-
@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 đ.
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 Iâm out for the day now
Letâs turn this round. You explain your points here.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback Iâm out for the day now
Letâs 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 âYou 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 ÂŁ50,000
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 â and have smashed their target.
More than ÂŁ50,000 has been raised by the online fundraiser in just a week."
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
Iâm not ignoring this - you raise fair points but not all correct. Iâll 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 âYou 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 doesnât it? No place for the truth apparently. Racially hurt feelings are more important than childrenâs 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 âindustrial-scale racismâ for highlighting the âcommon ethnic heritageâ of most of those implicated in the townâs 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 ÂŁ300,000 to Cage, a human rights group that described Mohammed Emwazi, the Islamic State murderer known as Jihadi John, as a âbeautiful young manâ.
Friends of Ms Champion say that far-left activists and leading members of the townâs 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 councilâs former deputy leader, Jahangir Akhtar, labels Ms Champion an âogreâ and warns: âIf Labour wants to keep her seat, they need to get rid of her pretty quick.â
Taiba Yasseen, a Momentum supporter and until recently a member of the Labour-run local authorityâs cabinet, is viewed as a potential successor. She is seeking a Westminster seat and has publicly condemned Ms Champion for âbetraying an entire ethnic groupâ. 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 âcategorically 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 charityâs leader has accused the MP of âindustrial-scale racismâ and âinciting and inviting hatred against minoritiesâ. One of its leading figures is a radical academic, Waqas Tufail, whose research speciality is Islamophobia and the âracialisation of crimeâ.
Recent tweets by Dr Tufail, who accused Ms Champion of âpromoting racismâ, congratulated the new Duchess of Sussex on âjoining the institution that epitomises white supremacyâ. 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 âthree hedgehogsâ.
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 âalmost allâ 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 âhas a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girlsâ.
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 ÂŁ550,000 from the Joseph Rowntree trust, which has also given ÂŁ230,000 to The Monitoring Group (TMG), a London racial justice charity with which Just is associated. TMG says its formation was âinspired byâ the US Black Panther movement.
In March Just Yorkshire published a report on Ms Champion that it said was commissioned by a âgrassroots partnershipâ 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 Championâs remarks.
Co-authored by Nadeem Murtuja, the chairman and acting director of Just Yorkshire, it said that British Pakistanis felt âscapegoated, dehumanised and potentially criminalisedâ by their MP, who had âcrossed a point of no returnâ. Its foreword accused her of âfanning the flames of racial hatredâ and acting like a âneo-fascist murdererâ.
The Times understands that the report led to death threats against Ms Champion. Scotland Yardâs 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 âfor any hurt or adverse reaction I inadvertently causedâ, but said that Just Yorkshireâs findings were âbased on an extremely limited survey, distributed through networks not made in any way clear in the reportâ.
Mr Murtuja is a Labour supporter but said any suggestion that his charity was part of a plot against Ms Champion was âcompletely wide of the markâ. He said Ms Yasseen was the victim of a âracially motivated witch huntâ, adding: âThis 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.â
Ms Yasseen, who has unsuccessfully contested the Labour nomination in two West Yorkshire constituencies this year, said Ms Champion was a âfantastic MP and one of the best things to happen to our townâ. She added: âSarah and I are friends and colleagues. I fully support her and the important work she does.â
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.
-
@Catogrande
Simply not true that he was technically guilty of anything. That is bullshit. The first trial was judged to be a sham, the conviction was quashed and retrial ordered, he is back to being innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent.
The whole thing is a complete and utter farce. -
@majorrage said in British Politics:
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.
Hopefully the point has been made and the justice system is a little more careful next time.
The system charged with upholding the law was deemed incorrect yet somehow for some reason your judgement is that he deserved to be jailed, even though that is against the law.
This is a story about the wilful misuse of the law by justice officials.
It's a breach of legal protocols yet still your focus is on the behaviour of a man who apparently broke no law but was still whisked off to prison due to corruption.
Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
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.
What point do you hope was made? That the British police and court were as corrupt and dishonest? Because because as sure shit he has been proven to have done nothing wrong
-
he hasnât been found told heâs innocent.
Heâs been told the trial was flawed and has won the right to a retrial. If he gets off then thatâs different but thst is not what has happened.
As above. Your claims above are wildly inaccurate.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
he hasnât been found told heâs innocent.
Heâs been told the trial was flawed and has won the right to a retrial. If he gets off then thatâs different but thst is not what has happened.
As above. Your claims above are wildly inaccurate.
Bullshit.
At this stage he is simply charged, therefore he is currently innocent.
Contrary to your views, the legal system does not work on guilty on proven innocent.
The fact is simply that he is currently considered legally innocent, despite how people might like to smear.
Of course he hasn't been told he is innocent, why would he be? He is innocent until proven otherwise. Judges and lawyers already know that simplistic fact, it being the bedrock of western criminal law.
His status is now simply accused.
British Politics