UK politics - not inspiring but effective

[Craving Peaches]

24 minutes ago, mormont said:

The Tories hit rock bottom today with support for their party across Britain falling to a record low of just 20 per cent, according to a new poll.

That's twenty percent too high. Who is actually voting for them? Do they just really hate Labour?

Edited March 4 by Craving Peaches

[kissdbyfire]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/03/ministers-consider-ban-mps-engaging-pro-palestine-climate-protesters
 

Quote

Ministers are considering proposals to ban MPs and councillors from engaging with groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.

The plans, put forward by the government’s adviser on political violence, John Woodcock, say mainstream political leaders should tell their representatives to employ a “zero-tolerance approach” to groups that use disruptive tactics or fail to stop “hate” on marches.

Rishi Sunak and James Cleverly, the home secretary, are due to discuss the proposals as part of a review conducted by Woodcock, the former Labour MP who now sits as Lord Walney, a cross-bench peer.

The prime minister was condemned by human rights groups for warning of “forces here at home trying to tear us apart” during a hastily arranged address in Downing Street on Friday. On Wednesday, he was accused of exaggerating tensions at protests after he warned of “mob rule” in the UK.

 Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu speech – video

In an article in the Sun on Sunday, Walney wrote: “My review on political violence is about to be formally submitted to the prime minister and the home secretary. In it, I am asking the leader of every mainstream political party to take a zero-tolerance approach to the menace that is threatening our democracy.

“So Rishi and Keir [Starmer] should instruct their MPs and councillors not to engage with anyone from the PSC until they get their house in order and cut the hate from their marches.”

The proposals are politically convenient for the government because, if accepted, they would put further pressure on the Labour leader over his party’s stance on pro-Palestine demonstrations.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Well done Rochdale. Good going. 

I would like to know who is in favour of the Ukraine War. I think everyone who doesn't want Russia to annex a neighbouring sovereign nation was (at the time of the invasion) and is still against the Ukraine war, but sees the way to end the war as Russia retreating back behind it's 2021 (preferably 2014) borders. Is it that Galloway and Brand oppose the Ukraine war differently, in that they want Ukraine to just stop fighting and let Russia have what it wants? That seems to be what "opponents of the Ukraine war" seem to be wanting.

[BigFatCoward]

2p off national insurance, a brazen bribe. 

Edited March 5 by mormont

[mormont]

So here's a little story.

https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/news/minister-forced-into-climb-down-over-academic-comments-on-gaza/

Michelle Donelan, currently Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, alleged on Twitter that two members of the EDI board of UK Research and Innovation were radical extremists who had expressed sympathy for Hamas in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks. She publicly suggested they should be removed from their roles.

After a lengthy and detailed investigation, it turns out that she was talking complete bollocks, had not done any checking of the claim but had simply accepted and repeated it at face value, and had seriously defamed both these women.

She has now retracted her comments in the face of a libel suit, and paid compensation.

Wait. No. We paid compensation. The taxpayer paid it.

Tomorrow, the Chancellor will complain about wasteful public spending.

Edited March 5 by mormont

[Derfel Cadarn]

Laurence Fox has dropped a libel case and has to pay legal costs.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/laurence-fox-abandons-libel-case-32269716.amp
 

Dan Wootton ‘is no longer employed’ by GB News after Ofcom ruling. No idea if he’s been sacked or quit; probably a ‘mutual decision’, as GB News probably don’t want Fox wrc banging on about freedom of speech and how GBN is suppressing it.

edit: oh and TalkTV is going off thr air, and will be online only

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68481606

Edited March 5 by Derfel Cadarn

[The Anti-Targ]

59 minutes ago, mormont said:

So here's a little story.

https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/news/minister-forced-into-climb-down-over-academic-comments-on-gaza/

Michelle Donelan, currently Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, alleged on Twitter that two members of the EDI board of UK Research and Innovation were radical extremists who had expressed sympathy for Hamas in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks. She publicly suggested they should be removed from their roles.

After a lengthy and detailed investigation, it turns out that she was talking complete bollocks, had not done any checking of the claim but had simply accepted and repeated it at face value, and had seriously defamed both these women.

She has now retracted her comments in the face of a libel suit, and paid compensation.

Wait. No. We paid compensation. The taxpayer paid it.

Tomorrow, the Chancellor will complain about wasteful public spending.

Outrageous, if govt money is used to bail out people who should be held personally accountable for defaming people then that does nothing to deter MPs from defaming people. Financial penalties, either levvied by the courts or through a settlement process to avoid a court from finding someone has definitely been defamed are supposed to act as deterrents against future behaviour. If the guilty party doesn't feel any personal pain the action against them is pretty pointless.

The taxpayer "paying" for the compensation is a minor issue to the the much larger principle of what justice and redress for wrongdoing should look like. And justice does not look like govt covering privileged people's arses financially, or in any other way.

[karaddin]

Sam Kerr facing a 4 day trial in 2025 for calling a cop "white bastard" seems like a questionable investment of resources if your court system is sufficiently overburdened it takes 2 years to handle something that minor.

[Derfel Cadarn]

3 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Sam Kerr facing a 4 day trial in 2025 for calling a cop "white bastard" seems like a questionable investment of resources if your court system is sufficiently overburdened it takes 2 years to handle something that minor.

Problem is, it’s a racially aggravated offence. So if no action osntaken against him, there is an outcry when someone is charged for callong someone a ‘black bastard’. Far right racists would have a field day calling out double standard

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Sam Kerr facing a 4 day trial in 2025 for calling a cop "white bastard" seems like a questionable investment of resources if your court system is sufficiently overburdened it takes 2 years to handle something that minor.

Interesting take. If the officer was black and she had used a racially offensive term would you also be describing it as a 'questionable investment of resources'?

Quote

Far right racists would have a field day calling out double standard

Surely anyone would a brain would be able to notice the obvious double standard.

Anyway, the budget seems full of lots of little changes, most of which seem reasonable, but are hardly going to move the needle on general opinion on the Tories. Things like getting rid of non dom status, and replacing it was another system which.. is sort of similar is hardly ground breaking. 

Edited March 6 by Heartofice

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Problem is, it’s a racially aggravated offence. So if no action osntaken against him, there is an outcry when someone is charged for callong someone a ‘black bastard’. Far right racists would have a field day calling out double standard

Only if there's intent if the keyboard lawyers I saw yesterday are correct about the relevant British law, although I'm blanking on the specifics of what needs to be intended - I don't think it matched up with the Aus ones I'm familiar with and seemed a high bar to meet for that particular phrase.

Not to mention no one even gets an opportunity to know and claim double standard if the officer in question had just ignored it.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

Only if there's intent if the keyboard lawyers I saw yesterday are correct about the relevant British law, although I'm blanking on the specifics of what needs to be intended - I don't think it matched up with the Aus ones I'm familiar with and seemed a high bar to meet for that particular phrase.

Really? Intent? Now reverse the situation and try using the 'intent' argument. You would be laughed out.

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

Only if there's intent if the keyboard lawyers I saw yesterday are correct about the relevant British law, although I'm blanking on the specifics of what needs to be intended - I don't think it matched up with the Aus ones I'm familiar with and seemed a high bar to meet for that particular phrase.

Not to mention no one even gets an opportunity to know and claim double standard if the officer in question had just ignored it.

The criteria is basically if someone perceived it as racist. It’s then up to CPS (in England/Wales, or Procurator Fiscal if in Scotland) to decide whether to prosecute. Might be further aggravating factors if they’re going ahead with it

[karaddin]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Interesting take. If the officer was black and she had used a racially offensive term would you also be describing it as a 'questionable investment of resources'?

No I wouldn't because, funnily enough, context actually matters and the societal and power dynamics of white and black people aren't the same in our countries.

Also half the point of my criticism is that taking 2 years to handle minor shit like that is indicative of significant issues with the system - either too much minor shit being charged or inadequate police/court resourcing and *that* should be fixed. I'm going to roll my eyes at this charge but she did bring it on herself, but it should go to trial and be resolved far faster than this.

[karaddin]

3 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

The criteria is basically if someone perceived it as racist. It’s then up to CPS (in England/Wales, or Procurator Fiscal if in Scotland) to decide whether to prosecute. Might be further aggravating factors if they’re going ahead with it

Then the people I was reading were wrong, which is hardly surprising lol. If the charge is entirely about how it's perceived by the target/or the reasonable person standard then that seems much less frivolous to go ahead with charges yeah.

[Derfel Cadarn]

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

No I wouldn't because, funnily enough, context actually matters and the societal and power dynamics of white and black people aren't the same in our countries.

Also half the point of my criticism is that taking 2 years to handle minor shit like that is indicative of significant issues with the system - either too much minor shit being charged or inadequate police/court resourcing and *that* should be fixed. I'm going to roll my eyes at this charge but she did bring it on herself, but it should go to trial and be resolved far faster than this.

The courts being overwhelmed is a separate issue but one definitely needing looked at. Not helped by the Tories fucking over Legal Aid.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, karaddin said:

No I wouldn't because, funnily enough, context actually matters and the societal and power dynamics of white and black people aren't the same in our countries.

Well, that is all a matter of perception. 'Societal and power dynamics of black and white people' is a ridiculously broad and simplistic approach to the world, especially in a country with people from so many different races and backgrounds. You cannot legislate for people's perception of who has higher social power and therefore who is punching up and who is punching down. It just doesn't map onto reality in any way shape or form.

13 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Also half the point of my criticism is that taking 2 years to handle minor shit like that is indicative of significant issues with the system - either too much minor shit being charged or inadequate police/court resourcing and *that* should be fixed.

This at least I could agree with, but I could also bring up 1000 other cases which just seem like a ridiculous waste of court and police time. 
 

[karaddin]

Yeah, it was really more of a "this is a demonstration of things not being good" than anything I thought was particularly revelatory.

Even police budgets have been pretty cut to the bone right? It's a one year delay for the court case, but just taking a year to decide whether to even push ahead with charges seems really slow and I would have thought not wholly dependent on the courts?

[karaddin]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You cannot legislate for people's perception of who has higher social power and therefore who is punching up and who is punching down. It just doesn't map onto reality in any way shape or form.

I'll spare the thread from dealing with yet another rehash of our dramatically different views and just note that population demographics are not a subjective matter, white people are the overwhelming majority - both of people in the UK (82%*), and officers in the Met (85%*) and that impacts how such statements can be taken.

All of that said, I'm not saying this law is illegitimate or wrong. I'd view jail time as absurd, but if found guilty I assume there would be a fine and that's the price of being stupid when drunk. 

The lengthy delays are the problem (or at least the sign of one).

*Numbers from a quick Google search that should be ok as a ball park.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'll spare the thread from dealing with yet another rehash of our dramatically different views and just note that population demographics are not a subjective matter, white people are the overwhelming majority - both of people in the UK (82%*), and officers in the Met (85%*) and that impacts how such statements can be taken.

Sure, but again, it doesn't really cover the complexity or the geography issue. How would you deal with an issue in London where 41% of people are from an ethnic minority? What races would you exempt from being prosecuted for racially abusing people? It's really not as simple as you seem to think it is, and that is why I think it's a ridiculous proposition.