-
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel no I think a massive percentage of protestors have no interest in trouble.
But a small amount do. Regardless of what they are protesting against. Thus, I’m not just going to immediately blame anti trump people for trouble at a pro trump rally.
Same view on vice versa too.
C'mon MR, the vast majority of incidents are started by the antifa type people. Just look at the bullshit that occurs every G8 or G20 meeting. Or look at the idiocy that occurs when evil Hitler incarnate Milo shows up at a college. Sure there are dickheads on all sides but the anti-Trump people are far more likely to raise holy hell than vice versa.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
Colossal bow to draw.
-
@rancid-schnitzel if you ask them they will say they were only responding to threats from the other side.
It seems the whole world is laughing at the Brit protests against Trump, except me. And I imagine Trump supporters would be pissed off too. Hence why I could see trouble happening caused from within.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel if you ask them they will say they were only responding to threats from the other side.
It seems the whole world is laughing at the Brit protests against Trump, except me. And I imagine Trump supporters would be pissed off too. Hence why I could see trouble happening caused from within.
We'll just agree to disagree on that 👍.
What I find most disgraceful is the attitude of Khan. There is no way this guy would have allowed an Obama blimp. He would have muttered something about important ally and being a guest in London etc etc. He's also spent millions on protecting hurt feelings online. But now he's all for free speech and couldn't give a shit about offending Britain's most important ally, an alliance of particular importance in a post-Brexit world. I know most politicians are hypocritical tossers, but this takes it to new heights. He's demonstrating exactly what his stance is. It isn't about free speech. It's got sweet fa to do with free speech. It's all about the type of speech he believes in and agrees with. It's disgusting and he should be called out on it by both sides.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
Colossal bow to draw.
How so?
Werent you just arguing that there are bad people on both sides? -
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel if you ask them they will say they were only responding to threats from the other side.
It seems the whole world is laughing at the Brit protests against Trump, except me. And I imagine Trump supporters would be pissed off too. Hence why I could see trouble happening caused from within.
We'll just agree to disagree on that 👍.
What I find most disgraceful is the attitude of Khan. There is no way this guy would have allowed an Obama blimp. He would have muttered something about important ally and being a guest in London etc etc. He's also spent millions on protecting hurt feelings online. But now he's all for free speech and couldn't give a shit about offending Britain's most important ally, an alliance of particular importance in a post-Brexit world. I know most politicians are hypocritical tossers, but this takes it to new heights. He's demonstrating exactly what his stance is. It isn't about free speech. It's got sweet fa to do with free speech. It's all about the type of speech he believes in and agrees with. It's disgusting and he should be called out on it by both sides.
We can agree on that. Khan is shocking.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
Colossal bow to draw.
How so?
Werent you just arguing that there are bad people on both sides?Really?
One situation happened and was basic denial of who caused it.
One is a theory only.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
Colossal bow to draw.
How so?
Werent you just arguing that there are bad people on both sides?Really?
One situation happened and was basic denial of who caused it.
One is a theory only.
Cause what? The clashes at Charlottesville? You think that was all one sided?
right.....
What exactly do you believe Trump said?
-
@baron-silas-greenback I’m out for the day now
Let’s turn this round. You explain your points here.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback I’m out for the day now
Let’s turn this round. You explain your points here.
Sure.
You said that you were not going to immediately blame anti Trump people for trouble at a pro Trump rally... and vice versa.
Correct?
Why wouldn't you blame anti Trump people at a pro Trump rally? Presumably because of your stated belief that there are small amount of people on both sides looking for trouble? Bad actors on both sides?
Trump said “You had a group on one side that was bad. You had a group on the other side that was also very violent."
Before that he had tweeted
"We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!"So not much different to your position?
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
It isn't about free speech. It's got sweet fa to do with free speech. It's all about the type of speech he believes in and agrees with. It's disgusting and he should be called out on it by both sides.
That's what's so dangerous. It breeds a view, reinforced by many in authority, that only certain views are acceptable and those that express contra views are to be attacked as stupid, brain-washed, uncaring, evil, dangerous - or called "deplorables" as Hilary Clinton did.
It presents an almost open-goal for far-right and extremist groups and others to exploit.
-
Well, this should be interesting....
"Campaign to fly Sadiq Khan baby blimp in London raises £50,000
Donald Trump fans have come up with a devious scheme to hit back at Sadiq Khan over the controversial Trump baby blimp.
They are crowdfunding for their own humiliating balloon portraying the London mayor – and have smashed their target.
More than £50,000 has been raised by the online fundraiser in just a week."
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
I’m not ignoring this - you raise fair points but not all correct. I’ll go over it when back on work on thurs. too hard on iPhone
Good old Fern, reducing productivity since forever. Another variable the politicians don't account for.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
Colossal bow to draw.
When you first wrote this, I wasn't sure if you were talking to me or RS. As I've pointed out already the situations are very different.
This chat - RS is proposing that the only people likely to cause trouble at a pro Trump rally are anti-Trumps. If you take the view that opposition are likely to cause it only, then sure. But after pressing, RS made it clear that it's not just an opposition, it's the anti Trump brigade he's referring to.
Charlottesville - white supremist, pro-Trump rally. Guy does actually commit domestic terrorism there, from the pro-Trump side. Trump's comments were on the back of something that did actually happen, not on the back of a theory. Were both sides in the wrong - probably, media reporting has certainly taken the side of the anti-Trump's (how surprising), but reality is that nobody from the anti Trump side actually committed an act of domestic terrorism.
Hence another conclusions, does Charlotesville indicate that "next-level" incidents are more likely to occur from the pro Trump side?
So therefore, me saying that there are good/bad people on both sides is a collosal bow to draw to agree with Trump, who said the same (amongst other things) after an actual incident.
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
How so?
Werent you just arguing that there are bad people on both sides?There are good and bad people on sides of every argument/position, so yes, I agree with Trump there. However, I'm not going to say that after an incident - blame shall be laid where it's due.
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
Sure.
You said that you were not going to immediately blame anti Trump people for trouble at a pro Trump rally... and vice versa.
Correct?Correct. Because nothing has happened - the world isn't like minority report.
Why wouldn't you blame anti Trump people at a pro Trump rally? Presumably because of your stated belief that there are small amount of people on both sides looking for trouble? Bad actors on both sides?
Because nothing happened. If it did, and it was caused by pro or anti Trump, then I'd be more than happy to lay blame.
Trump said “You had a group on one side that was bad. You had a group on the other side that was also very violent."
Before that he had tweeted
"We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!"So not much different to your position?
His position was on the back of an incident, mine was on the back of a "minority report".
In my view, the only thing that Trump was guilty of (initially) was refusal to flat out blame some of his support base - hardly something as a (now) politician, he's isolated in. Further updates and dissection of his comments suggest he did, but reality is that white supremists are extremely outdated, and dangerous people to the modern world. They are also largely Trump supporters. So when he refused to admonish them directly, the world took aim.
-
This just gets worse and worse doesn’t it? No place for the truth apparently. Racially hurt feelings are more important than children’s safety according to local spokespeople.
An MP who received death threats after condemning the sexual abuse of girls by groups of British Pakistani men has been given increased security amid fears that hard-left and Muslim opponents are trying to force her from office.
Sarah Champion was accused by activists in her Rotherham constituency of “industrial-scale racism” for highlighting the “common ethnic heritage” of most of those implicated in the town’s sex-grooming scandal.
Criticism of the former Labour frontbencher has been led by a racial justice charity that claims to speak on behalf of the local Pakistani community. Its main funder is the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, a Quaker organisation that was widely criticised in 2015 for donating more than £300,000 to Cage, a human rights group that described Mohammed Emwazi, the Islamic State murderer known as Jihadi John, as a “beautiful young man”.
Friends of Ms Champion say that far-left activists and leading members of the town’s Pakistani community seem to be trying to destroy her reputation. They are said to want a Muslim member of Rotherham council to replace the MP if she gives up her seat or is deselected.
The Times has seen correspondence in which the South Yorkshire council’s former deputy leader, Jahangir Akhtar, labels Ms Champion an “ogre” and warns: “If Labour wants to keep her seat, they need to get rid of her pretty quick.”
Taiba Yasseen, a Momentum supporter and until recently a member of the Labour-run local authority’s cabinet, is viewed as a potential successor. She is seeking a Westminster seat and has publicly condemned Ms Champion for “betraying an entire ethnic group”. Ms Yasseen, 43, was dropped from the Rotherham cabinet in May for reasons the party has declined to reveal, but supporters of Ms Champion say that the decision was prompted by concerns that she was trying to discredit the MP. The councillor said any suggestion that she had attempted to undermine Ms Champion was “categorically untrue.
The strongest public attacks on Ms Champion, who campaigns for the victims of child sexual exploitation, have been made by a Rotherham-based racial justice charity, Just Yorkshire.
The charity’s leader has accused the MP of “industrial-scale racism” and “inciting and inviting hatred against minorities”. One of its leading figures is a radical academic, Waqas Tufail, whose research speciality is Islamophobia and the “racialisation of crime”.
Recent tweets by Dr Tufail, who accused Ms Champion of “promoting racism”, congratulated the new Duchess of Sussex on “joining the institution that epitomises white supremacy”. He also mocked the England football team during the World Cup, describing its three lions emblem as a colonial legacy that would more appropriately be of “three hedgehogs”.
Rotherham gained international notoriety in 2014, when an independent inquiry found that over 16 years at least 1,400 local girls were targeted for sexual exploitation by organised groups of men. Most victims were white. Their abusers were said to be “almost all” of Pakistani origin. The scandal led to sex-grooming prosecutions across the country and far-right marches in the town.
Tensions increased last August when Ms Champion told The Sun that Britain “has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls”.
The furore forced Ms Champion to resign from the shadow cabinet. She later accused some on the left of cowardice in refusing to acknowledge the significance of race and culture in street-grooming sex crimes.
Since 2008 Just Yorkshire has received more than £550,000 from the Joseph Rowntree trust, which has also given £230,000 to The Monitoring Group (TMG), a London racial justice charity with which Just is associated. TMG says its formation was “inspired by” the US Black Panther movement.
In March Just Yorkshire published a report on Ms Champion that it said was commissioned by a “grassroots partnership” of activists and organisations including the Rotherham Taxi Association and the Rotherham Council of Mosques. The study, backed by TMG, was said to reflect an online survey in which 165 people were asked to describe the impact on the local Pakistani community of Ms Champion’s remarks.
Co-authored by Nadeem Murtuja, the chairman and acting director of Just Yorkshire, it said that British Pakistanis felt “scapegoated, dehumanised and potentially criminalised” by their MP, who had “crossed a point of no return”. Its foreword accused her of “fanning the flames of racial hatred” and acting like a “neo-fascist murderer”.
The Times understands that the report led to death threats against Ms Champion. Scotland Yard’s counterterrorism unit increased her security risk level and she was advised to accept extra protection. The MP declined to comment.
Ms Champion apologised to the Rotherham Pakistani community “for any hurt or adverse reaction I inadvertently caused”, but said that Just Yorkshire’s findings were “based on an extremely limited survey, distributed through networks not made in any way clear in the report”.
Mr Murtuja is a Labour supporter but said any suggestion that his charity was part of a plot against Ms Champion was “completely wide of the mark”. He said Ms Yasseen was the victim of a “racially motivated witch hunt”, adding: “This is a community that has felt under siege and we wanted to make sure its voice was properly heard. We now want to move forward and build bridges.”
Ms Yasseen, who has unsuccessfully contested the Labour nomination in two West Yorkshire constituencies this year, said Ms Champion was a “fantastic MP and one of the best things to happen to our town”. She added: “Sarah and I are friends and colleagues. I fully support her and the important work she does.”
The Joseph Rowntree trust declined to comment. It is not suggested that the death threats came from anyone who is seeking to force the MP to stand down.
-
UK news outlets are reporting that Tommy Robinson has been released on bail
-
@jc Yep, from the Beeb:-
At the Court of Appeal, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett ruled there had been technical flaws by the judge who jailed him and quashed the finding.
He will attend the Old Bailey for the Leeds allegation to be reheard.
In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.
"We will direct that the matter be reheard before a different judge."
So, it sounds as though whilst TR was technically guilty of contempt of court, perhaps due process was not served correctly. If so this is what many have been concerned about and this is a good step forward - whether you like TR or not.
-
Yep, a good result. Regardless of how you feel about whether the sentence was justified (for what it's worth I think it was), there was little doubt that the process to get him there seemed a little rushed / fishy.
Even if everything is quashed, hopefully the point has been made and he's a little more careful next time. Because, undoubtedly there will be a next time.
British Politics