Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HelenaExMachina

UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:


Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about it physical destruction in whole or in part ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

 

So the disabled, and the homo and trans people who were murdered in the Nazi death camps weren't murdered in a genocide because people who constructed that convention 70 years ago were homo and transphobic.

Quote

The article says the academic consensus says it is a plausible hypothesis that 120 thousand deaths are linked to Tory Austerity, next time you should actually read what you link lol.  You're honing in on someone's alternative idea, a person who also think the landmark paper is plausible lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amusing how Safiya chunters away endlessly about how popular and amazing Corbyn is whilst simultaneously calling everyone in the thread a Tory.

You'd think there'd at least be a couple of Labour voters in here, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Corbyn's plan, if you believe he will be good to his word, is to ask for an extension and call a GE, ie no people's vote arranged or promised during the term of the caretaker govt. Whether there will be a people's vote and what will be the options in the vote will be part of the GE campaign manifesto of each party. Then the ensuing negotiations (within the party or between parties) of what to have in the people's vote will be determined after the GE, assuming the Tories aren't returned with a sufficient number of votes to get no-deal Brexit through at the new deadline.

Let's assume Corbyn steps in, asks for an extension and calls a GE. Then what? This is the bit that really puzzles me with this scenario. Chances are you get back with another hung parliament. Tories losing some seats to their right to Frogface's NUKIP, and Labour losing seats to the remain Alliance (LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Greens, and presumably the SNP). Personally, I think with the FPTP system in the UK this actually might tilt the scales in favour of no-deal. Then Britain will have emulated the US electorally. A majority of the electorate being pro-Remain by now, being presented with no-deal, similar to Twitler winning the US Presidential election, while losing the popular vote. The (presumably) Tory lead goverment, would need to form a coalition with the DUP and Frogface. If you felt like mocking May's election with her strong and stable goverment catchphrase, then you really have seen nothing yet. On the other hand, if we get again a return of a majority of remain MPs, we are roughly in the same spot we are now. Corbyn proclaiming to be the only real person to lead such a goverment, while the LibDems and SNP do not particularly like him. The SNP is willing to cooperate with him for now to stop No-Deal, but they are hardly in it for their love for Corbyn.

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Who is being more unreasonable over the PM issue? Labour, who is insisting that in any coalition the leader of the (by far) largest party in the coalition be the PM? Or everyone else who are insisting that someone else be PM because they don't like the politics of the current Labour Leader. It's pretty clear who I think is being the more unreasonable and petty bunch.

Having that said, I don't think neither side is looking too good with that circus. Let's face it, both sides are playing a game of chicken with no-deal. Both sides calculating that the other will given in to avoid no-deal. Swinson said, even with all the LibDems voting for Corbyn, he would still lack votes to get elected, as in CHUK (without Chuka, or the Soubry bunch) will not vote for him, Grieve and the other Tory rebells will not vote for him, and that's not even accounting for the few brain dead Labour Leavers like the Red Kipper Kate Hoey not voting for Corbyn, because they really want Brexit to happen. FWIW, I think this game of chicken has a high probability to end with a head-on colission. For Corbyn Brexit is that inconvenience that stops him from talking about austerity, and he is at best indifferent to the whole thing, so will he blink? No, idea. On the other side we have the group of MPs who flat out despise Corbyn for one reason or another and are not willing to vote him in, will they be willing to hold their noses and vote for him? Again, no idea. Also, I have no idea how many Long-Baileys (which is Labour's answer to McVey in terms of stupid, I believe) there are, but I hope there are not enough to insist that Corbyn is bigger than Jesus, or Brexit. FWIW, I believe caretaker PM should be whoever commands a majority in parliament. I don't really care whether that's Corbyn, Clarke, Harman, or Caroline Lucas for all I care. Corbyn can stomp with his feet all day long and insist he is heading the biggest opposition party, it doesn't matter if he can't command a majority in the HoC. This would be a temporary goverment of unity, and Corbyn is obviously not a unifying figure.

On an unrelated note, I see people are still taking time off from their well paid goverment position at the Mail to engage into troll feeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Safiya said:

You're banging your head as if you're being frustrated?  Are you serious?  lol.  You have provided no sources to back your despicable ideology as being ethically correct one to follow, I'd like to see what you can provide go ahead.

To make this clear according to you the Nazi death camps weren't a genocide against the government created economic poor, the disabled, homo and trans people and political opponents beacuse mass murder is not genocide, except to target certain groups IS genocide it is the very definition of the word genicide.  The disabled have been FORCED to go to interview where someone with a brain tumor has been told they can work.  You are either completely uneducated or a Tory.  Tory austerity has targeted the very same groups I mentioned as the Nazi regime of 1930s and 40s.

Well, this is a new one. Not only getting my politics completely wrong, but somehow managing to invoke Godwin's Law too.

Please see the 1948 Genocide Convention for more details on the term genocide. It's a term coined in the 1940s, precisely to cover what the Nazis were doing - and, no, disabled people or homosexuals don't count as a protected category.

(You may dispute as to whether this distinction is useful, but attempted extermination of particular groups - and only those groups - is what the word means. Note that it is possible to kill ten million people without being genocidal, while possible to be genocidal without killing anyone. I'll leave the latter as an exercise for the reader).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Fuck that, if we're gonna apply intent like it matters here we're going to use legal intent. IE a murder charge doesn't actually require you to intend to kill anybody, just that you intended to do the thing that caused the murder. If I go around firing a gun at random it doesn't matter one fucking bit that I didn't actually mean for anyone to die, if someone does I'm still a murderer.

Around here (and in England and Wales), you'd be guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Intent does matter.

(Counter-example: is there a difference between someone who steals a loaf of bread from the shop, and someone who forgets to pay for it? Hint - there is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Around here (and in England and Wales), you'd be guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Intent does matter.

(Counter-example: is there a difference between someone who steals a loaf of bread from the shop, and someone who forgets to pay for it? Hint - there is).

... If that's the case your country's weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

... If that's the case your country's weird.

Its intention as to the end result that matters here rather than what action you intend. Shooting a gun randomly into a crowd though I think you would have a hard time showing you lacked intent to kill or cause GBH. 

As RBPL says though you'd still be guilty of manslaughter if you lacked the intent. It's not particularly weird imo. What is the Canadian approach? I assumed it was the same actually

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Its intention as to the end result that matters here rather than what action you intend. Shooting a gun randomly into a crowd though I think you would have a hard time showing you lacked intent to kill or cause GBH. 

As RBPL says though you'd still be guilty of manslaughter if you lacked the intent. It's not particularly weird imo. What is the Canadian approach? I assumed it was the same actually

Exactly, there is a huge distinction between premeditated murder and unintentional manslaughter, the difference in sentence length between the two shows the clear distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK, intent is important.

If I punch you once in a drunken fight and you hit your head off the ground and die, there was no intent to kill you, so the sentence and charge reflect that.

If I’m shouting ‘die you bastard’ while using your head as a football, the intent is clearly there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This takes me back to Hendon, mens rea and actus reus, nothing better than teaching a classroom full of bored, working class (predominantly) police a bit of latin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bittersweet Distractor said:

Exactly, there is a huge distinction between premeditated murder and unintentional manslaughter, the difference in sentence length between the two shows the clear distinction.

Both have the same maximum sentence.  However the actual sentences do reflect this in most cases.  To be honest its often easier to just go for the manslaughter, as proving intent is a pain, but the maximum sentence can still be applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

This takes me back to Hendon, mens rea and actus reus, nothing better than teaching a classroom full of bored, working class (predominantly) police a bit of latin.

Did you re-enact Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Did you re-enact Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner?

it rings a bell. 

edit, just read up on it, we did discuss it.  What a prick, but giving that defence a run deserves some credit for the nerve.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Both have the same maximum sentence.  However the actual sentences do reflect this in most cases.  To be honest its often easier to just go for the manslaughter, as proving intent is a pain, but the maximum sentence can still be applied.

I know the maximum sentence for both is the same, it’s rarely applied in the case of manslaughter though and there have been some very lenient sentences for it and some very tough ones too, it very much depends on the circumstances.

One area I think there needs to be some reform is causing death by dangerous driving, there are some cases where it clearly wasn’t the persons intent to kill and some where they don’t care and/or are so callous and uncaring that they should be charged with murder, although they are just my personal feelings on the issue, I doubt there will be any reform in the law soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

:rofl: RBPL being described as a Tory Fanboy

Hey, I got accused first, of being alt-right. (Or at least I think so, I had some difficulty parsing the relevant paragraph.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Hey, I got accused first, of being alt-right. (Or at least I think so, I had some difficulty parsing the relevant paragraph.)

 

I know factual accuracy isn't the strong suit over at the Mail, but really, pick a number and get in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×