Robust? Are you fecking kidding me? Do you even understand what traitor to your country implies? It means you’re committing treason, a crime that until quite recently still carried the death penalty.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Robust? Are you fecking kidding me? Do you even understand what traitor to your country implies? It means you’re committing treason, a crime that until quite recently still carried the death penalty.
Allow me to be the pedant. The process remains extant since the power has not been expunged so it's quite clear that Parliament remains capable of wielding it should it so wish. Since Parliament is in control of what it can do and is also the sole arbiter of the grounds on which it does so it seems that failure to comply with the Benn Act would be possible fodder.
Whether it will do so, or would be wise to do so, is another matter, but it seems reasonable to conclude that it probably can do so if it wishes.
I’ve never once said words don’t cause harm, just that those words are not exclusive to any one side.
And don’t talk to me about decency while saying I have my head up my arse. I’m not here arguing with anyone Rams, trying not to anyway.
Do you have a link for this please? I’ve been googling and can’t find any reference to it.
No I’m not kidding you. Not one of my posts states any kind of agreement with the words used by the government and Boris in particular. Just that both sides have been a disgrace for the last 3 years and are only getting more vitriolic and entrenched in their battles.
I am saying both sides of the debate have and are acting irresponsibly and their actions, words and sound bites all have consequences, as I demonstrated in my previous post.
People keep going back to the current PM. He's been there 2 months and this language goes back well beyond that time period. May certainly wasn't like Boris yet the same threats, same language, same abuse occured.
Why are you defending the indefensible then???? What happened yesterday in the House of Commons was unacceptable and anyone condoning yesterday’s behavior needs to have a long look in the mirror and ask themselves in what kind of society they want to live in!
BBC live text stream for HoC. It was posted fairly early so scroll to the first page and it should be there.
You can disagree with the government and its language while also disagreeing with those on the opposing benches and their language.
@WensleyMU incapable of answering my question, or simply unwilling because it doesn't fit your trolling?
Intemperate things have been said on both sides, yes, but yesterday felt like something different: a strategy to goad a parliament the govt clearly does not respect.
And as I said in my previous post, which you have yet to reply, I think you're wrong. Which makes you wrong.
It's clear as day that BJ has had personal tuition and is inspired by Trump's tactics. As Jess Phillips and Ken Clarke just exposed in parliament, this is a clear strategy to incite hatred. Everything else is simply defensive reaction.
I am waiting for your response. I thought you had perhaps gone for lunch.
No wonder that right-leaning commentators and politicians want a 'dignified' pall of silence to fall over discussion of tragedies like Jo Cox's assassination - the murder was committed by a right-leaning fanatic. It's an old, cynical routine: supposedly outraged calls for silent respect instead of self-reflection, assigned responsibility and scrutiny; calls for mere 'thoughts and prayers' from the thoughtless and godless; desperate pleas for non-politicisation from those whose desperate politics leave them with blood on their hands via useful idiot proxies.
It's a deliberate policy of deflection, and anyone of conscience can see through that tired trick.
It's a deliberate policy of deflection, and anyone of conscience can see through that tired trick.
Johnson's senior adviser, Dominic Cummings, was shortly afterwards confronted on the parliamentary estate by Labour MP Karl Turner, who said MPs including himself had received more death threats.
Cummings responded: “Well vote for a deal then.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...efuses-to-apologise-for-language-about-jo-cox
Cummings responded: “Well vote for a deal then.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...efuses-to-apologise-for-language-about-jo-cox
Their language was not impeachable at all. That is not what impeachment is for so I disagree with you strongly there.
And I do have a problem with everyone else, as well as the PM.
I see nothing at all wrong with that view.
Not the right, her family, her husband.
They don't want her to be used as a political pawn. Of course using her memory to educate, remember and inform is fine. Not to score cheap points though.
You categorically stated that 'I don't think anyone disagrees with that' and 'in reality all are guilty'.
I've easily proved both statements are false and essentially bullshit.
Your delusion is quite frightening.
Last edited:
You nor anyone else have proved a god damn thing with your opinions...
Case in point.
You really don’t get it. Unfortunately I’m travelling all day so can’t draw you a nice chart yet.
Parliament is sovereign. They can do and legislate for whatever they choose. They can write impeachment legislation, define the punishment as being fired out of a cannon, impeach and convict him based on their new legislation, and then fire him out of a cannon.
The Supreme Court ruling was clear.
That commendable generosity of spirit is what I'd expect of such people; I can rarely say the same of our elected representatives.
I feel bad correcting this because it was a disgusting attack, but it was by one man alone. Though the victim was indeed severely beaten and died a mere six hours later it should be said he was found not to have been murdered. His attacker was convicted of assault, no charges of murder or manslaughter were ever brought or sought.
When? Please link?
The latest response from her husband is below. You'll see he says he expects her to be spoken about as she was a public figure. He actually criticised people using her name to push things she didn't believe in. I.e Boris Johnson using her name to push Brexit.
So once again, why do you assume her name should not be spoken?
As a general rule do you really believe that is the best way to move on from and learn from a tragedy? To not speak about it at all. Again, it seems a strange approach.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...death-brendan-brexit-parliament-a9121041.html
That's fair enough. But it still highlights the dangers of such language on the whole.
How did any side but the PM's behave disgracefully? Please share examples.
That is a very different answer to "parliament is sovereign" so thank you.
The way you used it to answer the question was such that it could be used to answer any question regarding parliament. That, given enough support, they could effectively push anything through, no matter how absurd.
So yes, if they could garner enough support they might be able to create new impeachment laws which allow them to impeach the PM, or any other MP.
That’s exactly what parliament is sovereign means. That they can do whatever they like, no matter how absurd. (There are actually limits to such supremacy, but not in the sense of enacting absurd bills )
Voted against having a recess for the Conservative conference.
Feels a bit petty but feck em.
Good! Cant wait to hear BJ whinge about that too.So thats 7/7 BJ motions to fail. #ConsistencyIsKing
Last edited:
Very petty.
Johnson may well prorogue again on that basis but for a much shorter time in order to have the conference.
Johnson may well prorogue again on that basis but for a much shorter time in order to have the conference.
u ok hun
I'm curious: what does it feel like to have your man's ass whipped every time he tries to do anything? Genuine question, as you have unique empathy here.
I don't engage in tribal politics. I will leave that to others.