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.

A conservation just like this is what got me kicked off tvtropes. The British Politics Thread was full of the worst kind of lefties, and the mod running it was the biggest leftie of them all. It was ok to hope Maggie was burning in hell, that Cameron deserved to suffer his child’s death and to threaten to give Farage an acid bath, but say rot in hell about Mick Philpott and you’re suspended for a week. spankers.

 jhe90 wrote:

No.. Thetes a very exact reason for it.

Anyone is free to report after but the case is decided on facts alone not media pressure etc. During trial the restrictions are very tight to prevent any kind of comtaniation of the proceedings.

Its trial by jury, not media.

Our laws protect the proceedings heavily, a trial of the type he reported on involving kids and so. Is very restricted on what can and cannot be published.

Our systems are set up as they are for good reason.
We do not have zinerman media circus events.

If cases were to be decided on facts alone we would do away with the jury and use robots to decide. A hue part of sentencing is how the jury feels, the human aspect, whether they think the defendent is guilty or not could have a lot to do with their behaviour in court, for example.

And for a real example, my english teacher was recently called in for jury service. In one of the cases, despite the defendant being demonstrably guilty of breaking the law by carrying a knife in public, the jury unanimously decided to declare him not guilty. Why? Because when he was arrested with the knife on him, it was in its box, with the reciept, becasue he was going back to the shop to return it. Given it was such a farce of a case, the jury, even though for once there was undeniable evidence the person committed the crime, found them not guilty.

The point of a jury is judgment by peers. Fellow people with emotions and hang-ups and hunches. It is not just a facts exercise. It is also an exercise in human judgment. And again, it still seems to me that a democratic government should make the facts and proceedings of all criminal cases transparent during. Maybe not cameras in the actual court, that would be distracting, but people should be allowed to report on the case's happening and express their own opinions. Otherwise that's suppression of the press, which is not at all democratic.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A conservation just like this is what got me kicked off tvtropes. The British Politics Thread was full of the worst kind of lefties, and the mod running it was the biggest leftie of them all. It was ok to hope Maggie was burning in hell, that Cameron deserved to suffer his child’s death and to threaten to give Farage an acid bath, but say rot in hell about Mick Philpott and you’re suspended for a week. spankers.

Can we add Left Wingers on Dakka Dakka inciting violence against Right Wingers to the Dakka Dakka bingo?

I see where this is going, I'm out.

Might as well add "put them in camps!" or "let them drown in the Aegean" in that case.

On a related note though, I really wish this thread would stop making me agree with Shadow Captain. Gleefully reveling in the prospect of somebody being assaulted is pretty vile.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

No.. Thetes a very exact reason for it.

Anyone is free to report after but the case is decided on facts alone not media pressure etc. During trial the restrictions are very tight to prevent any kind of comtaniation of the proceedings.

Its trial by jury, not media.

Our laws protect the proceedings heavily, a trial of the type he reported on involving kids and so. Is very restricted on what can and cannot be published.

Our systems are set up as they are for good reason.
We do not have zinerman media circus events.

If cases were to be decided on facts alone we would do away with the jury and use robots to decide. A hue part of sentencing is how the jury feels, the human aspect, whether they think the defendent is guilty or not could have a lot to do with their behaviour in court, for example.

And for a real example, my english teacher was recently called in for jury service. In one of the cases, despite the defendant being demonstrably guilty of breaking the law by carrying a knife in public, the jury unanimously decided to declare him not guilty. Why? Because when he was arrested with the knife on him, it was in its box, with the reciept, becasue he was going back to the shop to return it. Given it was such a farce of a case, the jury, even though for once there was undeniable evidence the person committed the crime, found them not guilty.

The point of a jury is judgment by peers. Fellow people with emotions and hang-ups and hunches. It is not just a facts exercise. It is also an exercise in human judgment. And again, it still seems to me that a democratic government should make the facts and proceedings of all criminal cases transparent during. Maybe not cameras in the actual court, that would be distracting, but people should be allowed to report on the case's happening and express their own opinions. Otherwise that's suppression of the press, which is not at all democratic.

I'm not sure how your example pertains to the point? Yes we have juries specifically so that human judgement is involved, but that doesn't mean we should try to make it as objective as possible, and media speculation in no way helps that. Your example wouldn't be helped by media speculation, but the defendant's chances could be damaged by a swathe of headlines about his being a serial knife carrier. We know the media has massive power in directing public opinion, I'm not sure how it is possible to argue that this can't impact the fairness of a trial? So long as court proceedings are available afterwards, I am perfectly comfortable with judges being able to bar publication whilst a trial is underway. I do have severe problems with superinjunctions.

I utterly despise Tommy and his constant scummy lies and violence (he goes to other countries and baits people into approaching him so he can sucker punch them, good man), but anyone saying they're either happy and/or willing to turn a blind eye to him being attacked in prison is pretty gakky too.

He belongs in prison, serving the sentence given. The sentence didn't include beatings, and I'd worry if our country allowed those.

Anyone supporting him beyond demanding he deserves the same basic rights as the rest of us, I shake my head. This guy is a gakker. As to the evidence of his being attacked etc, you can immediately ignore anything *he* says, given he's a proven thug and liar.

I'm not dropping to their level, I'm out.

 r_squared wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
...kindly retract that smear.

I believe in the rule of Law. Tommy Robinson broke the Law, and he is being sent to where he belongs. I do NOT believe in violence and extra judicial revenge, unlike the likes of you and R_squared who sadistically revel in people they dislike being subjected to illegal violence.

Retract that smear and then you come out with that little gem? I said I don't care if he gets beaten up, I didn't say he should and I certainly wasn't sadistic about it.

You really have tried to jump on the moral high ground here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A conservation just like this is what got me kicked off tvtropes. The British Politics Thread was full of the worst kind of lefties, and the mod running it was the biggest leftie of them all. It was ok to hope Maggie was burning in hell, that Cameron deserved to suffer his child’s death and to threaten to give Farage an acid bath, but say rot in hell about Mick Philpott and you’re suspended for a week. spankers.

Can we add Left Wingers on Dakka Dakka inciting violence against Right Wingers to the Dakka Dakka bingo?

You two have lost the plot, really.

Says the person revelling in violence against people he dislikes.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
...kindly retract that smear.

I believe in the rule of Law. Tommy Robinson broke the Law, and he is being sent to where he belongs. I do NOT believe in violence and extra judicial revenge, unlike the likes of you and R_squared who sadistically revel in people they dislike being subjected to illegal violence.

Retract that smear and then you come out with that little gem? I said I don't care if he gets beaten up, I didn't say he should and I certainly wasn't sadistic about it.

You really have tried to jump on the moral high ground here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A conservation just like this is what got me kicked off tvtropes. The British Politics Thread was full of the worst kind of lefties, and the mod running it was the biggest leftie of them all. It was ok to hope Maggie was burning in hell, that Cameron deserved to suffer his child’s death and to threaten to give Farage an acid bath, but say rot in hell about Mick Philpott and you’re suspended for a week. spankers.

Can we add Left Wingers on Dakka Dakka inciting violence against Right Wingers to the Dakka Dakka bingo?

You two have lost the plot, really.

Says the person revelling in violence against people he dislikes.

You're genuinely not worth it. If people want to know your motivations, and that of FWC, they only have to check the reason why the last thread closed, and I'm not contributing to that possibility anymore. I'm out.

I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism.

To get back to the topic, there's an interesting article on The Guardina about how Labour could claim an anti-Brexit position and parlay it into an election victory.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/29/labour-mps-fear-brexit-voters-unfounded-study

But is the leadership anti-brexit? I honestly can’t tell.

FYI, I chose those three specific examples to highlight the hypocrisy of that attitude. I’d bet money that those same posters hoping that Tommy gets his gak kicked in in prison and finding the first time funny would be chewing me out and moaning about human rights if I had been publicly hoping that any of them got the same. You either support duty of care and human rights for all those in prison or you don’t.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism.

To get back to the topic, there's an interesting article on The Guardina about how Labour could claim an anti-Brexit position and parlay it into an election victory.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/29/labour-mps-fear-brexit-voters-unfounded-study

I can't even remember back when the last thread was closed, and whatever R_squared is insinuating. IIRC, you accidentally deleted it...So no, R_squared, people can't go and see for themselves.

So I'll quite openly state my motivations here.




tl;dr
NO Tommy Robinson does not deserve to get the gak kicked out of him, he deserves to be imprisoned. He is entitled to the same basic rights as you and I.

Neither does Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. Anjem Chaudhary. Abu Hamza. NOBODY deserves to be subjected to violence, short of whatever is required by law enforcement to subdue and arrest them. If you think people deserve to be punishment for their actions with violence, why not put your money where your mouth is and advocate reinstating Corporal and Capitol Punishment? At least then we'd be following the rule of law.

But feth, what do I know? Apparently defending the right of a criminal to not be savagely beaten and murdered by other inmates means that I'm a Far Right EDL and BF supporter.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism.

To get back to the topic, there's an interesting article on The Guardina about how Labour could claim an anti-Brexit position and parlay it into an election victory.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/29/labour-mps-fear-brexit-voters-unfounded-study

I can't even remember back when the last thread was closed, or whatever R_squared is insinuating. IIRC, you accidentally deleted it...So no, R_squared, people can't go and see for themselves.

So I'll quite openly state my motivations here.

Spoiler:

I believe Islam is an outdated religion badly in need of reform and modernisation like Christianity was. I believe that, much like the Bible, the Quran contains a lot of bigoted, regressive scriptures that are easily interpreted to support an extremist interpretation of Islam therefore there is a direct causal link to Islam as stated by every Muslim terrorist; but there is a tremendous reluctance on the Left to acknowledge this and encourage the liberalisation and secularisation of Islam in the same way that Christianity was (and still is) made to reform.

I do NOT however believe in the targeting and harassment of individual Muslims. My issue is with the ideology of Islam, specifically the ideas and values within it that I consider to be illiberal and bigoted; not individual Muslims.

I believe in the rule of Law and Justice. I believe that if anyone is guilty of a crime, like Tommy Robinson, they should be convicted and imprisoned within the boundaries of the Law. I do NOT believe in revenge and violence. Even if that person is a Far Right extremist who incites violence, or a Muslim terrorist guilty of actual violence like the Lee Rigby killers. We have Laws for dealing with their crimes, and vigilantism as advocated by various Left wingers here on Dakka is NOT the answer.

tl;dr
NO Tommy Robinson does not deserve to get the gak kicked out of him, he deserves to be imprisoned. He is entitled to the same basic rights as you and I.

Neither does Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. Anjem Chaudhary. Abu Hamza. NOBODY deserves to be subjected to violence, short of whatever is required by law enforcement to subdue and arrest them. If you think people deserve to be punishment for their actions with violence, why not put your money where your mouth is and advocate reinstating Corporal and Capitol Punishment? At least then we'd be following the rule of law.

A steaming racist gak pile he is.

A steaming racist gak pile with rights he also is.

He has every right to serve sentence without harm being condoned. Much as a racist and so. He not deserve being beaten on jail. 13 months locked away from his Facebook and so should be ernough punishment!

About the last thread; after repeated terrorist attacks by people supposedly on watch lists, along with the grooming rings, I was ranting about how the softly softly approach was clearly not working, and I was also angry that a desire to not be seen as rascist to protect multiculturalism was running through the state to the extent that police and social workers turned a blind eye to what was going on. That not being seen as racist was more important than stopping physical child abuse. It all came out far worse than I meant it too, but I’ve always been clumsily direct like that.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
About the last thread; after repeated terrorist attacks by people supposedly on watch lists, along with the grooming rings, I was ranting about how the softly softly approach was clearly not working, and I was also angry that a desire to not be seen as rascist to protect multiculturalism was running through the state to the extent that police and social workers turned a blind eye to what was going on. That not being seen as racist was more important than stopping physical child abuse. It all came out far worse than I meant it too, but I’ve always been clumsily direct like that.

And yet you were proven right in the end, as we can now see in the many grooming gang cases that have since come to light with Authorities turning a blind eye being a recurring theme. Hell, this tangent began with the discussion of one such case.

Not that the usual suspects here care. They're still sticking to their guns and denying that political correctness and the fear of being accused of racism is a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back on topic:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soros-drastic-action-needed-for-eurozone-to-survive

And people still deny that Soros interferes in British politics...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
About the last thread; after repeated terrorist attacks by people supposedly on watch lists, along with the grooming rings, I was ranting about how the softly softly approach was clearly not working, and I was also angry that a desire to not be seen as rascist to protect multiculturalism was running through the state to the extent that police and social workers turned a blind eye to what was going on. That not being seen as racist was more important than stopping physical child abuse. It all came out far worse than I meant it too, but I’ve always been clumsily direct like that.

And yet you were proven right in the end, as we can now see in the many grooming gang cases that have since come to light with Authorities turning a blind eye being a recurring theme. Hell, this tangent began with the discussion of one such case.

Not that the usual suspects here care. They're still sticking to their guns and denying that political correctness and the fear of being accused of racism is a problem.

My mistake was saying "there's thousands of the b's up and down the country", by which I meant those in the terror cells and grooming rings. A severe over estimate, but without proper context it just sounds...even worse.

They don't care about context. The Nazi Pug case showed that.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
They don't care about context. The Nazi Pug case showed that.

Nazi salutes are funny haHaa

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
They don't care about context. The Nazi Pug case showed that.

Nazi salutes are funny haHaa

When it's a Pug doing the salute, yes. That was the context.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/refugees-in-scotland-to-be-given-right-to-vote-1-4744219

Only citizens or permanent residents who have already been in the country for a long time and aren't going to leave any time soon should get to vote. If this is for Scottish only elections I still think it's stupid, but t doesn't affect me. If this included general elections, what the actual feth? It's not clear from the article. It just talks about elections.

Look, that whole thing with the Pug was tasteless, immature, stupid and not funny. Offensive too. But to have the guy brought up on charges and convicted for it is over the top. This is supposed to be an open society with freedom of thought, with the right to be stupid. I know what he said, but it was to a dog...it's ridiculous.

What's more insidious was this case. Quoting lyrics from a publicly available song is suddenly a crime...especially if you're the wrong colour. When you make something subjective like being offensive a crime you open up pandora's box. Literally anything you say or do could suddenly become a crime because context doesn't matter. And if the victim found you offensive and that's all that is required for a crime to have been committed then you have no defense.

And honestly, what the hell kind of country polices what people, grown ass adults, say anyway? It's petty and infantile.

I follow this thread for the British Politics.

Most of what I just read was petty bickering and personal attacks on other posters and a healthy dose of scarcasm.

Can we not, please?

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Most of what I just read was petty bickering and personal attacks on other posters and a healthy dose of scarcasm

That's not unique to the UK politics thread. You've just described dakka dakka.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Most of what I just read was petty bickering and personal attacks on other posters and a healthy dose of scarcasm

That's not unique to the UK politics thread. You've just described dakka dakka.

That post is an excellent example of what I used asked everyone to not do, and singularly unrelated to UK politics.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
They don't care about context. The Nazi Pug case showed that.

Nazi salutes are funny haHaa

When it's a Pug doing the salute, yes. That was the context.

pretty much anything a pug dog does is funny.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Look, that whole thing with the Pug was tasteless, immature, stupid and not funny. Offensive too. But to have the guy brought up on charges and convicted for it is over the top. This is supposed to be an open society with freedom of thought, with the right to be stupid. I know what he said, but it was to a dog...it's ridiculous.

What's more insidious was this case. Quoting lyrics from a publicly available song is suddenly a crime...especially if you're the wrong colour. When you make something subjective like being offensive a crime you open up pandora's box. Literally anything you say or do could suddenly become a crime because context doesn't matter. And if the victim found you offensive and that's all that is required for a crime to have been committed then you have no defense.

And honestly, what the hell kind of country polices what people, grown ass adults, say anyway? It's petty and infantile.

How can it be acceptable to state that someone should be killed and on top of that by racial stereotypes? It wasn't stated as a quote, which is hardly an acceptable quote anyway. Just because you can quote something doesn't mean you should out of context and independently. Is it OK to be anti-Semitic and then state well it's OK because Hitler said it? I was just quoting him. If an extreme Oman was quoting something about death to heathens in a local mosque, is it acceptable if they just turn around and say, 'but guv, I was just quoting this person in ISIS in Iraq?

And to point out the Pug issue is what the papers made of it and presented it as but the guy had put forward a lot more offensive views as well.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
They don't care about context. The Nazi Pug case showed that.

Nazi salutes are funny haHaa

When it's a Pug doing the salute, yes. That was the context.

I believe the context was the commands he had used to get the pug to perform the salute, but I guess saying "gas the Jews" is protected under free speech as long as you're getting a pet to do something to annoy your girlfirend for a private joke that he somehow managed to record and then upload on a public media sharing website.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
They don't care about context. The Nazi Pug case showed that.

You don't care about context. Your continual use of this feeble argument shows that.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/refugees-in-scotland-to-be-given-right-to-vote-1-4744219

Only citizens or permanent residents who have already been in the country for a long time and aren't going to leave any time soon should get to vote. If this is for Scottish only elections I still think it's stupid, but t doesn't affect me. If this included general elections, what the actual feth? It's not clear from the article. It just talks about elections.

All Scottish elections. The Scottish government can't change voting rights for a GE (hence why voting regulations are already different in Scottish and Westminster elections, with Scottish ones being more inclusive). An excellent idea that will almost certainly pass. It has good support amongst the populace. Why shouldn't you get to vote in the place you live? Next stop, prisoners (hopefully, that will obviously take a lot more convicing and is far more politically dangerous).