Westminster Politics

MoskvaRed said:
Well thanks to Braverman and her insinuations that marchers might deface the cenotaph (even though they are not marching down Whitehall and are in any case marching the day before Remembrance Sunday), there’s a good chance Tommy Robinson and his ilk might start some violence this weekend. And Braverman and the truth are two mutually exclusive concepts. Still, keep fighting the bad fight for this vile woman.
Click to expand...
Already happened in Rochdale
 
It's actually quite unbelievable that there still are people who think "well, I'll go onto the Caf and unironically stick up for one of the worst people in world's politics". More than unbelievable, it's incredibly disheartening.
 
Red in STL said:
Football and sport in general have always done this, but factories, offices, shops and even in the street is not something I recall, I'm sure it happened in some places but not like today, it's a good thing but I just don't remember it like that years ago
Click to expand...

It used to be just the weekend of Remembrance Sunday in the UK. Here it's the 11th November whichever day of the week it falls on.
 
cafecillos said:
It's actually quite unbelievable that there still are people who think "well, I'll go onto the Caf and unironically stick up for one of the worst people in world's politics". More than unbelievable, it's incredibly disheartening.
Click to expand...

They're still in shock that when they voted for Brexit, the Muslims didn't go away.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
It used to be just the weekend of Remembrance Sunday in the UK. Here it's the 11th November whichever day of the week it falls on.
Click to expand...
The US is strange, Nov 11 is Veterans Day which celebrates all military service except dishonorable discharges past and present, it's a Federal Holiday but most people don't get a day off work

Memorial Day which is the last Monday in May is the direct equivalent, that marks those killed in service, this is also a Federal holiday which most people get a day off work for, it also generally marks the start of summer in the US

Poppies are not common, you do see a few here and there but not to any large degree
 
Red in STL said:
The US is strange, Nov 11 is Veterans Day which celebrates all military service except dishonorable discharges past and present, it's a Federal Holiday but most people don't get a day off work

Memorial Day which is the last Monday in May is the direct equivalent, that marks those killed in service, this is also a Federal holiday which most people get a day off work for, it also generally marks the start of summer in the US

Poppies are not common, you do see a few here and there but not to any large degree
Click to expand...

Poppies are mainly a British thing. May 8th is a Public Holiday here in the same way marking the end of WW2 in Europe.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Poppies are mainly a British thing. May 8th is a Public Holiday here in the same way marking the end of WW2 in Europe.
Click to expand...
Commonwealth thing rather than mainly British, it's a big deal in Canada, Australia and New Zealand though the latter two may focus it more on Anzac Day

The US used to be big but that seems to have largely gone now
 
MoskvaRed said:
Well thanks to Braverman and her insinuations that marchers might deface the cenotaph (even though they are not marching down Whitehall and are in any case marching the day before Remembrance Sunday), there’s a good chance Tommy Robinson and his ilk might start some violence this weekend. And Braverman and the truth are two mutually exclusive concepts. Still, keep fighting the bad fight for this vile woman.
Click to expand...
"Fighting on both sides" or similar will be the headline.
 
MoskvaRed said:
Well thanks to Braverman and her insinuations that marchers might deface the cenotaph (even though they are not marching down Whitehall and are in any case marching the day before Remembrance Sunday), there’s a good chance Tommy Robinson and his ilk might start some violence this weekend. And Braverman and the truth are two mutually exclusive concepts. Still, keep fighting the bad fight for this vile woman.
Click to expand...
They've already shown scant little regard for British history by setting up camp in that area, right next to the cenotaph. What's a little defacement? It wouldn't come as a massive surprise given the levels of respect shown so far and would tally with the Rochdale incident.

What exactly is the "good fight." Probably not what a mob featuring Islamists believe is good, that is for certain.
 
Once upon a time, in a small island, there was a wicked witch called Priti Patel.
And every day she would look into her mirror and say - Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most wicked of them all.
And the mirror would say - Priti Patel you are the most wicked.

Then one day she looked into the mirror and said - Mirror mirror on the wall who is the most wicked of them all.
And the mirror said - Suella Braverman is the most wicked of them all.

The end.
 
The Corinthian said:
there it is!
Click to expand...
Let's follow the logic here.

A group featuring individuals that support a terrorist organisation who's ideology is Islamist in nature, a feature that is so obvious that it is within their name.

Equals Islamists within said group, by definition.
 
Sir Matt said:


Why can't she just say Rupert's name?
Click to expand...


Don't worry we'll soon find out when the police question her about the man who "loves violence and who once chopped up a pet rabbit after breaking up with a girlfriend" and also tried to set fire to a house with people in it. There's a few charges right there.
 
Kaos said:
Do you have any evidence to backup this alleged 'truth'? And while you're at it, what are some of the things she's said you consider to be 'patently true'?
Click to expand...
Spraying graffiti in Whitehall, climbing on statues, tying flags on statues and the relatively minor infraction of calling for genocide. A few of the things the police allowed the London mob to largely get away with. I think that's quite enough to be going on with and it would be quite interesting to see what the narrative around that would be if committed by a different group. I've certainly seen heavier handed policing and a different reaction to that kind of hooliganism elsewhere which I guess was her point...

Let's look at some of her contraversial points.

Her rhetoric on immigration - largely correct. It is unprecedented, it is a hurricance in terms of net migration in both legal and illegal routes, it is unmanageable in terms of maintaining living standards in this country and they have been squeamish on it because as soon as you do you are on the shit heap. How about actually managing immigration at a rate that works for this country so that all of our vital services aren't stretched up to and beyond capacity in some cases, and then maybe we can offer a safe haven in the future to the legitimately needy. That would be actual charity rather than a race to the bottom. Immigration isn't the sole reason for these problems, but population growth on this small island is not remotely helping our ability to solve our issues.

Multiculturalism is an abject failure in Britain - also correct. Coexisting without total chaos doesn't mean success or indicate that it is a strength. The mere existence of many different cultures and ethnicities together does not define success, the left like to constantly repeat this kind of mantra and hope it becomes fact. It just means a level of civility currently exists. I say a level of civility because crime in places like London which is supposed to be emblematic of the success of multiculturalism is absolutely appalling. What we actually have is islands of people, especially within certain towns and areas within towns and there has been a distinct lack of integration, and too much of an influx of people over the preceding decades to even make any such integration practical. The dubious fruits of that policy remain to be seen but what exactly is successful about it beyond it happening, and what has it added that was deficient previously?
 
Abraxas said:
Spraying graffiti in Whitehall, climbing on statues, tying flags on statues and the relatively minor infraction of calling for genocide. A few of the things the police allowed the London mob to largely get away with. I think that's quite enough to be going on with and it would be quite interesting to see what the narrative around that would be if committed by a different group. I've certainly seen heavier handed policing and a different reaction to that kind of hooliganism elsewhere which I guess was her point...

Let's look at some of her contraversial points.

Her rhetoric on immigration - largely correct. It is unprecedented, it is a hurricance in terms of net migration in both legal and illegal routes, it is unmanageable in terms of maintaining living standards in this country and they have been squeamish on it because as soon as you do you are on the shit heap. How about actually managing immigration at a rate that works for this country so that all of our vital services aren't stretched up to and beyond capacity in some cases, and then maybe we can offer a safe haven in the future to the legitimately needy. That would be actual charity rather than a race to the bottom. Immigration isn't the sole reason for these problems, but population growth on this small island is not remotely helping our ability to solve our issues.

Multiculturalism is an abject failure in Britain - also correct. Coexisting without total chaos doesn't mean success or indicate that it is a strength. The mere existence of many different cultures and ethnicities together does not define success, the left like to constantly repeat this kind of mantra and hope it becomes fact. It just means a level of civility currently exists. I say a level of civility because crime in places like London which is supposed to be emblematic of the success of multiculturalism is absolutely appalling. What we actually have is islands of people, especially within certain towns and areas within towns and there has been a distinct lack of integration, and too much of an influx of people over the preceding decades to even make any such integration practical. The dubious fruits of that policy remain to be seen but what exactly is successful about it beyond it happening, and what has it added that was deficient previously?
Click to expand...

Again not a single fact or viable piece of evidence. Just baseless rhetoric that could have been copied and pasted from any columnist in most of the major ‘newspapers’.

You cite hooliganism at these marches, but how many police have been assaulted, as a metric of violence? The Countryside Alliance had a March against the fox hunting ban where 30 police were assaulted, but headlines go to the pro-non-bombing-of-civilians march - why?

The National Front is reportedly marching on the actual Cenotaph the afternoon of remembrance Sunday, a group with a known far right, violent background, but not a word about this from the Home Sec - again I wonder why?

The MET, an organisation that I have a lot against so am in no rush to defend, have recently said that the ONLY threats that their intelligence has found regarding these marches, is the potential hostile counter-protests from ‘far right and football hooligan’ groups - now I wonder where they got this idea from? Certainly not The Mail with its headline ‘Pray there isn’t a Riot at the Cenotaph’ a notion that nobody was predicting, until Braverman effectively gave them the green light by suggesting the police were powerless, weaponising the poppy of all things, and suggesting that people who ‘hate what this country stands for’ would pose a risk to the Cenotaph and events when the March is set to take place hours after the event on Saturday, and go nowhere near the bloody thing!

BLM marched in London and defaced the base of Churchill’s status. This was a criminal act and the police responded accordingly. The very next week football fans celebrated…something, and the same statue had ‘Chelsea FC’ spray painted on it. Again, no front pages, no speeches from a Home Secretary, nothing - once again I ask you why?

You cite a ‘hurricane’ of immigration and I’ll ignore the ignorant use of ‘illegal immigration’ and simply ask you this - how do you expect an island nation that has neglected the nurturing and funding of all public sectors to fill the vacancies of those same sectors?

And do me a favour on the ‘failure of multiculturalism’ - this nonsense was spouted by a woman of Mauritius and Kenyan decent who’s holding the third most powerful office in the country, serving under our first ever Hindu Prime Minister. I’m not saying the individuals are anything to be proud of, but the fact that she has her platform as Home Secretary disproves her own rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Maticmaker said:
I'm not making any suggestions about the right to protest, as you have pointed out we have both taken part in marches/protests before, and its something in the UK which is a valid freedom and long may it last.
I happen to think those planning this protest got it wrong, I suspect with a large percentage of the British public, who until now have not really bothered about what is happening in the middle east, would have responded better (i.e. took notice of what is happening) if the protest leaders had said we will suspend the protest for this weekend, then continue thereafter. The publicity for the protesters cause would have been enhanced , because of the decision and thereby would have shot Braverman's fox.

The majority of the press/news vendors will ensure the public are tuning in for the wrong reasons tomorrow and God forbid if anything kicks off, then the next protest will become the 'replay' and the protesters will effectively find themselves protesting in an 'echo chamber'.

I sorry, but I don't agree that there is a relationship/synergy between a 'protest' and a 'remembrance' activity.
Click to expand...

If you don’t think people should be able to march for the end of hostilities between two warring factions on the weekend that celebrates the end of hostilities between warring faction, when do you think they should?
 
Abraxas said:
It's not "inciting a riot" to speak the truth. If she is telling the truth on the police, it is dutiful to say it regardless of how it is received.

Anyone that riots has personal responsibility. In fact, rioting is underreported as a whole within the mainstream media - it happens on a smaller scale regularly in Britain and that's nothing to do with Braverman. There are plenty of people ready to do it, whether it's rioting or looting or whatever nefarious deeds they can get away with. Plenty of stores have a major issue with this in certain areas...and I won't go further than that on this issue because I have a feeling the truth won't be well received but look it up for yourself.

So I wouldn't be ready to blame Braverman for the potential for that.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. The soppy Cnut is literally encouraging civil unrest, through a deliberate and sustained volley of lies that speak to the worst aspects of our society.

It’s not smart or edgy or avante garde to defend her. It’s enabling.

The (probable) bit you don’t want to say… Poor people steal shit. Do poor people in poverty want to be poor or in poverty? No. Are they in this position because of a cancerous right wing - now facist - government that’s cut social services and safety nets to the bone?…. Yes.

If you defend her, you’re a far right sympathiser. There are no arguments to be had here. Where The bell are your lines drawn, if they’ve not already been crossed?

I despair. Pick a side.
 
Abraxas said:
Spraying graffiti in Whitehall, climbing on statues, tying flags on statues and the relatively minor infraction of calling for genocide. A few of the things the police allowed the London mob to largely get away with. I think that's quite enough to be going on with and it would be quite interesting to see what the narrative around that would be if committed by a different group. I've certainly seen heavier handed policing and a different reaction to that kind of hooliganism elsewhere which I guess was her point...

Let's look at some of her contraversial points.

Her rhetoric on immigration - largely correct. It is unprecedented, it is a hurricance in terms of net migration in both legal and illegal routes, it is unmanageable in terms of maintaining living standards in this country and they have been squeamish on it because as soon as you do you are on the shit heap. How about actually managing immigration at a rate that works for this country so that all of our vital services aren't stretched up to and beyond capacity in some cases, and then maybe we can offer a safe haven in the future to the legitimately needy. That would be actual charity rather than a race to the bottom. Immigration isn't the sole reason for these problems, but population growth on this small island is not remotely helping our ability to solve our issues.

Multiculturalism is an abject failure in Britain - also correct. Coexisting without total chaos doesn't mean success or indicate that it is a strength. The mere existence of many different cultures and ethnicities together does not define success, the left like to constantly repeat this kind of mantra and hope it becomes fact. It just means a level of civility currently exists. I say a level of civility because crime in places like London which is supposed to be emblematic of the success of multiculturalism is absolutely appalling. What we actually have is islands of people, especially within certain towns and areas within towns and there has been a distinct lack of integration, and too much of an influx of people over the preceding decades to even make any such integration practical. The dubious fruits of that policy remain to be seen but what exactly is successful about it beyond it happening, and what has it added that was deficient previously?
Click to expand...

How about funding our public services like our European neighbours? How about providing a realistic path to legal immigration? Do you have any idea about just how difficult it is to get into the UK legally? Where‘s your anger at the corruption and wanton economic destruction of the last 10 years? Easier to blame desperate people on dinghies or ”multiculturalism”.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Again not a single fact or viable piece of evidence. Just baseless rhetoric that could have been copied and pasted from any columnist in most of the major ‘newspapers’.

You cite hooliganism at these marches, but how many police have been assaulted, as a metric of violence? The Countryside Alliance had a March against the fox hunting ban where 30 police were assaulted, but headlines go to the pro-non-bombing-of-civilians march - why?

The National Front is reportedly marching on the actual Cenotaph the afternoon of remembrance Sunday, a group with a known far right, violent background, but not a word about this from the Home Sec - again I wonder why?

The MET, an organisation that I have a lot against so am in no rush to defend, have recently said that the ONLY threats that their intelligence has found regarding these marches, is the potential hostile counter-protests from ‘far right and football hooligan’ groups - now I wonder where they got this idea from? Certainly not The Mail with its headline ‘Pray there isn’t a Riot at the Cenotaph’ a notion that nobody was predicting, until Braverman effectively gave them the green light by suggesting the police were powerless, weaponising the poppy of all things, and suggesting that people who ‘hate what this country stands for’ would pose a risk to the Cenotaph and events when the March is set to take place hours after the event on Saturday, and go nowhere near the bloody thing!

BLM marched in London and defaced the base of Churchill’s status. This was a criminal act and the police responded accordingly. The very next week football fans celebrated…something, and the same statue had ‘Chelsea FC’ spray painted on it. Again, no front pages, no speeches from a Home Secretary, nothing - once again I ask you why?

You cite a ‘hurricane’ of immigration and I’ll ignore the ignorant use of ‘illegal immigration’ and simply ask you this - how do you expect an island nation that has neglected the nurturing and funding of all public sectors to fill the vacancies of those same sectors?

And do me a favour on the ‘failure of multiculturalism’ - this nonsense was spouted by a woman of Mauritius and Kenyan decent who’s holding the third most powerful office in the country, serving under our first ever Hindu Prime Minister. I’m not saying the individuals are anything to be proud of, but the fact that she has her platform as Home Secretary disproves her own rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Enlightening post, thank you! It's some paradox isn't it that Braverman herself is clearly a halfwit in the sort of power that proves multiculturalism allows people of all cultures and ethnicities to get on, but conversely perhaps she is herself the failure of multiculturalism since she's a thick, unscrupulous fascist who somehow got on! Perhaps meritocracy has failed rather than multiculturalism.
 
Abraxas said:
Spraying graffiti in Whitehall, climbing on statues, tying flags on statues and the relatively minor infraction of calling for genocide. A few of the things the police allowed the London mob to largely get away with. I think that's quite enough to be going on with and it would be quite interesting to see what the narrative around that would be if committed by a different group. I've certainly seen heavier handed policing and a different reaction to that kind of hooliganism elsewhere which I guess was her point...

Let's look at some of her contraversial points.

Her rhetoric on immigration - largely correct. It is unprecedented, it is a hurricance in terms of net migration in both legal and illegal routes, it is unmanageable in terms of maintaining living standards in this country and they have been squeamish on it because as soon as you do you are on the shit heap. How about actually managing immigration at a rate that works for this country so that all of our vital services aren't stretched up to and beyond capacity in some cases, and then maybe we can offer a safe haven in the future to the legitimately needy. That would be actual charity rather than a race to the bottom. Immigration isn't the sole reason for these problems, but population growth on this small island is not remotely helping our ability to solve our issues.

Multiculturalism is an abject failure in Britain - also correct. Coexisting without total chaos doesn't mean success or indicate that it is a strength. The mere existence of many different cultures and ethnicities together does not define success, the left like to constantly repeat this kind of mantra and hope it becomes fact. It just means a level of civility currently exists. I say a level of civility because crime in places like London which is supposed to be emblematic of the success of multiculturalism is absolutely appalling. What we actually have is islands of people, especially within certain towns and areas within towns and there has been a distinct lack of integration, and too much of an influx of people over the preceding decades to even make any such integration practical. The dubious fruits of that policy remain to be seen but what exactly is successful about it beyond it happening, and what has it added that was deficient previously?
Click to expand...

Come on. Admit it.
You are the editor of the DM....
 
It wouldn't surprise me that all of this rhetoric from Braverman and the Tories in general is to detract attention from the COVID Inquiry findings.
 
Buster15 said:
It wouldn't surprise me that all of this rhetoric from Braverman and the Tories in general is to detract attention from the COVID Inquiry findings.
Click to expand...

it’s been a decade of the same thing. everything is a storm in a teacup if you can keep supplying teacups.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
If you don’t think people should be able to march for the end of hostilities between two warring factions on the weekend that celebrates the end of hostilities between warring faction, when do you think they should?
Click to expand...

The fact that they are marching 'in protest', not in remembrance, they will wave banners and shout slogans, where as perhaps if it has to be this weekend, then a silent vigil without protest paraphernalia, would have been more appropriate.
I believe they have a right to protest, I've taken part in a number myself in my younger years, however I firmly believe this weekend especially (but not exclusively) in the UK, is about remembrance, not protest, whatever the cause.
 
Maticmaker said:
The fact that they are marching 'in protest', not in remembrance, they will wave banners and shout slogans, where as perhaps if it has to be this weekend, then a silent vigil without protest paraphernalia, would have been more appropriate.
I believe they have a right to protest, I've taken part in a number myself in my younger years, however I firmly believe this weekend especially (but not exclusively) in the UK, is about remembrance, not protest, whatever the cause.
Click to expand...
So a vigil for those who died in war, but not allowed to protest about those who are about to die in war?
 
A lot of us had a horrible feeling this would happen. If someone ends up dying today, Braverman has blood on her hands.
 
Maticmaker said:
The fact that they are marching 'in protest', not in remembrance, they will wave banners and shout slogans, where as perhaps if it has to be this weekend, then a silent vigil without protest paraphernalia, would have been more appropriate.
I believe they have a right to protest, I've taken part in a number myself in my younger years, however I firmly believe this weekend especially (but not exclusively) in the UK, is about remembrance, not protest, whatever the cause.
Click to expand...

So you can have a silent vigil and give thanks for the ending of ONE war, but can’t mark this occasion with calls for another war to end?

Explain that one to me like I’m an 8yr old please cause that just doesn’t make sense!
 
Peter van der Gea said:
So a vigil for those who died in war, but not allowed to protest about those who are about to die in war?
Click to expand...

On the first part of your comment, on remembrance weekend the answer would be 'yes'. As I understand it the protest march's have taken place over an number of weekends and will continue after this weekend, so the answer to the second part is 'No' they should be allowed protest but not on this weekend.
My suggestion was that a 'silent vigil' would have serve both aspects and been a compromise that such as Braverman wouldn't have been able to make political capital from.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Explain that one to me like I’m an 8yr old please cause that just doesn’t make sense!
Click to expand...

Sorry, I assume you are not 8 years old, and if you cannot differentiate as an adult then there is not much more to add, remembrance is not protest and visa-versa. I just thought a silent vigil would/could have been a compromise and prevented others making political capital.
 
Pretty sure this isn’t what she was hoping to incite.
 
Maticmaker said:
Sorry, I assume you are not 8 years old, and if you cannot differentiate as an adult then there is not much more to add, remembrance is not protest and visa-versa. I just thought a silent vigil would/could have been a compromise and prevented others making political capital.
Click to expand...

I can completely understand the difference, but I think your excuse for it is nonsensical.

People are gathering en-masse in peace to exercise the freedoms that people sacrificed their lives for, to call for the cessation of a war.

People who claim honour the memory of the fallen and attack this freedom of peaceful expression are either lying to themselves or others about their views on one or the other.
 
Adisa said:
Braverman is a piece of shit.
Click to expand...

She'll become more and more desperate as she's scared she will outlive her usefullness and that the people she's sold her soul to, the fascist Tories, might suddenly decide that having a non-white faced person from an immigrant family as their spokesperson is no longer needed.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
I can completely understand the difference, but I think your excuse for it is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Then why ask for an explanation as an 8 year old?
If you cannot differentiate between protest and remembrance, then I can see why you hold that view.
 
Seeing all of those ‘patriots’ heading to the Cenotaph, barely a poppy between the lot of them.

It’s almost as if they’re not actually patriots at all, just morons looking for a fight.

Although I’m sure if they did it silently then some on the board wouldn’t mind.
 
Let's play a game of Casual Reader. Imagine you're browsing the BBC website when you stumble across this main headline.

Police brace for largest pro-Palestinian protest and impose Cenotaph exclusion zone
Click to expand...

And then you read the first few paragraphs.

The Metropolitan Police says it is facing a challenging situation in London, as a large Pro-Palestinian demonstration coincides with Armistice Day.

Hundreds of thousands of protesters are expected to take part in the march later, to call for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Police say there is a risk of clashes with far-right groups, and have set up an exclusion zone around the Cenotaph.

Rishi Sunak has called the timing of the march "disrespectful".
Click to expand...

Why do they write this with such ambiguity? Why does it not directly say who the "far right groups" are and how they're unrelated to the Pro-Palestinian march (which is more of an anti war march than anything else). Why does it create an air of uncertainty over what they're actually trying to report?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67383065
 
You must log in or register to reply here.