Jump to content
Tywin Manderly

UK Politics: Unboldy Go There Where No Country Has Gone Before

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So what you're saying is a bunch of bureaucrats are going maximum bureaucratic. Fitting.

Pretty much yup.

I suspect Johnson's preference is for her to die in the prison camp so the problem goes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That pales in comparison to the awesome power of the Ark of the Covenant.

I remember watching a historical documentary about how you managed to pack it away in a warehouse and then forget about it.

32 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The main kicker is that the only body Britain can really be held accountable to here is the EU Court of Human Rights, and they won't be able to rule on the case now that the UK has left the EU. The international criminal court is unlikely to take it on, and if they did then it'll take so long to get a ruling the current government don't remotely need to worry about it.

As I understand it, the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution (and covers many non-EU states like Russia and Turkey) so we are still part of its jurisdiction. It wouldn't surprise me if the Tories decided to pull us out of it as well at some point, but it's not happened yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Hate to break it to you. 

But I heard New Zealand already has that artifact locked down. 

Now it makes more sense why all those billionaires are buying estates out there.

Share this post


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

I remember watching a historical documentary about how you managed to pack it away in a warehouse and then forget about it.

As I understand it, the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution (and covers many non-EU states like Russia and Turkey) so we are still part of its jurisdiction. It wouldn't surprise me if the Tories decided to pull us out of it as well at some point, but it's not happened yet.

You are correct, the ECtHR is the court (sometimes called the Strasbourg court) established by the ECHR in the context of the Council of Europe, so it is entirely separate to the EU. 

There have, as you might guess, been noises about withdrawing from this from time to time (particularly from the May-bot) but as of now we are still under their jurisdiction. 

The Human Rights Act incorporates the ECHR in this country, so when you hear noises about repealing/amending that its related to the ECHR.

 

Other news: Thornberry is out of the leadership race - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/14/labour-leadership-emily-thornberry-fails-to-make-it-on-to-ballot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 11:15 PM, Heartofice said:

The Home Secretary, Sajid Javid (who let's remember is also a british Muslim)

Almost missed this-why exactly did you even bring up this specific part? Even if Javid was Muslim-he is not still waiting for you to admit that-that does not then mean he could not be racist to people of a certain religion.

It just seems you dragged what you thought was his identity into play here because it somehow makes any talk of possible bigotry on his part-and thus the PMsip in general-absurd.

As if people of similar ethnic, or religious backgrounds can't take bigoted actions each other.

If you recognize that to be false, why exactly did you bring what you thought was his identity into play?

@The Anti-Targ

I believe this relates to the problem you discussed earlier; some people not thinking people could be racist against those with similar skin-tones.

It fails to encapsulate the nuance of bigotry and think unless it's coming from an ”outside group” it can't be seen as  bigotry.

People with the same skin-tones can be racist to the other.

Light-skinned blacks can be racist to dark skinned blacks aplenty and think they're country should stay white-often because they think they are ’whiter’. 

Women could be just as misogynistic as men. If a woman argues that women should not hold a political office, or vote they're still being misogynistic.
 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Excellent news. Another liability, though personally I quite like her. 

Who ever wins that contest we all lose. It's basically continuity madness which ever candidate they pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly political. A petition to get a change of law called 'Flacks Law' just popped up on my facebook. Basically stopping press harassment of celebs. While I agree the tabloid press, especially womens magazines who basically stalk d list celebs with impunity are absolute scum.  I'm not sure naming a law after someone who was pretty certainly a domestic abuser is the right track. 

Share this post


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

Slightly political. A petition to get a change of law called 'Flacks Law' just popped up on my facebook. Basically stopping press harassment of celebs. While I agree the tabloid press, especially womens magazines who basically stalk d list celebs with impunity are absolute scum.  I'm not sure naming a law after someone who was pretty certainly a domestic abuser is the right track. 

Its a pretty tragic story and I'm kinda shocked by it. She was clearly emotionally disturbed and there is no defence of the hounding she received. 

But what would a law like that look like? Would we be so keen to implement it to protect violently abusive people from criticism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 1:53 PM, DanteGabriel said:

Now it makes more sense why all those billionaires are buying estates out there.

And all of their goblins are scouring the country trying to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Slightly political. A petition to get a change of law called 'Flacks Law' just popped up on my facebook. Basically stopping press harassment of celebs. While I agree the tabloid press, especially womens magazines who basically stalk d list celebs with impunity are absolute scum.  I'm not sure naming a law after someone who was pretty certainly a domestic abuser is the right track. 

Yea I just saw that ... strange choice. Not to open a can of worms, but let’s face it, if a guy beat up his girlfriend he’s not gonna get any laws named after.

And of course, people rarely follow the money with these things: the paparazzi act this way because there’s good money in it because people buy this shit. That’s what needs to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

 

And of course, people rarely follow the money with these things: the paparazzi act this way because there’s good money in it because people buy this shit. That’s what needs to stop.

I bet there is a strong correlation between the people who are pushing/signing this petition, and those that make it necessary by buying heat/chat/shite or whatever these magazines are called. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Andrew Sabisky sounds like a nice fella.  Should fit right in.  I have to say though I did involuntary laugh at some of his more brazen statements 'I am always straight up in saying that women's sport is more comparable to the Paralympics than it is to mens'.

 

Edited by BigFatCoward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-andrew-sabisky-eugenics-contraception-dominic-cummings-downing-street-a9339296.html

Quote

 

Downing Street has refused to say whether Boris Johnson agrees with an adviser who suggested black people were mentally inferior and advocated compulsory contraception to prevent a “permanent underclass”.

A Number 10 spokesman was repeatedly asked at a Westminster media briefing whether the PM wished to distance himself from a string of controversial remarks made by Andrew Sabisky, who was recruited by senior advisor Dominic Cummings.

Presented with a series of Sabisky’s comments and asked whether the PM backed them or would condemn them, the spokesman responded only: “The prime minister’s views are well publicised and well documented.”


Despite frequent requests, the Downing Street spokesman was unable to point to a single example of the prime minister expressing a view on eugenics or the intelligence of black people, merely saying that reporters would find that his opinions were “well-documented” on the public record.

He declined to say whether Mr Johnson’s views on the issue were reflected in a magazine article in which the PM referred to black people as “picaninnies” with “watermelon smiles”.

In the absence of any other reference, I suppose we must take it that these are the 'well publicised views' the spokesman referred to. 

Quote

The 27-year-old self-styled “superforecaster” responded to Mr Cummings’ call for “misfits and weirdos” to apply to work at 10 Downing Street.

This is what happens when you decide that you don't need any of that 'qualifications' nonsense when it comes to recruiting people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be hundreds of posts of outrage, it shows how jaded and cynical we have become about politics. This doesn't even surprise me in the slightest.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am sure someone will be along shortly to say how this is all A-OK and the real problem is the backlash pushing Sabisky to resign. That there is no racism problem with Johnson and we are all over-reacting...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that Labour leadership debate was rivetting stuff...

I actually don’t dislike any of the candidates. But none of them make me enthusiastic or fill me with any particular hope for the future of the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

There should be hundreds of posts of outrage, it shows how jaded and cynical we have become about politics. This doesn't even surprise me in the slightest.   

It is remarkable, and thoroughly disgusting, that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom not only hired (indirectly) someone with these views but much more importantly, that his spokesman prevaricated and evaded the question when he was asked to condemn them. That should be a resignation issue. Johnson should be out on his ear - if his party had a sliver of integrity left. But we've already established that they don't. 

Share this post


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

×