.

    Accordingly the ECHR got its just desserts and is modified by a British Bill of Rights. The UK remains a member of the ECHR and the Strasbourg court. However, the bill will sensibly enable judges freedom to diverge from Strasbourg rulings, rather than automatically follow them.


    I will repeat what I said earlier. There is much to be grateful for in the UK. Douglas Murray’s War on the West would be a good place to start for anyone who wants to properly orienteer themselves with all this type of stuff.
    Last edited by eddiewaringsflatcap; 26th June 2022 at 12:20.

  21. #171
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,527
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    The new Bill of Rights allows the government of the UK to enact legislation that does not need to take account of human rights. Why would a government want that power?

    And as for leaving this country well that comment is straight out of the fascist book, purge the country of dissident voices.

  22. #172
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    The new Bill of Rights allows the government of the UK to enact legislation that does not need to take account of human rights. Why would a government want that power?

    And as for leaving this country well that comment is straight out of the fascist book, purge the country of dissident voices.
    ‘The Bill will make clear that the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial decision-maker on human rights issues and that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights does not always need to be followed by UK courts.’

    This appears to have angered Islingdon ‘human rights’ lawyers who may well see their time wasting, frivolous or politically driven attempts to subvert UK law restricted.

    The last paragraph reads straight from the modern day progressives playbook: anyone who disagrees with our point of view is fascist (or racist, or transphobic or etc). Do better.
    Last edited by eddiewaringsflatcap; 26th June 2022 at 13:42.

  23. #173
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    ‘The Bill will make clear that the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial decision-maker on human rights issues and that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights does not always need to be followed by UK courts.’

    This appears to have angered Islingdon ‘human rights’ lawyers who may well see their time wasting, frivolous or politically driven attempts to subvert UK law restricted.

    The last paragraph reads straight from the modern day progressives playbook: anyone who disagrees with our point of view is fascist (or racist, or transphobic or etc). Do better.

    The ECHR isn't a pick'n'mix that governments can choose to follow when it suits, or ignore when it doesn't.

    I think you lack legal uderstanding on the matter. The ECHR as an absolute convention is enshrined - due to an Act of Parliament (that's the UK Parliament, to avoid any doubt...) - into the UK legal system. If the UK government wanted to remove that, then it would need to secede from the ECHR entirely. And face the consequences.

    The problem we potentially have is that this government has repeatedly followed a tactic of reneging on convention and agreement because it doesn't like an aspect of it, then claiming it isn't breaking the agreement/convention because it's only looking to 'amend' one small aspect, then branding all other parties as unreasonable when they say "you can't pick and choose which aspect of an agreement/convention to follow... it's all or nothing"

    They act like a spoilt child.

    Unfortunately, this sort of exceptionalism is supported by a substantial proportion of the British people, who are fuelled by nationalism and similar exceptionalist views (the 'we are special, other people/countries should make special allowances for us' mentality)

  24. #174
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk fishy3005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    12,154
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Thing’s won’t be ANY DIFFERENT under any other political party. People need to start realising this.
    screaming in the family corner, scaring the kiddies

  25. #175
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    5,346
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishy3005 View Post
    Thing’s won’t be ANY DIFFERENT under any other political party. People need to start realising this.
    I think there are some marked differences between Labour and Conservative. The former riddled with ‘soshul justice’ and identity politics (has it defined a woman yet?) the latter caught in its own glare of narcissism and old fashioned Thatcherite contempt for Unions.

    As Gray pointed out there is an establishment of technocrats and elites that hold blue collar in contempt; most of the Labour lot are natural bed fellows. I despise what Labour have become yet could not vote for this government.

    As ever with supporters of these people, you’ll find them apologising for the national flag, calling anyone who isnt to the left of Dancing Ken of Cheltenham a fascist and desperate to condemn something as ‘ist’ or ‘phobic…’

    Recommend Douglas Murray’s War on the west and Gad Saad’s parasitic mind as excellent starters at diagnosing such nonsense.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •