FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Our Foreign Secretary Baron Cameron
Our Foreign Secretary Baron Cameron
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"I was enjoying the Suella Braverman thread. As it got full maybe we can continue it here with a new title. " Rishi bringing in Cameron is like Atarmer bringing in Blair. It's a vote loser Conservative voters want a government more right of centre. That involves deporting migrants, it involves signing trade deals, having a Pro brexit gov, not printing momey. Honestly where the f is Rishi getting his advice from 
He was already going to lose parliament, and at best hope lib dems take enough Labour seats to stop a majority for Labour.
But holy f. At the moment he's just handing the keys to starmer.
| |||
| |||
"As per my post in other thread, I reckon Labour have a long term sleeper agent in Sunak’s camp and he is slowly fucking him over "In your previous post you said "royally fucking". It made me wonder what Michael Fawcett is doing these days. | |||
"As per my post in other thread, I reckon Labour have a long term sleeper agent in Sunak’s camp and he is slowly fucking him over
In your previous post you said "royally fucking". It made me wonder what Michael Fawcett is doing these days. " | |||
| |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. " This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. | |||
"As per my post in other thread, I reckon Labour have a long term sleeper agent in Sunak’s camp and he is slowly fucking him over "
Although I honestly don't think any of this will make any difference. People will vote Tory and we'll have five more years of this nonsense. | |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. " "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? | |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them?" The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry? | |||
| |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. " by middle ground I mean the middle of the UK voters. Not a theoretical position. But I'd also stick by the Tories only need to be to the right of labour to sweep up votes, unless a credible party that sits to the right of the Tories come in. | |||
"I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." I simply cannot agree. Braverman is on the right of the Tory party and very much to the right in politics generally in UK. Everyone says it. The media are saying it in terms of this losing Sunak support from the right of the party. If you think Braverman is in the middle ground then I can only conclude you are further to the right than you consider yourself to be and that is skewing your views. | |||
| |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. " This is scary that you think this. They're also supposed to represent the interests of everyone else. Those who voted for other parties, too young to vote or didn't want to vote. " The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry?" Not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase? | |||
"I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. I simply cannot agree. Braverman is on the right of the Tory party and very much to the right in politics generally in UK. Everyone says it. The media are saying it in terms of this losing Sunak support from the right of the party. If you think Braverman is in the middle ground then I can only conclude you are further to the right than you consider yourself to be and that is skewing your views." I'd agree that Braverman is on the right. I thought that's where the Tories were supposed to sit. Sunak has basically just appointed Starmer to his cabinet. Weird move. | |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. This is scary that you think this. They're also supposed to represent the interests of everyone else. Those who voted for other parties, too young to vote or didn't want to vote. The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry? Not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase?" *Everyone else too. | |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. This is scary that you think this. They're also supposed to represent the interests of everyone else. Those who voted for other parties, too young to vote or didn't want to vote. The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry? Not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase?" "You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars," Your words Please clarify what you deemed hateful rhetoric. | |||
"I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. I simply cannot agree. Braverman is on the right of the Tory party and very much to the right in politics generally in UK. Everyone says it. The media are saying it in terms of this losing Sunak support from the right of the party. If you think Braverman is in the middle ground then I can only conclude you are further to the right than you consider yourself to be and that is skewing your views. I'd agree that Braverman is on the right. I thought that's where the Tories were supposed to sit. Sunak has basically just appointed Starmer to his cabinet. Weird move. " Agreed | |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. This is scary that you think this. They're also supposed to represent the interests of everyone else. Those who voted for other parties, too young to vote or didn't want to vote. The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry? Not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase? "You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars," Your words Please clarify what you deemed hateful rhetoric." Have a look at some of the stuff she says. If you're unaware Sky news did a piece the other day which is a good place to start. "Suella Braverman's controversial career". That's a good starting point. | |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. This is scary that you think this. They're also supposed to represent the interests of everyone else. Those who voted for other parties, too young to vote or didn't want to vote. The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry? Not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase? "You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars," Your words Please clarify what you deemed hateful rhetoric. Have a look at some of the stuff she says. If you're unaware Sky news did a piece the other day which is a good place to start. "Suella Braverman's controversial career". That's a good starting point." That's a no then. It's not for me to go back and try and read your mind on what you thought might be inciteful and hate speech. | |||
"As per my post in other thread, I reckon Labour have a long term sleeper agent in Sunak’s camp and he is slowly fucking him over
Although I honestly don't think any of this will make any difference. People will vote Tory and we'll have five more years of this nonsense."Fully agree with the Labour sleeper agent idea. As to people voting Tory, probably not now. This was the last straw. I foresee many spoilt ballots - "none of the above" should be a valid option. | |||
"As per my post in other thread, I reckon Labour have a long term sleeper agent in Sunak’s camp and he is slowly fucking him over
Although I honestly don't think any of this will make any difference. People will vote Tory and we'll have five more years of this nonsense.
Fully agree with the Labour sleeper agent idea.
As to people voting Tory, probably not now. This was the last straw. I foresee many spoilt ballots - "none of the above" should be a valid option."would one do this even if it hands more power to the left ? (I've spoilt but also I have no party alligances what so ever... I've also mainly lived in areas which are deeply blue so my vote wouldn't register anyway!) | |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. This is scary that you think this. They're also supposed to represent the interests of everyone else. Those who voted for other parties, too young to vote or didn't want to vote. The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry? Not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase? "You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars," Your words Please clarify what you deemed hateful rhetoric. Have a look at some of the stuff she says. If you're unaware Sky news did a piece the other day which is a good place to start. "Suella Braverman's controversial career". That's a good starting point. That's a no then. " It was a "yes" I even directed you to an article detailing some of the hateful rhetoric she uses. " It's not for me to go back and try and read your mind on what you thought might be inciteful and hate speech." Absolutely, remain ignorant about the topic you want to debate. Solid tactic. | |||
"As per my post in other thread, I reckon Labour have a long term sleeper agent in Sunak’s camp and he is slowly fucking him over "Plot twist: Sunak is the sleeper agent, has always been | |||
| |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. This is scary that you think this. They're also supposed to represent the interests of everyone else. Those who voted for other parties, too young to vote or didn't want to vote. The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry? Not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase? "You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars," Your words Please clarify what you deemed hateful rhetoric. Have a look at some of the stuff she says. If you're unaware Sky news did a piece the other day which is a good place to start. "Suella Braverman's controversial career". That's a good starting point. That's a no then. It was a "yes" I even directed you to an article detailing some of the hateful rhetoric she uses. It's not for me to go back and try and read your mind on what you thought might be inciteful and hate speech. Absolutely, remain ignorant about the topic you want to debate. Solid tactic. " I cant read your mind. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Cameron has been selected for the same reasons as Hunt - a safe pair of hands. If he's the best person for the job, that can only be a good thing." Indont see DC as a good thing. Many as the poster above. Consider him the reason for so much infighting. He said he'd lead the tories regardless of the outcome and then ran to the hills with George. I think he'll put people off voting tory perosnally. | |||
"I was enjoying the Suella Braverman thread. As it got full maybe we can continue it here with a new title. Rishi bringing in Cameron is like Atarmer bringing in Blair. It's a vote loser Conservative voters want a government more right of centre. That involves deporting migrants, it involves signing trade deals, having a Pro brexit gov, not printing momey. Honestly where the f is Rishi getting his advice from
He was already going to lose parliament, and at best hope lib dems take enough Labour seats to stop a majority for Labour.
But holy f. At the moment he's just handing the keys to starmer.
"So do Conservative voters want all migrants deported. Even the ones that have arrived legally..? | |||
"I was enjoying the Suella Braverman thread. As it got full maybe we can continue it here with a new title. Rishi bringing in Cameron is like Atarmer bringing in Blair. It's a vote loser Conservative voters want a government more right of centre. That involves deporting migrants, it involves signing trade deals, having a Pro brexit gov, not printing momey. Honestly where the f is Rishi getting his advice from
He was already going to lose parliament, and at best hope lib dems take enough Labour seats to stop a majority for Labour.
But holy f. At the moment he's just handing the keys to starmer.
So do Conservative voters want all migrants deported. Even the ones that have arrived legally..?"Nope. No idea why this has been brought up | |||
| |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. This is scary that you think this. They're also supposed to represent the interests of everyone else. Those who voted for other parties, too young to vote or didn't want to vote. The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry? Not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase? "You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars," Your words Please clarify what you deemed hateful rhetoric. Have a look at some of the stuff she says. If you're unaware Sky news did a piece the other day which is a good place to start. "Suella Braverman's controversial career". That's a good starting point. That's a no then. It was a "yes" I even directed you to an article detailing some of the hateful rhetoric she uses. It's not for me to go back and try and read your mind on what you thought might be inciteful and hate speech. Absolutely, remain ignorant about the topic you want to debate. Solid tactic. I cant read your mind." No, but you don't need to, I directed you to an article which explains. | |||
"I directed you to an article which explains." If you mean this: https://news.sky.com/video/suella-bravermans-controversial-career-13007173, that's a video, not an article. And I can be reasonably sure that it won't explicitly label any of her words as "hateful rhetoric". | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Cameron has been selected for the same reasons as Hunt - a safe pair of hands. If he's the best person for the job, that can only be a good thing. Indont see DC as a good thing. Many as the poster above. Consider him the reason for so much infighting. He said he'd lead the tories regardless of the outcome and then ran to the hills with George. I think he'll put people off voting tory perosnally. " Let's see. Like Hunt, DC is an experienced ex PM. He should do well on the world stage, which badly needs some cool, rational heads. I reckon he'll steady the ship as Hunt has done at the Exchequer. | |||
"I directed you to an article which explains. If you mean this: https://news.sky.com/video/suella-bravermans-controversial-career-13007173, that's a video, not an article. And I can be reasonably sure that it won't explicitly label any of her words as "hateful rhetoric"." I mean sky don’t have to say hateful for it to be biased. As I pointed numbers out to someone 50 arrests out of circa 500,000 pro-palestine protests. (0.01%) 100 arrests out of 300 counter-protestors… circa 33%? What now seems like a bigger threat? As for Suella Braverman (pro-palestinian mob vs right-wing protestors?) it’s all in the language used | |||
"I directed you to an article which explains. If you mean this: https://news.sky.com/video/suella-bravermans-controversial-career-13007173, that's a video, not an article. And I can be reasonably sure that it won't explicitly label any of her words as "hateful rhetoric"." Do you propose an alternative descriptor for the rhetoric she uses to express her feelings of intense dislike for homeless people, foriegners, tofu eaters, the "woke", the civil service etc? | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it?" Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? | |||
| |||
"I directed you to an article which explains." "If you mean this: https://news.sky.com/video/suella-bravermans-controversial-career-13007173, that's a video, not an article. And I can be reasonably sure that it won't explicitly label any of her words as "hateful rhetoric"." "Do you propose an alternative descriptor ..." No. I'm just saying that watching that video isn't going to help Morley to work out what your definition of 'hateful rhetoric' is. Unless you think that everything she says is 'hateful rhetoric', in which case you'll need to explain that to Morley before he understands. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it?" A good example of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' reasoning. She got fired *after* saying that, but did she get fired *because* she said that. We'll never know. | |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. This is scary that you think this. They're also supposed to represent the interests of everyone else. Those who voted for other parties, too young to vote or didn't want to vote. The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry? Not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase? "You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars," Your words Please clarify what you deemed hateful rhetoric. Have a look at some of the stuff she says. If you're unaware Sky news did a piece the other day which is a good place to start. "Suella Braverman's controversial career". That's a good starting point. That's a no then. It was a "yes" I even directed you to an article detailing some of the hateful rhetoric she uses. It's not for me to go back and try and read your mind on what you thought might be inciteful and hate speech. Absolutely, remain ignorant about the topic you want to debate. Solid tactic. I cant read your mind." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67374951 | |||
"I cant read your mind." "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67374951" Again, that just lists things she's said, it doesn't allow anyone to work out what you think is 'hateful rhetoric'. For instance, one of the quotes in that article is "I have made a mistake; I accept responsibility: I resign". I don't think any of us would consider that to be 'hateful rhetoric'. If, like Johnny, you also want Morley to answer, you'll have to give him specific quotes. | |||
"I cant read your mind. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67374951 Again, that just lists things she's said, it doesn't allow anyone to work out what you think is 'hateful rhetoric'. For instance, one of the quotes in that article is "I have made a mistake; I accept responsibility: I resign". I don't think any of us would consider that to be 'hateful rhetoric'. If, like Johnny, you also want Morley to answer, you'll have to give him specific quotes." plus agree what the bar is. I'm assuming deceiving labour and line as tofu-eating wokerati isn't hateful... | |||
| |||
| |||
"I directed you to an article which explains. If you mean this: https://news.sky.com/video/suella-bravermans-controversial-career-13007173, that's a video, not an article. And I can be reasonably sure that it won't explicitly label any of her words as "hateful rhetoric". Do you propose an alternative descriptor ... No. I'm just saying that watching that video isn't going to help Morley to work out what your definition of 'hateful rhetoric' is. Unless you think that everything she says is 'hateful rhetoric', in which case you'll need to explain that to Morley before he understands." Oh wait, sorry, it's not a video I was referring to. It was an article. | |||
"I cant read your mind. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67374951 Again, that just lists things she's said, it doesn't allow anyone to work out what you think is 'hateful rhetoric'. For instance, one of the quotes in that article is "I have made a mistake; I accept responsibility: I resign". I don't think any of us would consider that to be 'hateful rhetoric'. If, like Johnny, you also want Morley to answer, you'll have to give him specific quotes." I don't want anyone to answer. It's extremely well established that Braverman frequently used hateful rhetoric, I provided guidance how the forum user in question could find the article. It was just their outlandish claim that we were discussing. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." | |||
"My only thinking is that Sunak is going for the middle ground vote and hoping he gets more here than he will lose to reform. Or at least will be up in seats. versus shifting to the right and losing the middle ish voters. Most lifelong conservatives will vote Tory I suspect. Especially with the spectre of the labour government overhead. I wonder how many wouldn't vote blue because he has bought back Cameron. This is his mistake. I dont thinknhes going middle ground. I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is. The resignations seem to be coming in now. "I think the middle ground is where Suella's stance is." You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars, her continual attacks on everyone from foreigners, to homeless people to people who eat Tofu is the middle ground. Isn't it the job of the government to serve all the people who live here, rather than constantly attacking them? The government is there to represent the best interests of its people thay vote it in according to the manifestos. This is scary that you think this. They're also supposed to represent the interests of everyone else. Those who voted for other parties, too young to vote or didn't want to vote. The Conservatives were voted in on tbe 2019 manifesto. What do you think as hateful in what she said sorry? Not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase? "You genuinely believe that her hateful rhetoric and stoking culture wars," Your words Please clarify what you deemed hateful rhetoric. Have a look at some of the stuff she says. If you're unaware Sky news did a piece the other day which is a good place to start. "Suella Braverman's controversial career". That's a good starting point. That's a no then. It was a "yes" I even directed you to an article detailing some of the hateful rhetoric she uses. It's not for me to go back and try and read your mind on what you thought might be inciteful and hate speech. Absolutely, remain ignorant about the topic you want to debate. Solid tactic. I cant read your mind. No, but you don't need to, I directed you to an article which explains. " Yes I wasn't sure what in that link was hateful sorry. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence?" Nope | |||
| |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence?" I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. | |||
"I directed you to an article which explains. If you mean this: https://news.sky.com/video/suella-bravermans-controversial-career-13007173, that's a video, not an article. And I can be reasonably sure that it won't explicitly label any of her words as "hateful rhetoric". I mean sky don’t have to say hateful for it to be biased. As I pointed numbers out to someone 50 arrests out of circa 500,000 pro-palestine protests. (0.01%) 100 arrests out of 300 counter-protestors… circa 33%? What now seems like a bigger threat? As for Suella Braverman (pro-palestinian mob vs right-wing protestors?) it’s all in the language used" You might wanna look at that 100 arrests stat again  | |||
"Lost of people who quit upon hearing of suellas being shuffled out Neil O'brien Nick Gibb Will Quince Jesse Norman Jeremy Quin" Who? Obviously won't be missed. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met." The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. | |||
"Oh wait, sorry, it's not a video I was referring to. It was an article. " Then you'll need to give us a link, because the only thing I can find with that tile is a video. | |||
"I directed you to an article which explains. If you mean this: https://news.sky.com/video/suella-bravermans-controversial-career-13007173, that's a video, not an article. And I can be reasonably sure that it won't explicitly label any of her words as "hateful rhetoric". Do you propose an alternative descriptor for the rhetoric she uses to express her feelings of intense dislike for homeless people, foriegners, tofu eaters, the "woke", the civil service etc?" Tell me one part of the statement / proposal that is hateful towards the homeless. The same for foreigners, tell me what she said that is hateful. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse." Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? | |||
"Oh wait, sorry, it's not a video I was referring to. It was an article. Then you'll need to give us a link, because the only thing I can find with that tile is a video." I can't find it anymore. Sky news must have taken it down and replaced it with the video. | |||
"As per my post in other thread, I reckon Labour have a long term sleeper agent in Sunak’s camp and he is slowly fucking him over "This theory of yours is becoming more plausible by the day. Several people leaving downing street with big smiles but the person with the biggest smile today surely is SKS | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link?" No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse." The Met Office? Since when did they get involved in politics or policing? | |||
"I was enjoying the Suella Braverman thread. As it got full maybe we can continue it here with a new title. Rishi bringing in Cameron is like Atarmer bringing in Blair. It's a vote loser Conservative voters want a government more right of centre. That involves deporting migrants, it involves signing trade deals, having a Pro brexit gov, not printing momey. Honestly where the f is Rishi getting his advice from
He was already going to lose parliament, and at best hope lib dems take enough Labour seats to stop a majority for Labour.
But holy f. At the moment he's just handing the keys to starmer.
So do Conservative voters want all migrants deported. Even the ones that have arrived legally..?
Nope.
No idea why this has been brought up"I quoted your original post in my post, where you say things Conservative voters want. One of them being deporting migrants, so its a fair question. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. The Met Office? Since when did they get involved in politics or policing?"
You actually made me laugh.
The "red alert" weather warning is on my mind. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. " The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. If you are going to just use their words as an argument, you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. The Met Office? Since when did they get involved in politics or policing?
You actually made me laugh.
The "red alert" weather warning is on my mind. "Just checked the app. Its only a yellow warning | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence?" I am not sure. I googled why she got fired and that pro palestine protests reason came up about it. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. The Met Office? Since when did they get involved in politics or policing?
You actually made me laugh.
The "red alert" weather warning is on my mind.
Just checked the app. Its only a yellow warning "Been amber here, blowing a hoolie but had worse..  | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. " Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) " If you are going to just use their words as an argument, " I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. " you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay." I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. " Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. " the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. | |||
| |||
| |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. " They weren't looking for trouble? I'm not sure I can agree with that, I'm sure having seen some images and videos you don't actually agree with it either. Do you think that arresting people because you think they may cause trouble is just? I'm not for one minute saying there were no trouble makers amongst the patriot march but from what I've seen there was 10 arrests for actual offences, yet here we have people talking about 'circa 100'. | |||
"Is this whole fiasco legal, seeing how he wan't voted in? What next "Bringing in Maggie's coffin", as that's the only stunt they haven't pulled/Spitting Image's next episode/Private Eye's New Year's front cover? " Doesn't seem to bother Tory voters. They will show up and vote us all into 5 more years of the same bullshit. | |||
"if you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. " Ooh…. What happened to the right to protest, and doing criminal things for the good isn’t bad. Doesn’t sound the same when you turning up to fuck things up. But I do agree with you, because that is how I see JSO, Hamas supporters and the EDL. There to fuck things up | |||
" Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) " There was some "anti-war" protestor who said that "Hitler knew how to deal with these people". Many of those protestors who are "just humans against war" were caught saying the quiet part loud. They get away with calling for Jihad and singing the river to sea chants, yet any right wing chants like these which could mean multiple things would be immediately called for "dogwhistling". It's not like the other people love war. We know that if Israel doesn't fight, Hamas will attack them again. " I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. " The information you provided here is useless unless there is evidence because it's just the Met defending themselves " I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. " I gave you my argument. The videos of police acting biased and calls to protect the cenotaph has been trending in Twitter long before Suella wrote her article. Tommy Robinson was already calling for people. You are "comfortable" with what Met said without any evidence because you would rather blindly believe anything that agrees with your world view | |||
"if you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. Ooh…. What happened to the right to protest, and doing criminal things for the good isn’t bad. " What? " Doesn’t sound the same when you turning up to fuck things up. " I support the right for all people to protest and express dissent, even when it's people who want society to be more racist and hateful. " But I do agree with you, because that is how I see JSO, Hamas supporters and the EDL. There to fuck things up "JSO want the planet to remain habitable and some of them break the law. Some people seem to extrapolate that to anyone who understands climate science and wants the government to do more is either scum or some kind of loony. Haven't seen any Hamas supporting protests so I can't comment. And EDL same as the others. They can protest and say whatever they want. To clarify for you, I don't support any of these groups attacking people or being violent. | |||
" Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) There was some "anti-war" protestor who said that "Hitler knew how to deal with these people". Many of those protestors who are "just humans against war" were caught saying the quiet part loud. They get away with calling for Jihad and singing the river to sea chants, yet any right wing chants like these which could mean multiple things would be immediately called for "dogwhistling". It's not like the other people love war. We know that if Israel doesn't fight, Hamas will attack them again. I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. The information you provided here is useless unless there is evidence because it's just the Met defending themselves I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. I gave you my argument. The videos of police acting biased and calls to protect the cenotaph has been trending in Twitter long before Suella wrote her article. Tommy Robinson was already calling for people. You are "comfortable" with what Met said without any evidence because you would rather blindly believe anything that agrees with your world view" Looks like you've made up your mind and aren't interested in any information that doesn't line up with your preconceptions. So crack on. As I mentioned, I have no opinion, on your opinion. | |||
" Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) There was some "anti-war" protestor who said that "Hitler knew how to deal with these people". Many of those protestors who are "just humans against war" were caught saying the quiet part loud. They get away with calling for Jihad and singing the river to sea chants, yet any right wing chants like these which could mean multiple things would be immediately called for "dogwhistling". It's not like the other people love war. We know that if Israel doesn't fight, Hamas will attack them again. I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. The information you provided here is useless unless there is evidence because it's just the Met defending themselves I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. I gave you my argument. The videos of police acting biased and calls to protect the cenotaph has been trending in Twitter long before Suella wrote her article. Tommy Robinson was already calling for people. You are "comfortable" with what Met said without any evidence because you would rather blindly believe anything that agrees with your world view Looks like you've made up your mind and aren't interested in any information that doesn't line up with your preconceptions. So crack on. As I mentioned, I have no opinion, on your opinion. " You are the one randomly spouting stuff and are "comfortable" with what Met said while all the evidence points against it. I am the one who made up my mind? | |||
" Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) There was some "anti-war" protestor who said that "Hitler knew how to deal with these people". Many of those protestors who are "just humans against war" were caught saying the quiet part loud. They get away with calling for Jihad and singing the river to sea chants, yet any right wing chants like these which could mean multiple things would be immediately called for "dogwhistling". It's not like the other people love war. We know that if Israel doesn't fight, Hamas will attack them again. I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. The information you provided here is useless unless there is evidence because it's just the Met defending themselves I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. I gave you my argument. The videos of police acting biased and calls to protect the cenotaph has been trending in Twitter long before Suella wrote her article. Tommy Robinson was already calling for people. You are "comfortable" with what Met said without any evidence because you would rather blindly believe anything that agrees with your world view Looks like you've made up your mind and aren't interested in any information that doesn't line up with your preconceptions. So crack on. As I mentioned, I have no opinion, on your opinion. You are the one randomly spouting stuff and are "comfortable" with what Met said while all the evidence points against it. I am the one who made up my mind?" Your "evidence" of equivalence is that one or two people out of hundreds of thousands of protestors, said some silly stuff. Meanwhile, seemly nearly all of the race hate enthusiasts were acting violently. Not sure why you're so angry at a randomer on a swingers site over this for. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. They weren't looking for trouble? I'm not sure I can agree with that, I'm sure having seen some images and videos you don't actually agree with it either. Do you think that arresting people because you think they may cause trouble is just? I'm not for one minute saying there were no trouble makers amongst the patriot march but from what I've seen there was 10 arrests for actual offences, yet here we have people talking about 'circa 100'. " depends what you mean by just. It appears to be legal. I totally accept that there were people in the pro palenstine march that were causing trouble. But as a percentage it's a totally different beast. And until the evening I'm not aware of any emergency workers being injured by the pro palenstine march. From the vids I've seen the arrest count of the counter protestors could have been way higher. But if you think that the two groups behaved equally I'm not gonna convince you otherwise. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. They weren't looking for trouble? I'm not sure I can agree with that, I'm sure having seen some images and videos you don't actually agree with it either. Do you think that arresting people because you think they may cause trouble is just? I'm not for one minute saying there were no trouble makers amongst the patriot march but from what I've seen there was 10 arrests for actual offences, yet here we have people talking about 'circa 100'. depends what you mean by just. It appears to be legal. I totally accept that there were people in the pro palenstine march that were causing trouble. But as a percentage it's a totally different beast. And until the evening I'm not aware of any emergency workers being injured by the pro palenstine march. From the vids I've seen the arrest count of the counter protestors could have been way higher. But if you think that the two groups behaved equally I'm not gonna convince you otherwise. " It is legal to arrest 'to prevent breach of the peace', I think the point is that no one (I believe) was arrested for the same thing on the other side. Does it matter whether it wasn't 'until the evening'? We've had people aiming fireworks at police twice in a week from so called peaceful protestors. Do me a favour and don't take the 'if you think, I'm not gonna convince you' line, you're way better than that. We both know there were protestors on both marches who behaved equally, the question is, were they treated equally? I don't think they were from what I've seen. | |||
" Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) There was some "anti-war" protestor who said that "Hitler knew how to deal with these people". Many of those protestors who are "just humans against war" were caught saying the quiet part loud. They get away with calling for Jihad and singing the river to sea chants, yet any right wing chants like these which could mean multiple things would be immediately called for "dogwhistling". It's not like the other people love war. We know that if Israel doesn't fight, Hamas will attack them again. I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. The information you provided here is useless unless there is evidence because it's just the Met defending themselves I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. I gave you my argument. The videos of police acting biased and calls to protect the cenotaph has been trending in Twitter long before Suella wrote her article. Tommy Robinson was already calling for people. You are "comfortable" with what Met said without any evidence because you would rather blindly believe anything that agrees with your world view Looks like you've made up your mind and aren't interested in any information that doesn't line up with your preconceptions. So crack on. As I mentioned, I have no opinion, on your opinion. You are the one randomly spouting stuff and are "comfortable" with what Met said while all the evidence points against it. I am the one who made up my mind? Your "evidence" of equivalence is that one or two people out of hundreds of thousands of protestors, said some silly stuff. Meanwhile, seemly nearly all of the race hate enthusiasts were acting violently. Not sure why you're so angry at a randomer on a swingers site over this for." My evidence was about the Met not acting on it. Also it's not just one or two people. When the guy was making the Hitler comment, many were around him and watching him speak. Not a single person raised a concern. Not angry. You seem to make smug comments about how I just made up my mind while it's pretty clear you are the one who made up your mind and is trusting stuff blindly without any evidence. I just pointed it out. | |||
" Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) There was some "anti-war" protestor who said that "Hitler knew how to deal with these people". Many of those protestors who are "just humans against war" were caught saying the quiet part loud. They get away with calling for Jihad and singing the river to sea chants, yet any right wing chants like these which could mean multiple things would be immediately called for "dogwhistling". It's not like the other people love war. We know that if Israel doesn't fight, Hamas will attack them again. I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. The information you provided here is useless unless there is evidence because it's just the Met defending themselves I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. I gave you my argument. The videos of police acting biased and calls to protect the cenotaph has been trending in Twitter long before Suella wrote her article. Tommy Robinson was already calling for people. You are "comfortable" with what Met said without any evidence because you would rather blindly believe anything that agrees with your world view Looks like you've made up your mind and aren't interested in any information that doesn't line up with your preconceptions. So crack on. As I mentioned, I have no opinion, on your opinion. You are the one randomly spouting stuff and are "comfortable" with what Met said while all the evidence points against it. I am the one who made up my mind? Your "evidence" of equivalence is that one or two people out of hundreds of thousands of protestors, said some silly stuff. Meanwhile, seemly nearly all of the race hate enthusiasts were acting violently. Not sure why you're so angry at a randomer on a swingers site over this for. My evidence was about the Met not acting on it. Also it's not just one or two people. When the guy was making the Hitler comment, many were around him and watching him speak. Not a single person raised a concern. Not angry. You seem to make smug comments about how I just made up my mind while it's pretty clear you are the one who made up your mind and is trusting stuff blindly without any evidence. I just pointed it out." Errrrmmmmm okay | |||
| |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. They weren't looking for trouble? I'm not sure I can agree with that, I'm sure having seen some images and videos you don't actually agree with it either. Do you think that arresting people because you think they may cause trouble is just? I'm not for one minute saying there were no trouble makers amongst the patriot march but from what I've seen there was 10 arrests for actual offences, yet here we have people talking about 'circa 100'. depends what you mean by just. It appears to be legal. I totally accept that there were people in the pro palenstine march that were causing trouble. But as a percentage it's a totally different beast. And until the evening I'm not aware of any emergency workers being injured by the pro palenstine march. From the vids I've seen the arrest count of the counter protestors could have been way higher. But if you think that the two groups behaved equally I'm not gonna convince you otherwise. It is legal to arrest 'to prevent breach of the peace', I think the point is that no one (I believe) was arrested for the same thing on the other side. Does it matter whether it wasn't 'until the evening'? We've had people aiming fireworks at police twice in a week from so called peaceful protestors. Do me a favour and don't take the 'if you think, I'm not gonna convince you' line, you're way better than that. We both know there were protestors on both marches who behaved equally, the question is, were they treated equally? I don't think they were from what I've seen. " I don't think behaved equally throughout. The counter protest caused injuries to emergency workers earlier. That increased the risk of future incidents and the risk of public disorder. The police seemed to then step up their approach when the protesters introduced fireworkers. They then started to use the law in a preventive manner. Were there bad people on both groups. Yes. Did the counter counter protestors cause more trouble and earlier. Yes. As a group, did the counter protestors have more trouble makers. In my view, if there were 300k EDLers there would be carnage. | |||
"Cameron has been selected for the same reasons as Hunt - a safe pair of hands. If he's the best person for the job, that can only be a good thing." Yea makes sense, will see how he gets on | |||
"It's not just the Met. Most institutions in this country are biased. About a year back, a group of pro-palestinian humanitarian peace lovers went on a convoy with loudspeakers shouting "Fuck the jews. R*pe their daughters" In spite of having videos and numbers of the cars and identifying the men, the CPS decided to drop the charges because apparently there wasn't enough evidence https://metro.co.uk/2022/11/20/all-charges-over-convoy-who-shouted-rape-jewish-daughters-are-dropped-17793247/" If a institution is biased it usually reflects the bias from the person at the top. Now if the person àt the top is not happy with the institutions bias or culture, they have that authority to change this through ordering different behaviour or changing personal. What does crying about it in public, like your a powerless bystander acheive. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. They weren't looking for trouble? I'm not sure I can agree with that, I'm sure having seen some images and videos you don't actually agree with it either. Do you think that arresting people because you think they may cause trouble is just? I'm not for one minute saying there were no trouble makers amongst the patriot march but from what I've seen there was 10 arrests for actual offences, yet here we have people talking about 'circa 100'. depends what you mean by just. It appears to be legal. I totally accept that there were people in the pro palenstine march that were causing trouble. But as a percentage it's a totally different beast. And until the evening I'm not aware of any emergency workers being injured by the pro palenstine march. From the vids I've seen the arrest count of the counter protestors could have been way higher. But if you think that the two groups behaved equally I'm not gonna convince you otherwise. It is legal to arrest 'to prevent breach of the peace', I think the point is that no one (I believe) was arrested for the same thing on the other side. Does it matter whether it wasn't 'until the evening'? We've had people aiming fireworks at police twice in a week from so called peaceful protestors. Do me a favour and don't take the 'if you think, I'm not gonna convince you' line, you're way better than that. We both know there were protestors on both marches who behaved equally, the question is, were they treated equally? I don't think they were from what I've seen. I don't think behaved equally throughout. The counter protest caused injuries to emergency workers earlier. That increased the risk of future incidents and the risk of public disorder. The police seemed to then step up their approach when the protesters introduced fireworkers. They then started to use the law in a preventive manner. Were there bad people on both groups. Yes. Did the counter counter protestors cause more trouble and earlier. Yes. As a group, did the counter protestors have more trouble makers. In my view, if there were 300k EDLers there would be carnage. " We're obviously seeing different things. Haven't you been quite happy for 'police not to aggravate' and instead gather evidence to use later? Maybe no police would've been injured if they had decided to take that option? | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. They weren't looking for trouble? I'm not sure I can agree with that, I'm sure having seen some images and videos you don't actually agree with it either. Do you think that arresting people because you think they may cause trouble is just? I'm not for one minute saying there were no trouble makers amongst the patriot march but from what I've seen there was 10 arrests for actual offences, yet here we have people talking about 'circa 100'. depends what you mean by just. It appears to be legal. I totally accept that there were people in the pro palenstine march that were causing trouble. But as a percentage it's a totally different beast. And until the evening I'm not aware of any emergency workers being injured by the pro palenstine march. From the vids I've seen the arrest count of the counter protestors could have been way higher. But if you think that the two groups behaved equally I'm not gonna convince you otherwise. It is legal to arrest 'to prevent breach of the peace', I think the point is that no one (I believe) was arrested for the same thing on the other side. Does it matter whether it wasn't 'until the evening'? We've had people aiming fireworks at police twice in a week from so called peaceful protestors. Do me a favour and don't take the 'if you think, I'm not gonna convince you' line, you're way better than that. We both know there were protestors on both marches who behaved equally, the question is, were they treated equally? I don't think they were from what I've seen. I don't think behaved equally throughout. The counter protest caused injuries to emergency workers earlier. That increased the risk of future incidents and the risk of public disorder. The police seemed to then step up their approach when the protesters introduced fireworkers. They then started to use the law in a preventive manner. Were there bad people on both groups. Yes. Did the counter counter protestors cause more trouble and earlier. Yes. As a group, did the counter protestors have more trouble makers. In my view, if there were 300k EDLers there would be carnage. We're obviously seeing different things. Haven't you been quite happy for 'police not to aggravate' and instead gather evidence to use later? Maybe no police would've been injured if they had decided to take that option?" i haven't seen enough of the initial scuffles to say that this came from police aggrivation. And I haven't seen anyone suggest that was the case despite this probably fitting agendas. My position was it makes sense for police to take a different approach for a group of ten people, to a group of 100, to a group of 100,000. But I'd also police differently based on risk/suspected numbers of trouble makers. I'd police swansea v Cardiff different to Sunderland v Plymouth. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. They weren't looking for trouble? I'm not sure I can agree with that, I'm sure having seen some images and videos you don't actually agree with it either. Do you think that arresting people because you think they may cause trouble is just? I'm not for one minute saying there were no trouble makers amongst the patriot march but from what I've seen there was 10 arrests for actual offences, yet here we have people talking about 'circa 100'. depends what you mean by just. It appears to be legal. I totally accept that there were people in the pro palenstine march that were causing trouble. But as a percentage it's a totally different beast. And until the evening I'm not aware of any emergency workers being injured by the pro palenstine march. From the vids I've seen the arrest count of the counter protestors could have been way higher. But if you think that the two groups behaved equally I'm not gonna convince you otherwise. It is legal to arrest 'to prevent breach of the peace', I think the point is that no one (I believe) was arrested for the same thing on the other side. Does it matter whether it wasn't 'until the evening'? We've had people aiming fireworks at police twice in a week from so called peaceful protestors. Do me a favour and don't take the 'if you think, I'm not gonna convince you' line, you're way better than that. We both know there were protestors on both marches who behaved equally, the question is, were they treated equally? I don't think they were from what I've seen. I don't think behaved equally throughout. The counter protest caused injuries to emergency workers earlier. That increased the risk of future incidents and the risk of public disorder. The police seemed to then step up their approach when the protesters introduced fireworkers. They then started to use the law in a preventive manner. Were there bad people on both groups. Yes. Did the counter counter protestors cause more trouble and earlier. Yes. As a group, did the counter protestors have more trouble makers. In my view, if there were 300k EDLers there would be carnage. We're obviously seeing different things. Haven't you been quite happy for 'police not to aggravate' and instead gather evidence to use later? Maybe no police would've been injured if they had decided to take that option?i haven't seen enough of the initial scuffles to say that this came from police aggrivation. And I haven't seen anyone suggest that was the case despite this probably fitting agendas. My position was it makes sense for police to take a different approach for a group of ten people, to a group of 100, to a group of 100,000. But I'd also police differently based on risk/suspected numbers of trouble makers. I'd police swansea v Cardiff different to Sunderland v Plymouth. " I must say I'm disappointed that you 'haven't seen enough' but are happy to blame the 'patriots' for the trouble. There were possibly 10 police in the line blocking 300-400 getting to the cenotaph, which they were allowed to do. Police at either of those football matches aren't going to aggravate a certain section of fans. They may be stronger in numbers and segregate but that's as much as they'd do. | |||
"Is this whole fiasco legal, seeing how he wan't voted in? What next "Bringing in Maggie's coffin", as that's the only stunt they haven't pulled/Spitting Image's next episode/Private Eye's New Year's front cover? Doesn't seem to bother Tory voters. They will show up and vote us all into 5 more years of the same bullshit. " Tim Nice-But-Dim: Dangerous with a polling card. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. They weren't looking for trouble? I'm not sure I can agree with that, I'm sure having seen some images and videos you don't actually agree with it either. Do you think that arresting people because you think they may cause trouble is just? I'm not for one minute saying there were no trouble makers amongst the patriot march but from what I've seen there was 10 arrests for actual offences, yet here we have people talking about 'circa 100'. depends what you mean by just. It appears to be legal. I totally accept that there were people in the pro palenstine march that were causing trouble. But as a percentage it's a totally different beast. And until the evening I'm not aware of any emergency workers being injured by the pro palenstine march. From the vids I've seen the arrest count of the counter protestors could have been way higher. But if you think that the two groups behaved equally I'm not gonna convince you otherwise. It is legal to arrest 'to prevent breach of the peace', I think the point is that no one (I believe) was arrested for the same thing on the other side. Does it matter whether it wasn't 'until the evening'? We've had people aiming fireworks at police twice in a week from so called peaceful protestors. Do me a favour and don't take the 'if you think, I'm not gonna convince you' line, you're way better than that. We both know there were protestors on both marches who behaved equally, the question is, were they treated equally? I don't think they were from what I've seen. I don't think behaved equally throughout. The counter protest caused injuries to emergency workers earlier. That increased the risk of future incidents and the risk of public disorder. The police seemed to then step up their approach when the protesters introduced fireworkers. They then started to use the law in a preventive manner. Were there bad people on both groups. Yes. Did the counter counter protestors cause more trouble and earlier. Yes. As a group, did the counter protestors have more trouble makers. In my view, if there were 300k EDLers there would be carnage. We're obviously seeing different things. Haven't you been quite happy for 'police not to aggravate' and instead gather evidence to use later? Maybe no police would've been injured if they had decided to take that option?i haven't seen enough of the initial scuffles to say that this came from police aggrivation. And I haven't seen anyone suggest that was the case despite this probably fitting agendas. My position was it makes sense for police to take a different approach for a group of ten people, to a group of 100, to a group of 100,000. But I'd also police differently based on risk/suspected numbers of trouble makers. I'd police swansea v Cardiff different to Sunderland v Plymouth. I must say I'm disappointed that you 'haven't seen enough' but are happy to blame the 'patriots' for the trouble. There were possibly 10 police in the line blocking 300-400 getting to the cenotaph, which they were allowed to do. Police at either of those football matches aren't going to aggravate a certain section of fans. They may be stronger in numbers and segregate but that's as much as they'd do. " I'm not sure why they were at the cenotaph in the first place. Wasn't that an exclusion zone ? I don't realise it applied to just one set of protestors, hence the barriers. What did the police do to start the trouble ? I'm basing my views on the lack of people saying it's the police's fault, especially from the likes of braverman. Or any real discussion of the EDL being treated unfairly because of who they are rather than how they behaved. | |||
| |||
"It's not just the Met. Most institutions in this country are biased. About a year back, a group of pro-palestinian humanitarian peace lovers went on a convoy with loudspeakers shouting "Fuck the jews. R*pe their daughters" In spite of having videos and numbers of the cars and identifying the men, the CPS decided to drop the charges because apparently there wasn't enough evidence https://metro.co.uk/2022/11/20/all-charges-over-convoy-who-shouted-rape-jewish-daughters-are-dropped-17793247/ If a institution is biased it usually reflects the bias from the person at the top. Now if the person àt the top is not happy with the institutions bias or culture, they have that authority to change this through ordering different behaviour or changing personal. What does crying about it in public, like your a powerless bystander acheive. " I agree with everything you said and it's the main reason why I won't vote for them. They have been talking a lot about so many issues but have been toothless when it comes to fixing the issues. At the same time, I don't think her writing the article was worth the sack as what he said in the article was correct. The correct reason to sack her should be incompetence. | |||
"As per my post in other thread, I reckon Labour have a long term sleeper agent in Sunak’s camp and he is slowly fucking him over
Although I honestly don't think any of this will make any difference. People will vote Tory and we'll have five more years of this nonsense."Since Blair and Cameron , the leaders have been abysmal. Tories are in power for 2 reasons - Brexit stance and the fact that labour are even worse than them. Cameron will give the Tory party a big advantage , might even start a trend for other parties to have credible people in top positions , that wouldn’t be a bad thing would it ? | |||
| |||
"12 month's on and the Tories still in fucking turmoil Infighting, backstabbing and they are supposed to be on the same side,if they show this much contempt for each other how do the view us common folk?" As irrelevant. | |||
"12 month's on and the Tories still in fucking turmoil Infighting, backstabbing and they are supposed to be on the same side,if they show this much contempt for each other how do the view us common folk?" This post will be repeated in approx 6 years, only change needed, substitute tories for labour. | |||
 | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. They weren't looking for trouble? I'm not sure I can agree with that, I'm sure having seen some images and videos you don't actually agree with it either. Do you think that arresting people because you think they may cause trouble is just? I'm not for one minute saying there were no trouble makers amongst the patriot march but from what I've seen there was 10 arrests for actual offences, yet here we have people talking about 'circa 100'. depends what you mean by just. It appears to be legal. I totally accept that there were people in the pro palenstine march that were causing trouble. But as a percentage it's a totally different beast. And until the evening I'm not aware of any emergency workers being injured by the pro palenstine march. From the vids I've seen the arrest count of the counter protestors could have been way higher. But if you think that the two groups behaved equally I'm not gonna convince you otherwise. It is legal to arrest 'to prevent breach of the peace', I think the point is that no one (I believe) was arrested for the same thing on the other side. Does it matter whether it wasn't 'until the evening'? We've had people aiming fireworks at police twice in a week from so called peaceful protestors. Do me a favour and don't take the 'if you think, I'm not gonna convince you' line, you're way better than that. We both know there were protestors on both marches who behaved equally, the question is, were they treated equally? I don't think they were from what I've seen. I don't think behaved equally throughout. The counter protest caused injuries to emergency workers earlier. That increased the risk of future incidents and the risk of public disorder. The police seemed to then step up their approach when the protesters introduced fireworkers. They then started to use the law in a preventive manner. Were there bad people on both groups. Yes. Did the counter counter protestors cause more trouble and earlier. Yes. As a group, did the counter protestors have more trouble makers. In my view, if there were 300k EDLers there would be carnage. We're obviously seeing different things. Haven't you been quite happy for 'police not to aggravate' and instead gather evidence to use later? Maybe no police would've been injured if they had decided to take that option?i haven't seen enough of the initial scuffles to say that this came from police aggrivation. And I haven't seen anyone suggest that was the case despite this probably fitting agendas. My position was it makes sense for police to take a different approach for a group of ten people, to a group of 100, to a group of 100,000. But I'd also police differently based on risk/suspected numbers of trouble makers. I'd police swansea v Cardiff different to Sunderland v Plymouth. I must say I'm disappointed that you 'haven't seen enough' but are happy to blame the 'patriots' for the trouble. There were possibly 10 police in the line blocking 300-400 getting to the cenotaph, which they were allowed to do. Police at either of those football matches aren't going to aggravate a certain section of fans. They may be stronger in numbers and segregate but that's as much as they'd do. I'm not sure why they were at the cenotaph in the first place. Wasn't that an exclusion zone ? I don't realise it applied to just one set of protestors, hence the barriers. What did the police do to start the trouble ? I'm basing my views on the lack of people saying it's the police's fault, especially from the likes of braverman. Or any real discussion of the EDL being treated unfairly because of who they are rather than how they behaved. " There was exclusion zones. Not at the cenotaph. As far as I'm aware, there was no trouble at the cenotaph. I said last week that the blame would be pointed at 'patriots' and that's exactly what's happened. I understand how you base your view, it's a fair view. I just don't agree that because 'pro Palestinian protestors' supposedly didn't get rowdy until later in the day, that makes them any better. | |||
| |||
| |||
"12 month's on and the Tories still in fucking turmoil Infighting, backstabbing and they are supposed to be on the same side,if they show this much contempt for each other how do the view us common folk? This post will be repeated in approx 6 years, only change needed, substitute tories for labour." This is generally what I think. The parliamentary system we have is not fit for purpose. | |||
"She got fired after she accused the metropolitan police chiefs of bias in their handling of the pro palestine protests, what do we think of her reason for saying it and is there any truth in it? Wasn't she fired for firing up the EDL and other race hate groups, resulting in violence? I think people jumping on the bandwagon to blame her for the EDL violence is just trying to score political points. The concerns about Cenotaph being attacked has been gaining traction in twitter for quite awhile, so were the complaints about two-tier policing. The EDL attack would have happened even if Suella didn't complain about the Met. The Met office would disagree with you there. They made a statement saying she had made things worse. Did they share any evidence to show there is a causal link? No idea. Give them a shout and see what they say. The Met obviously wants to retaliate because she called them out on their biased behaviour. Their behaviour wasn't biased. The events at the weekend were further evidence that it was incorrect to draw equivalence between anti war protesters (labelled left wing, but I have no clue why, aren't most humans generally against war?) If you are going to just use their words as an argument, I'm not, I'm just providing you with some information, if you're interested, read up, if you're not, fine. you need to be able to prove that they are speaking based on evidence. Otherwise, your answer is just a hearsay. I don't need to open a case on the MET and investigate their comments. I'm comfortable with their statement. It lines up with what actually happened in reality. If you think that her divisive right wing rhetoric had no impact on the EDL turning up to fuck things up. I'm comfortable with that too. I have no opinion on your opinion. Did you actually see the difference in how the Met dealt with both sets of 'protestors'? I'm asking if you actually seen it before any trouble happened. Just think about the 82 arrested 'to prevent a breach of the peace'. the pro palenstine marchers remained away from the rememberance day parade as requested. They weren't looking for trouble. The edl were in a pub that was on the march. Or on the way to the cenotaph (I think) Imo they were treated as consistently as you can given different actions. Those protestors that got sectioned off at the end of the night. I wonder if they searched in a similar way and what was found. That's the closest you can get to equal treatment. They weren't looking for trouble? I'm not sure I can agree with that, I'm sure having seen some images and videos you don't actually agree with it either. Do you think that arresting people because you think they may cause trouble is just? I'm not for one minute saying there were no trouble makers amongst the patriot march but from what I've seen there was 10 arrests for actual offences, yet here we have people talking about 'circa 100'. depends what you mean by just. It appears to be legal. I totally accept that there were people in the pro palenstine march that were causing trouble. But as a percentage it's a totally different beast. And until the evening I'm not aware of any emergency workers being injured by the pro palenstine march. From the vids I've seen the arrest count of the counter protestors could have been way higher. But if you think that the two groups behaved equally I'm not gonna convince you otherwise. It is legal to arrest 'to prevent breach of the peace', I think the point is that no one (I believe) was arrested for the same thing on the other side. Does it matter whether it wasn't 'until the evening'? We've had people aiming fireworks at police twice in a week from so called peaceful protestors. Do me a favour and don't take the 'if you think, I'm not gonna convince you' line, you're way better than that. We both know there were protestors on both marches who behaved equally, the question is, were they treated equally? I don't think they were from what I've seen. I don't think behaved equally throughout. The counter protest caused injuries to emergency workers earlier. That increased the risk of future incidents and the risk of public disorder. The police seemed to then step up their approach when the protesters introduced fireworkers. They then started to use the law in a preventive manner. Were there bad people on both groups. Yes. Did the counter counter protestors cause more trouble and earlier. Yes. As a group, did the counter protestors have more trouble makers. In my view, if there were 300k EDLers there would be carnage. We're obviously seeing different things. Haven't you been quite happy for 'police not to aggravate' and instead gather evidence to use later? Maybe no police would've been injured if they had decided to take that option?i haven't seen enough of the initial scuffles to say that this came from police aggrivation. And I haven't seen anyone suggest that was the case despite this probably fitting agendas. My position was it makes sense for police to take a different approach for a group of ten people, to a group of 100, to a group of 100,000. But I'd also police differently based on risk/suspected numbers of trouble makers. I'd police swansea v Cardiff different to Sunderland v Plymouth. I must say I'm disappointed that you 'haven't seen enough' but are happy to blame the 'patriots' for the trouble. There were possibly 10 police in the line blocking 300-400 getting to the cenotaph, which they were allowed to do. Police at either of those football matches aren't going to aggravate a certain section of fans. They may be stronger in numbers and segregate but that's as much as they'd do. I'm not sure why they were at the cenotaph in the first place. Wasn't that an exclusion zone ? I don't realise it applied to just one set of protestors, hence the barriers. What did the police do to start the trouble ? I'm basing my views on the lack of people saying it's the police's fault, especially from the likes of braverman. Or any real discussion of the EDL being treated unfairly because of who they are rather than how they behaved. There was exclusion zones. Not at the cenotaph. As far as I'm aware, there was no trouble at the cenotaph. I said last week that the blame would be pointed at 'patriots' and that's exactly what's happened. I understand how you base your view, it's a fair view. I just don't agree that because 'pro Palestinian protestors' supposedly didn't get rowdy until later in the day, that makes them any better. " from the BBC "Police say there is a risk of clashes with far-right groups, and have set up an exclusion zone around the Cenotaph." Also He [Sunak] added that "EDL [English Defence League] thugs attacking police and trespassing on the Cenotaph" war memorial had disrespected the honour of the UK's armed forces. Also, I didn't say it made them better. It's why the counter protestors were treated differently earlier in the day. | |||
