Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
The world is a dangerous place.
He’ll put more police on the street. Hopefully the type of police who don’t get arrested on suspicion of murdering women.
That was my first thought
Ignoring how tasteless his tweet is, it doesn't even make sense to use this particular case as an excuse for being tougher on crime.
Look at this fool. The suspect is a police officer.
It’s in very poor taste.
i certainty want a change from Sadiq. No idea who this guy is, or that he a Tory until I looked him up.
I'm shocked to see that our right wing posters, who are so ordinarily vexed about free speech issues, so quiet on an actual free speech issue.
Next you'll be telling me they don't care about free speech at all.
It does seem badly drafted...
So if somebody does an act... causing serious harm (including death) to the public that they intended to happen
they can receive a sentence of not more than 10 years
I mean I'd have thought that should potentially carry more than 10 years
Delete annoyance and it seems fine to me.
The description of actions as fascism is overused, but surely in this case it is accurate?
Causing "distress" or "inconvenience" are fine to outlaw? At a protest?
I wish people understood how many of the things we currently take for granted came about due to protest.
Because we all know their arguments are disingenuous, and I'd rather conduct acupuncture on my own eyes that spend and more of my life talking to them about it.
It's not banning protest is it? I might be wrong, I'd change my mind if it is.
Effectively, yes. Hold a protest, someone gets "seriously annoyed" or "seriously inconvenienced" by it, then the protestor can then face up to 10 years in jail.
It gives them the leeway to effectively ban any protest they don't wish to occur, yes. Or, more accurately, arrest everyone who attends simply for doing so.
Would be insane if someone could face up to 10 years' jail for something as subjective as someone else getting 'seriously annoyed'. Can that be extended to industrial action if there's a picket line?
I thought there already was a law dealing with public nuisance... the Riot Act 1714?
Oh... sorry, someone's just pointed out it was repealed in 1973 (Statue Law Act).... Oh dear, 'the old ones' are the best! doesn't apply here!!
Oh... sorry, someone's just pointed out it was repealed in 1973 (Statue Law Act).... Oh dear, 'the old ones' are the best! doesn't apply here!!
Ah right, it needs annoyed and inconvenienced taking out then, as well as the annoyance as I suggested. You would think there were enough laws to deal with the rest of it anyway, but who knows, the law being what it is. So ok, not a good proposal after all
Guardian said:
haha that's a few hundred quid at IKEA.
My employer has a studio and I've seen firsthand how costs can spiral when building them, but £2.6m for that is ridiculous.
Presumably if Labour ever get in it'll be another 2 mill to change to red.
The UK's obsequious and complete socioeconomic/cultural realignment toward the United States in every imaginable arena post-Brexit has been disgusting to watch.
Pretty much.
It's turns out the conservative view of free speech is really about having unlimited freedom to clamp down on any form of expression they don't agree with. Not to derail the thread too much but i think it was Zizek who talks about a conversation he had with two former army men involved in the Yugoslav Wars. He talks about how they would brand to him and be nostalgic for the wars because in their view it's far right nationalism that gives people real freedom. It gives you the freedom to kill others, to ethically cleanse populations, to burn people inside their homes, etc. It allows you the freedom to do the most monstrous acts imaginable unlike the left idea of freedom.
Now while it's obviously not the same situation in the UK, likes of Priti Patel clearly really get off on the idea of curbing the freedoms of others.
Personally I would just call it very authoritarian. Britain is starting to resemble countries like Poland and Hungary, sadly.
Fair enough. Slippery slope though.
Oh yeah it's deeply concerning.
Is it just a propaganda piece? Will give it a read tonight.
Silll can't get over the fact that the PM now needs a spokesperson. Presumably this free's up more time for him to get pissed?
We really do regrgitate all the worst ideas from America.
I'm guessing £2.6m includes the costs of any building work... Secure communications lines... it infrastructure... cameras, editing studio... staffing etc ... as well as a podium some lights and some chairs... still seems high though
May and brown would probably have benefitted from one
Cameron and Blair both seemed to like being on camera and in their own way both were fairly good
Boris... somewhere in the middle ... seems comfortable at waffling and ad libbing but less ok on a formal setting so I can see the logic
Will be interesting to see who wins the succession fight (patel, gove, sunak) and if they keep the role
No issue with the spokesperson at all. Covid highlighted the need/ and desire for this.
clearly costs appear high - but the spec is obviously higher than just a blue paint job. If this helps promulgate information, then the cost is irrelevant.
Patel will still need a step to see over the podium though.
clearly costs appear high - but the spec is obviously higher than just a blue paint job. If this helps promulgate information, then the cost is irrelevant.
Patel will still need a step to see over the podium though.
But what about Starmer, does he need one? I would think yes, he does.
Right, this completes my 100% U-Turn on the Policing Bill. If called upon I shall don me boots and march to Trafalgar Square. I reckon I could get there in seven days, or ten if I take the scenic route.
https://twitter.com/RamblersGB/media
https://twitter.com/RamblersGB/media
At first I agreed with you on that but when you think about all the great politicians of the past who would have been shit on camera in the modern world, it makes more sense to me. Boris isn't terrible on camera but he does give off that incompetence vibe (pretty accurate TBF) that a professional would avoid. I don't mind the messaging (ugh) being slick since communication is so important these days. Similarly Keir Starmer isn't the greatest in front of the cameras but he's clearly very capable at politics and stuff.
The trouble is it will inevitably end up like the American version where nothing of substance is ever said, difficult questions are batted away without actually being answered, and the whole thing just becomes a crap weekly theater that becomes ultimately pointless.