Do you want to discuss boring politics? (59 Viewers)

Forums New posts
P

PVA

Well-Known Member
Grendel has the weirdest moral compass I've ever seen.

Shrugs his shoulders at women and children being bombed because it's just how the world is.

But wishes death on jockeys because riding a horse is the most disgusting and sick thing imaginable.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
PVA said:
Grendel has the weirdest moral compass I've ever seen.

Shrugs his shoulders at women and children being bombed because it's just how the world is.

But wishes death on jockeys because riding a horse is the most disgusting and sick thing imaginable.
Click to expand...

Moral compasses are truly strange.

Our foreign secretary once thought Donald Trump was a Nazi and a fascist. Then he gave him an extra portion of chicken and he was a swell guy
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I mean if we are getting into semantics then surely the destruction of property by the BLM mob was terrorism
Click to expand...
It’s not semantics though is it. YOU gave YOUR definition of a terrorist. I named someone who met YOUR criteria and YOU said that they wasn’t a terrorist. That’s hypocrisy not semantics. YOUR standards are clearly flexible depending upon the cause. Protesting against ethnic cleansing by spray painting planes equals terrorist/terrorism. Promoting the destruction of property and the lives within said property equals not terrorism. According to YOU.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
It’s not semantics though is it. YOU gave YOUR definition of a terrorist. I named someone who met YOUR criteria and YOU said that they wasn’t a terrorist. That’s hypocrisy not semantics. YOUR standards are clearly flexible depending upon the cause. Protesting against ethnic cleansing by spray painting planes equals terrorist/terrorism. Promoting the destruction of property and the lives within said property equals not terrorism. According to YOU.
Click to expand...

All those CAPS Tonester. Such emotion.

Shame it doesn’t come across to the football side of the forum
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
For what it’s worth my opinion/criteria for it to be terrorism there has to be an act of terror. Throwing the statue of a slaver in the river is not an act of terrorism, militant yes but no one was upset really and it caused no terror. Spray painting planes again is not an act of terror, militant yes but no one has been left with PTSD by the actions.

Was the woman a terrorist for her tweet? No (even though she meets Grendulls criteria to be labelled a terrorist) in my opinion, militant definitely but she 100% broke the law and deserved her prison sentence. The people who physically tried to burn down the hotels knowing people were inside though, 100% should have been trialed as terrorists though because indisputably they were committing a deliberate act of terror.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
PVA said:
Grendel has the weirdest moral compass I've ever seen.

Shrugs his shoulders at women and children being bombed because it's just how the world is.

But wishes death on jockeys because riding a horse is the most disgusting and sick thing imaginable.
Click to expand...

This also is hilarious as Starmer shrugs his shoulders and you kiss his ass 24/7
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
They must have been watching this thread today:
Joint statement by:

foreign ministers of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK

EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management


We, the signatories listed below, come together with a simple, urgent message: the war in Gaza must end now.

The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity. We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food. It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid. The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable. Israel must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law.

The hostages cruelly held captive by Hamas since 7 October 2023 continue to suffer terribly. We condemn their continued detention and call for their immediate and unconditional release. A negotiated ceasefire offers the best hope of bringing them home and ending the agony of their families.

We call on the Israeli government to immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their life saving work safely and effectively.

We call on all parties to protect civilians and uphold the obligations of international humanitarian law. Proposals to remove the Palestinian
population into a “humanitarian city” are completely unacceptable. Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law.
We strongly oppose any steps towards territorial or demographic change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The E1 settlement plan announced by Israel’s Civil Administration, if implemented, would divide a Palestinian state in two, marking a flagrant breach of international law and critically undermine the two-state solution. Meanwhile, settlement building across the West Bank including East Jerusalem has accelerated while settler violence against Palestinians has soared. This must stop.

We urge the parties and the international community to unite in a common effort to bring this terrible conflict to an end, through an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire. Further bloodshed serves no purpose.  We reaffirm our complete support to the efforts of the US, Qatar and Egypt to achieve this.

We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region.


This statement has been signed by:

The Foreign Ministers of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK

The EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management
Click to expand...
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
‘Played him’. Well, Netanyahu and Putin have.

You’re copying Grendel’s arguments, I get why he’s making them, but it should make you think.
Click to expand...

I don’t follow Grendel so I’ll take your word for it, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Starmer Macron and Meloni have done an excellent job on Trump and if you took your head out of your arse for five seconds you could acknowledge it.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
For what it’s worth my opinion/criteria for it to be terrorism there has to be an act of terror. Throwing the statue of a slaver in the river is not an act of terrorism, militant yes but no one was upset really and it caused no terror. Spray painting planes again is not an act of terror, militant yes but no one has been left with PTSD by the actions.

Was the woman a terrorist for her tweet? No (even though she meets Grendulls criteria to be labelled a terrorist) in my opinion, militant definitely but she 100% broke the law and deserved her prison sentence. The people who physically tried to burn down the hotels knowing people were inside though, 100% should have been trialed as terrorists though because indisputably they were committing a deliberate act of terror.
Click to expand...

That’s nice but that’s not what the law says.

This is the issue with terrorism people think it means “really bad stuff (probably done by Muslims)” and it doesn’t. The definition has been posted multiple times.

And again “spray painting planes” is a lie. I’ve shown it’s a lie. You keep repeating it because “a bit of assault and ramraiding and throwing smoke bombs at evacuating staff” doesn’t help your terrible point.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
That’s nice but that’s not what the law says.

This is the issue with terrorism people think it means “really bad stuff (probably done by Muslims)” and it doesn’t. The definition has been posted multiple times.

And again “spray painting planes” is a lie. I’ve shown it’s a lie. You keep repeating it because “a bit of assault and ramraiding and throwing smoke bombs at evacuating staff” doesn’t help your terrible point.
Click to expand...

If the definition of terrorism in the UK is now so broad as to consider non-violent direct action as terrorism, then I'd argue that basically it's not fit for purpose.

We're literally arresting little old ladies holding placards, for "terrorism" offences now, and threatening people holding Palestinian flags.

Amongst many other movements that used civil disobedience, Suffragettes would be classed as terrorists now. Greenpeace most certainly could. Where does it end?

It's a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, imho. We've got existing laws that could (and have been) easily be used to prosecute Palestinian Action - declaring them to be terrorists is a nonsense and dilutes the meaning of the word, imho.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Genuine question.

If it was an old woman holding up a placard for the IRA, ISIS or Britain First then surely it would be the same?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
If the definition of terrorism in the UK is now so broad as to consider non-violent direct action as terrorism, then I'd argue that basically it's not fit for purpose.

We're literally arresting little old ladies holding placards, for "terrorism" offences now, and threatening people holding Palestinian flags.

Amongst many other movements that used civil disobedience, Suffragettes would be classed as terrorists now. Greenpeace most certainly could. Where does it end?

It's a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, imho. We've got existing laws that could (and have been) easily be used to prosecute Palestinian Action - declaring them to be terrorists is a nonsense and dilutes the meaning of the word, imho.
Click to expand...

The group has a track raiding of damaging military bases. It’s terrorism.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
If the definition of terrorism in the UK is now so broad as to consider non-violent direct action as terrorism, then I'd argue that basically it's not fit for purpose.

We're literally arresting little old ladies holding placards, for "terrorism" offences now, and threatening people holding Palestinian flags.

Amongst many other movements that used civil disobedience, Suffragettes would be classed as terrorists now. Greenpeace most certainly could. Where does it end?

It's a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, imho. We've got existing laws that could (and have been) easily be used to prosecute Palestinian Action - declaring them to be terrorists is a nonsense and dilutes the meaning of the word, imho.
Click to expand...

“now”? It’s been that way since the legislation was introduced.

The Suffragettes were terrorists by any reasonable definition of the word, they planted bombs FFS!

Don’t follow Greenpeace closely so not sure what they’ve done that could count as serious property damage or threats of violence/acts of violence. Most DA groups don’t go near that line, JSO’s art attacks are arguably the closest. But attacking the UK military is always going to be more of a problem than damaging artwork. XR direct action I don’t think tipped into serious property damage. As I said I think ULEZ stuff does.

I think there’s good arguments for changing the definition to not include property damage or even for scrapping terror laws entirely, but there’s no way in hell a Labour govt is going to be seen being “soft on terror” so good luck with that.

As it stands the law of the land for the last quarter of a century is that if you try and change government policy through serious property damage, threats of violence and actual violence you are a terrorist. If you can find a definition that puts all the good causes one side and all the nasty ones the other then crack on.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I do find the notion the suffragettes weren’t a terrorist organisation as just bizarre
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
If it was an old woman holding up a placard for the IRA, ISIS or Britain First then surely it would be the same?
Click to expand...
Britain First isn't a proscribed organisation. It was raised in parliment after Jo Cox's murder but it seems that event was not enough to meet the threshold to be added to the list.

ISIS is on the list, as is the IRA, but I wouldn't be able to tell you the last time anyone was arrested for having a sign displaying either.

Case law suggests that simply displaying the name will not be anywhere near sufficient to secure a conviction.
 
Sick Boy

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
chiefdave said:
Britain First isn't a proscribed organisation. It was raised in parliment after Jo Cox's murder but it seems that event was not enough to meet the threshold to be added to the list.

ISIS is on the list, as is the IRA, but I wouldn't be able to tell you the last time anyone was arrested for having a sign displaying either.

Case law suggests that simply displaying the name will not be anywhere near sufficient to secure a conviction.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure BF is.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
www.thenational.scot

MPs' 'hypocrisy' blasted as Suffragettes celebrated while Palestine Action banned

WESTMINSTER has been branded “broken” as MPs celebrated the Suffragettes on the same day as voting to ban a protest group under terrorism laws…
www.thenational.scot www.thenational.scot
Click to expand...

Yeah this is the problem with terrorism laws generally and terrorism as a thing. It was invented to be big and scary and I think in its defence most people would say that that sort of action isn’t appropriate in a modern democracy. But you will always run up against one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
 
mmttww

mmttww

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
If it was an old woman holding up a placard for the IRA, ISIS or Britain First then surely it would be the same?
Click to expand...

the last one isn't proscribed or anything close I don't think so no, and the first two murdered a lot of people so not quite comparing apples vs. apples.

I saw talk about XR, JSO and Greenpeace which are probably better comparisons. Labour did what Israel and its lobbyists told them to do and it's pathetic.
 
RegTheDonk

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Moral compasses are truly strange.

Our foreign secretary once thought Donald Trump was a Nazi and a fascist. Then he gave him an extra portion of chicken and he was a swell guy
Click to expand...
He was almost doing a jig when delivering his speech the other day. Hope he's made to stand front and centre in September and told to put on a smile.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
mmttww said:
the last one isn't proscribed or anything close I don't think so no, and the first two murdered a lot of people so not quite comparing apples vs. apples.

I saw talk about XR, JSO and Greenpeace which are probably better comparisons. Labour did what Israel and its lobbyists told them to do and it's pathetic.
Click to expand...

It is comparing Apples v Apples as it is holding up a sign for a proscribed terrorist organisation.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
mmttww said:
the last one isn't proscribed or anything close I don't think so no, and the first two murdered a lot of people so not quite comparing apples vs. apples.

I saw talk about XR, JSO and Greenpeace which are probably better comparisons. Labour did what Israel and its lobbyists told them to do and it's pathetic.
Click to expand...

I can’t find any evidence of Greenpeace causing serious damage but may not have looked hard enough as they do a lot.

JSO the worst was damaging the frame of artwork. And XR it was smashing some windows which is probably the closest.

None are on the same level as PA though. None have been charged with assault. None have aimed smoke bombs at staff. None have driven vans into buildings.
None have attacked the military. Their actions are usually disruptive rather than destructive. The Brise Norton action cost £7m. That’s 14 times the worst thing XR have ever done in terms of property damage. And they were clearly escalating, planning to shut down the stock exchange as well recently.

This wasn’t just handcuffing yourself to a gate or whatever.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Interesting thread from Dan Neidle of Tax Policy Associates on a Wealth Tax:



Basically a summary of a more in depth report they’ve done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 2 more.
    • Total: 55 (members: 5, guests: 50)
    Top