Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
It's probably for the best that I haven't met any of you in the flesh
But judging by the friendly and tolerant discussions we've had over the years, I tend to think that we're all gentlemen at heart. Yeah, we may disagree, but there's respect and politeness there.
I'm happy to criticise any religion or religious garment until the cows come home, but if I encountered a Muslim lady on the bus or in the street, and she was wearing such clothing, she'd never get any trouble from me, because I'm too polite and it's not the done thing to harass random strangers.
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
If anything, I'd probably leap to her defence if some fethwit was giving her agro, and I suspect that everybody else would be the same.
Toleration is the cornerstone of our society.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whirlwind, I've told you that I do not wish to ban the Burqa, but I dislike it and explained my reasons why.
You think that makes me a racist. I think you're a misogynist, or at least when racism and misogyny intersect you care more about racism and are willing to turn a blind eye to misogyny.
I'm not sure any more productive discussion can be had between us so I'm out.
You've yet to provide any evidence though that it is a misogynist practice in this country. I've also not called you a racist - if you check I've stated that making assertions about a group of people based on an arbitrary assessment of types of clothing is a path leading to racism and bigotry (the people in this group are obviously all oppressing their women). As I've pointed out before my view is you look at the actions of the individual and call them out. It doesn't make a difference whether that is oppression of a woman, man, muslim, christian, jew, sexual preference and so forth. It is easy to say well you are just putting race before sex first, but I disagree, because that depends on the action of the individual. If a man is suppressing a woman then fine and should be called out, but are men suppressing women because of a clothing choice that we have no evidence of other than gut scepticism? Are you sure that is because of being anti-misogynist. What happens if you are completely wrong and that every woman wearing such clothing does it because they want to. Who then becomes the misogynist when the wearing of such clothes is called out like Bozo did?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whirlwind, I tend not to go out and laugh at people or criticise them for no good reason anyway, and the vast majority of people in society won't deliberately go out to cause offence or upset people.
Like I said, we, as a society, tend to regulate ourselves at any rate with regard to social conventions. If you made an insult about somebody's clothes to their face, you'd obviously expect some sort of retaliation, which is why 99% of people have the good sense not to do it out of politeness, self-preservation or simply because they'd never do it anyway.
But you'd never stop people thinking or speaking it, and nor should you. We all have freedom of thought and action, whilst accepting there can be some consequences to our actions: if you murder, you go to jail, not being able to shout fire in a cinema etc etc
That still doesn't answer the question as to why you think it should be acceptable? It's not as if we are even talking about someone thinking something and never speaking something. We are talking about Bozo who spoke these things in a national newspaper. So again, honestly, what makes you laugh at the way someone dresses and why? Why is that a reasonable thing to do?
If anything, I'd probably leap to her defence if some fethwit was giving her agro, and I suspect that everybody else would be the same.
Toleration is the cornerstone of our society.
However you've defended Bozo to say what he did despite in one column giving agro to thousands of women (and that's before some members of the public take it into their own hands based on the justification of what Bozo said).
Toleration only works when both sides stay away from rhetoric like Bozos that is skirting the edges of racism and bigotry. Otherwise we slowly end up tolerating racism, sexism, ageism and so forth. I'm quite happy to say I won't tolerate that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/11 15:21:51
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
We should stop talking about burqas. Most people have never seen one in real life. I've only seen them being worn a handful of times and I work in Western Asia and have spent a fair bit of time in the Arabian Peninsula. Burqa is not interchangeable with niqab.
nfe wrote: We should stop talking about burqas. Most people have never seen one in real life. I've only seen them being worn a handful of times and I work in Western Asia and have spent a fair bit of time in the Arabian Peninsula. Burqa is not interchangeable with niqab.
I think for most they are interchangeable. Boris' description sounds more like a niqab but I don't expect him to be correct about anything.
I think I've seen a few burkas in Egypt but I think it's mostly niqabs. I have to admit I had to Google the difference and I'm admittedly not sure about the cultural distinction.
I do find it interesting that those complaining about Muslim clothing don't seem as outraged by almost identical clothing from predominantly white religions.
Regarding the comments from Boris; what capacity was he speaking In? Newspaper author? Foreign secretary? MP? I'd personally hold him to a higher standard than most because he's he has so much influence (rightly or wrongly).
He's allowed to express why he doesn't like them, but I don't think that extends to making fun of them in a national newspaper.
nfe wrote: We should stop talking about burqas. Most people have never seen one in real life. I've only seen them being worn a handful of times and I work in Western Asia and have spent a fair bit of time in the Arabian Peninsula. Burqa is not interchangeable with niqab.
Heck, I have met a woman that was wearing a Betty Boop hijab.
She also has a hijab decorated with skulls wearing pink bows.
She was working in her father's halal grocery store, but somehow... I doubt that either hijab were of his choosing.
Sometimes clothing, cultural or not, is just clothing.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Herzlos wrote: I do find it interesting that those complaining about Muslim clothing don't seem as outraged by almost identical clothing from predominantly white religions.
WHAT identical clothing? I can't think of any direct equivalents besides the styles of dress worn by Priests, Nuns and the like. But they are a tiny minority of adherents who wear clothing that the general population do not, so that would be a false equivalence.
Orthodox Judaism maybe, but I'm not sure its entirely accurate to describe Judaism as "predominantly white".
nfe wrote: We should stop talking about burqas. Most people have never seen one in real life. I've only seen them being worn a handful of times and I work in Western Asia and have spent a fair bit of time in the Arabian Peninsula. Burqa is not interchangeable with niqab.
I think for most they are interchangeable. Boris' description sounds more like a niqab but I don't expect him to be correct about anything.
I think I've seen a few burkas in Egypt but I think it's mostly niqabs. I have to admit I had to Google the difference and I'm admittedly not sure about the cultural distinction.
I do find it interesting that those complaining about Muslim clothing don't seem as outraged by almost identical clothing from predominantly white religions.
Regarding the comments from Boris; what capacity was he speaking In? Newspaper author? Foreign secretary? MP? I'd personally hold him to a higher standard than most because he's he has so much influence (rightly or wrongly).
He's allowed to express why he doesn't like them, but I don't think that extends to making fun of them in a national newspaper.
Boris was speaking in his capacity as an opinion columnist in the Daily Telegraph. However it must be borne in mind that he is a serving MP who has muslims among his constituents, and a prospective prime minister. For what it's worth, Boris shouldn't have been writing that column yet and broke the ministerial code by doing so.
Such a figure ought to be careful about how he expresses his views. Indeed, he ought to be careful about the views he chooses to express.
But the point is, Boris was being careful. He was carefully addressing the Islamophobic wing of the party, letting them know he is "one of them" and hoping to enlist their support if it gets to a leadership election.
He is helped in this by the fact that the Islamophobic wing has an overlap with the Eurosceptic wing -- as proved by the immediate support of Rees-Mogg and IDS. Boris of course is the leading light of Tory Brexiteers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/12 07:04:57
It's pretty obvious that this whole "burka" bollocks has very little to do with free speech, but is all about Boris Johnson and Steve Bannon.
Kicked from pulling Trumps strings, Steve is now trying to peddle his bs over here, and Boris is happy to follow his advice, because that'll get him elected PM.
It's so fething obvious, I'm astonished you've all been suckered into talking about it as if it's some big political masterstroke.
Boris, is, always has been and always will be a political worm, willing to do anything and say anything to get the top job. Even if that means pandering and divisiveness. Stop feeding the troll. This isn't about free speech, it's about Boris.
Carry on, and he'll be PM, and Rees-Mogg will be chancellor, and then we will all know misery.
fething get a grip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nfe wrote: We should stop talking about burqas. Most people have never seen one in real life. I've only seen them being worn a handful of times and I work in Western Asia and have spent a fair bit of time in the Arabian Peninsula. Burqa is not interchangeable with niqab.
This, so much. It's a dog whistle, and you've all perked up your ears and are barking like mad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/12 07:43:42
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Anything Boris says or actions he takes are based on getting him the job as PM.
As such Brexit is now a busted flush for him and he is getting desperate, cue a meeting with the Nazi Bannon and him swerving even further right wing to be come trumps mini me.
I fully expect more articles like this one each being slightly less subtle in it racisim and bigotry. I would expect an attack on university's and students and young people at some point along with even more anti EU rhetoric. Likely also refugees and people on benefits maybe even the disabled since IDS seems to support Alex Piffle Johnson.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/12 11:10:46
Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis
A few weeks ago a Tory MP sent me what appeared to be a genuine snuff video. It arrived without warning at 8.05 in the morning. It showed two men running out of a road tunnel pursued by a four-wheel drive vehicle. A passenger in the vehicle gunned down the men then ran them over. There was no accompanying message. Within a day the sender had returned to sending arguments in favour of a hard Brexit. We never spoke of this. What was there to say?
Having worked in parliament since 2005, it is hard to know what is normal any more. But just as the headlines get more hysterical, so MPs’ private behaviour seems to be getting more delirious. There was the MP who recalled the smell of burning skin while describing his vasectomy. Or the influential backroom Tory who, when asked about a story by a fellow journalist, replied by sending me a video of him interviewing his cat. He made a series of disobliging remarks about the hack while the moggie lay in silent assent.
Extreme behaviour did exist before the 2016 referendum earthquake, even though it feels as if it distorted all in its wake. For instance I was called by Michael Gove in 2011, the day after I wrote a story about him “messianically” calling for military intervention in Libya. Nervously, I answered. Rather than berating me he summoned his best Monty Python voice, declared “I’m not messianic, just a very naughty boy”, cackled and ended the call.
However, there is evidence that these are particularly bleak days in Westminster, a by-product of the pressure brought on by a sense of helplessness and drift. More MPs declare they have no future here, no longer keen on propping up the misguided and extremist tendencies of those at the top. They talk enthusiastically of triggering by-elections, if only someone would offer them a reasonable salary.
For Tories, the Brexit civil war is teetering on the edge of a full-blown culture war, and this week’s Boris episode captured that neatly. For centrists, whether Labour or Tory, what hurts most is the failure of big figures to articulate their position with confidence and skill. MPs despair as Tory high-ups neurotically control the smallest things but freeze when confronted with the bigger picture.
The image of party chairman Brandon Lewis evading TV cameras this week, seemingly having lost his voice over Mr Johnson, captured that failure. Labour centrists endure a mirror image of this, paralytically miserable at their inability to edge the party into a tougher position on antisemitism.
And who would be a Lib Dem? These are all symptoms of the same thing: the low wattage of those who reach the front rank of British politics. Culture wars are becoming easier to fight in Westminster because they obscure the true problem: the sheer lack of quality of those who lead, a topic that can never be discussed in public.
When I started in political journalism 13 years ago I decided not to vote in elections, telling myself this was a principled choice based on my job as a political correspondent. This decision has got easier every year.
... bet that was a fun email to get.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Hmm. See, to me, that Times column reads an awful lot like the usual Centrist's Lament - everything I disagree with is madness, anyone who doesn't have the same priorities has none, and people who have an ideological stance other than "the status quo is pretty good to me, so must be pretty good in general and shouldn't change" is a swivel-eyed loon.
Normally I just roll my eyes at the pity-party and move on, but it's becoming dangerous now because the combination of complacent under-estimation of the people in charge and the false equivalence it paints between the Tories(in the final violent death-throes of an internal conflict decades in the making, while in power, while the country is at its most vulnerable since the second world war) and Labour(dealing with what should be a minor disagreement over the exact wording of some guidance, but a handful of centrist MPs and media hacks with an axe to grind are trying to blow it up beyond all proportion) just reinforces all the instincts among centrists that landed us in this hell-timeline in the first place.
The Tories are getting exactly what they always want out of this debacle no matter which way it goes - personal enrichment and new opportunities to enact their ideological agenda. Centrists always do this, every time; paint moderately left-wing as equivalent to swivel-eyed right-wing and declare they're all as bad as each other, refuse to work with any of the former unless they bend the knee and abandon any pretense of holding non-centrist opinions, and so open the door for the right to do as they like. Then of course once the Overton Window has shifted rightwards, "pragmatic" centrists will end up "dealing with reality" by allying with "moderate" elements of the right(which would previously have been considered fringe) for the sake of "stability", and the whole dance starts over again.
Honestly these days I can't figure out if avowed centrists are really just so monumentally thick that they genuinely do believe the leadership of the right are bumbling buffoons and multiple rightward shifts in politics over the last few decades happened spontaneously or by accident, or if the whole thing is an affect and they really are just "shy Tories" who will always end up backing the right in the end because they share too many fundamental beliefs but just want to be seen as a bit nicer about it(they'll cut your benefits, but feel really really bad for you; they'll indulge "concerns about immigration" for years and years, then express their shock and sympathy when you're the victim of a racially motivated assault; their hearts will bleed profusely for victims of famine and war abroad, but when the right and the defence industry agitate for another bombing campaign in some far away place they'll vote it right on through, though with great and solemn regret of course ).
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
For sure, Bojo's comments were a calculated move, but he had every right to say them. And I say that as somebody who despises the fether.
Having read his article, it's a fuss over nothing. It's been half amusing, half depressing to see the faux outrage against him. You could almost set your watch by it.
The usual keywords were bandied around: Nazi, Fascist, Holocaust, Beer Hall Putsh for feth's sake!
Feth me with a fish fork but does anybody seriously know what a Fascist is these days? The word is bandied around so often as to be worth nothing, as Orwell himself was saying 80 years ago. That is what passes for political discourse in the UK these days.
If you only ever read Remain supporting media, including twitter, you could be forgiven for thinking that Mosques and Synagogues have been burnt to the ground, and UKIP voters roam the streets looking for Polish plumbers to hang from a lamppost, and without the EU, we will all struggle to wipe our own backsides.
And the right-wing rags are just as bad: 10 million Muslims arrive on these shores every year, jihadis lurk behind every lamp post, and Corbyn is itching to open up a British version of Belsen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: Hmm. See, to me, that Times column reads an awful lot like the usual Centrist's Lament - everything I disagree with is madness, anyone who doesn't have the same priorities has none, and people who have an ideological stance other than "the status quo is pretty good to me, so must be pretty good in general and shouldn't change" is a swivel-eyed loon.
Normally I just roll my eyes at the pity-party and move on, but it's becoming dangerous now because the combination of complacent under-estimation of the people in charge and the false equivalence it paints between the Tories(in the final violent death-throes of an internal conflict decades in the making, while in power, while the country is at its most vulnerable since the second world war) and Labour(dealing with what should be a minor disagreement over the exact wording of some guidance, but a handful of centrist MPs and media hacks with an axe to grind are trying to blow it up beyond all proportion) just reinforces all the instincts among centrists that landed us in this hell-timeline in the first place.
The Tories are getting exactly what they always want out of this debacle no matter which way it goes - personal enrichment and new opportunities to enact their ideological agenda. Centrists always do this, every time; paint moderately left-wing as equivalent to swivel-eyed right-wing and declare they're all as bad as each other, refuse to work with any of the former unless they bend the knee and abandon any pretense of holding non-centrist opinions, and so open the door for the right to do as they like. Then of course once the Overton Window has shifted rightwards, "pragmatic" centrists will end up "dealing with reality" by allying with "moderate" elements of the right(which would previously have been considered fringe) for the sake of "stability", and the whole dance starts over again.
Honestly these days I can't figure out if avowed centrists are really just so monumentally thick that they genuinely do believe the leadership of the right are bumbling buffoons and multiple rightward shifts in politics over the last few decades happened spontaneously or by accident, or if the whole thing is an affect and they really are just "shy Tories" who will always end up backing the right in the end because they share too many fundamental beliefs but just want to be seen as a bit nicer about it(they'll cut your benefits, but feel really really bad for you; they'll indulge "concerns about immigration" for years and years, then express their shock and sympathy when you're the victim of a racially motivated assault; their hearts will bleed profusely for victims of famine and war abroad, but when the right and the defence industry agitate for another bombing campaign in some far away place they'll vote it right on through, though with great and solemn regret of course ).
Spot on about the Centrists.
Blairism has been nothing but poison for British politics these past 20 years in its red and blue form. They are utterly useless and feeble. They can't even bring themselves to defend their sacred cow the EU.
Even now they can't even make a case for the EU. They rely on demographics and voter's remorse to bail them out. Utterly, utterly, feeble stuff.
Is that the grand vision for a United Europe? Wait until the old people die off? No sweeping vision, no grand plan of peace and prosperity?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/12 13:50:50
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For sure, Bojo's comments were a calculated move, but he had every right to say them. And I say that as somebody who despises the fether.
And yet just like Wrexit when it all comes crashing down you stand there, trying to protest your innocence that you stood by watched and stating this isn't what you wanted whilst blindly ignoring what the implications of these actions. Quietly accepting what is being said because they can whilst trying to mutter that you don't disagree with.
You've still not explained why it should be anyone else's issue as to what someone wears, you seem to hide from this line of questioning.
Having read his article, it's a fuss over nothing. It's been half amusing, half depressing to see the faux outrage against him. You could almost set your watch by it.
So the increased attacks on people wearing such clothing is nothing then to you? That these have increased since the article came out? That it has inspired greater hatred of a group of people simply because of an item of clothing?
The usual keywords were bandied around: Nazi, Fascist, Holocaust, Beer Hall Putsh for feth's sake!
Feth me with a fish fork but does anybody seriously know what a Fascist is these days? The word is bandied around so often as to be worth nothing, as Orwell himself was saying 80 years ago. That is what passes for political discourse in the UK these days.
Facism, has a very broad scope. Perhaps you should tell us how you define it? There is a view that facism does include the exploitation of the fear of difference and this article by bozo very much does this. It's both clever and appalling as it focuses on clothes avoiding direct racism claims whilst targeting a group of people of whom the majority will be of one religion. It's feeding a fear in a element of society that he has obviously calculated runs strong in the Tory party and the reactions appear to show he is correct.
Blairism has been nothing but poison for British politics these past 20 years in its red and blue form. They are utterly useless and feeble. They can't even bring themselves to defend their sacred cow the EU.
Even now they can't even make a case for the EU. They rely on demographics and voter's remorse to bail them out. Utterly, utterly, feeble stuff.
Is that the grand vision for a United Europe? Wait until the old people die off? No sweeping vision, no grand plan of peace and prosperity?
You have it wrong. Those arguments are put forward to a younger generation that are more open and look at things more critically and realise the benefits of the EU. You, yourself have always stated that regardless of what argument you wouldn't support being in the EU. There is hence no point even putting the arguments to you as - you would be a waste of time and effort. Because you don't want to see the arguments put forward to younger generations you disdainfully wave them away as not having a 'grand plan'. Maybe there is but you are too closed off to see what others can see and agree with. That this is more common with older people and why is open to debate, whether that is education, fearing strangers, or just plain obstinacy that the British empire doesn't exist anymore is something to be chewed over by historians.
And to point out blairism really isn't a political ideology. It's a way of trying to denigrate a type of politics you don't agree with by using a politician that many people don't like, because in reality he took us to war on false pretences. No one person defines a political ideology - and in reality this shifted over his tenure as well.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
MPs who bring prostitutes into parliament will face the sack under Westminster’s first code of conduct which lays down rules for politicians to follow.
The behaviour guidelines, introduced after a sex harassment scandal in parliament, ban MPs from paying for sex while “acting in their parliamentary capacity”.
This includes when the politicians are engaged in any activity connected with their role as an MP, whether in the UK or abroad.
The new complaints and grievance policy states: “Although it might not be illegal to pay for sex, in line with best practice it is considered unprofessional, inappropriate and a breach of the behaviour code.”
Breaches will trigger sanctions that will vary in severity according to the offence. These include suspensions, withdrawal of parliamentary passes and starting the recall procedure that can result in an MP having to fight a by-election in their constituency.
The Conservative MP Mark Menzies resigned as a ministerial aide in March 2014 after facing claims that he had enjoyed an 18-month fling with a Brazilian rent boy. Rogerio dos Santos Pinto, the £250-a-time escort, claimed that one seedy session had taken place at Westminster although Menzies denied that anything “untoward” had occurred on the parliamentary estate.
A working group was set up in November to look into creating a new grievance process after Westminster was hit by sex scandals. Two government ministers, Damian Green and Michael Fallon, resigned last year in a wave of controversy and other politicians on both sides of the House were investigated over claims of sexual misconduct.
The new policy was approved by MPs last month.
The parliamentary commissioner for standards will have powers to deal out low-level punishments such as calling for an apology, but more serious complaints could be passed to the standards committee — made up of seven MPs and seven lay people — who would be able to vote on more serious sanctions, including sacking.
MPs face sack for taking prostitutes to parliament
welll yeah.
I mean one would suggest that most people would lose their jobs if they, you know, hire and bring a prostitute.
....still I best check with HR just in case maybe.
.. there's probably an "honourable members" joke here but let's just pretend we've done that and move on.
Spoiler:
perfectly normal behaviour.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I'm not really sure that the way to go about criticising an item of clothing as misogynistic is to mock the women wearing it.
Especially when the women wearing it are a minority group and the person doing the mocking is wealthy, male and white and born into circumstances giving him easy access to power.
Seems to me that if you want to criticise misogyny you should actually do that, not mock and belittle those who are supposedly the victims of it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/13 10:18:57
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
As someone who hopes to see the current conservative party booted from Govt for a generation, their ideology crushed, and their supporters wide eyed and aware of their ignorance and foolishness, I heartily endorse this plan.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
MPs face sack for taking prostitutes to parliament
welll yeah.
I mean one would suggest that most people would lose their jobs if they, you know, hire and bring a prostitute
I doubt many companies have a specific clause, because it would probably be considered to be bringing the organisation into disrepute.
That they have to bring in a specific clause would suggest it is actually quite prevalent. This statement raises my eyebrows:- "Breaches will trigger sanctions that will vary in severity according to the offence. "
So there are levels of engagement it appears:-
Oral sex = suspension
Sex = Withdrawal of parliamentary passes
S&M = recall procedure
Any of the above posted live on the parliamentary twitter live feed (exepcially whilst a boring debate in parliament is ongoing) = slap on wrist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/13 17:51:54
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Daily news has been a bit thin on the ground due to parliament deciding there's no pressing business they should be getting on with; so thank the stars for Jeremy Hunt, who took to a podium today to remind the EU Commission that the UK looks to be crashing out of the EU without a deal pretty soon, so if they wouldn't mind just bally-well changing their entire negotiating stance to appease us that would be just fine please thanks.
Essentially the Tory dream now is to cling on fight the GE in 2022 on a platform of "Everything is still the EU's fault and look at Corbyn the big daft racist" then reign over the ashes.
“Good people are quick to help others in need, without hesitation or requiring proof the need is genuine. The wicked will believe they are fighting for good, but when others are in need they’ll be reluctant to help, withholding compassion until they see proof of that need. And yet Evil is quick to condemn, vilify and attack. For Evil, proof isn’t needed to bring harm, only hatred and a belief in the cause.”
Whilst on the same day 35 people are killed in Italy because of a collapsing bridge. Going to show that more people die each year from our own internal controls (or lack thereof) than they ever do from terrorism. Yet controls against terrorism are always prioritised over those actions that generally save more lives (e.g. Grenfell tower etc).
Still a terrorist attack is definitely a good opportunity for a selfie isn't it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/14 20:23:35
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I really wish they'd stop hyping up terror attacks and just treat it as the base crime - in this case attempted murder. It'd sell less papers but people would be less worked up about it, and that's kind of the point of terrorism.
As said - being injured/killed in a terrorist attack is awful, but it's mathematically insignificant compared to most other ways of being injured/killed.
Whilst on the same day 35 people are killed in Italy because of a collapsing bridge. Going to show that more people die each year from our own internal controls (or lack thereof) than they ever do from terrorism. Yet controls against terrorism are always prioritised over those actions that generally save more lives (e.g. Grenfell tower etc).
Still a terrorist attack is definitely a good opportunity for a selfie isn't it?
Hey, got to post something on Facebook, right? Otherwise no one will believe you were at the scene of a real terrorist attack! Coming up next, real ISIS terrorists posing with tourists for selfies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/15 03:59:50
This is the Mirror. Hardly a bastion of quality and fairness. Given what is in the background of their shot, and that it is peak tourist season, it’s probably that they just wanted a picture of themselves in front of the Palace of Westminster. This isn’t exactly the twin towers or tube bombings. I’d suggest that this is more about the faux outrage of tabloids and the righteous anger of people who get angry about anything. IE Mirror readers.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Steve steveson wrote: This is the Mirror. Hardly a bastion of quality and fairness. Given what is in the background of their shot, and that it is peak tourist season, it’s probably that they just wanted a picture of themselves in front of the Palace of Westminster. This isn’t exactly the twin towers or tube bombings. I’d suggest that this is more about the faux outrage of tabloids and the righteous anger of people who get angry about anything. IE Mirror readers.
Now I know some papers articles can be pretty biased one way or another, but the belief that the papers are now sending out their own staff to take pictures to make a story is rather delving into the paranoid tin-hat brigade. It is a bit crass to be taking photos when people could be seriously injured. Never mind that it could potentially result in delays of the emergency services getting to scene (e.g. an ambulance) where those few minutes delay could result in a life (or death). From my perspective and at a personal level I would have thought it was really a stupid thing to do. You have no idea whether it is an individual case or whether it is coordinated. If it could be the latter then you are putting yourself at greater risk as a crowd at a scene could make a tempting target.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
If it was a genuinely dangerous thing to do, by blocking an ambulance or something, the police would have moved them on.
You've heard of the idea of "1st World Problems" -- things which you find a problem which are completely trivial compared to the kind of stuff people in the 3rd World have to deal with everyday? Typical example = crying baby on a flight, or no parking spaces available in station car park.
This is a 0th World Problem. It may even be a -1th World Problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/15 07:34:18
).
