Brexit!

[Milo]

I think the death threat thing, whilst reprehensible, is more of an ‘of the moment’ consequence than a Brexit thing. 

 

Pretty sure Maggie and co would have had multiple death/rape threats during the miners strike, as would Blair and his cronies over Iraq, had Twitter/FB been around. 

 

Don't think it’s particularly helpful to bundle it all together with Brexit. 

 

 

[The Guvnor]

1 hour ago, Charl91 said:

 

Haven't been paying attention? Prorogation never happened - that's the ruling of the courts. It's not that the prorogation has been cancelled, it literally never happened. Ergo, Lib Dems and Labour both held their conferences while parliament was sitting, and the Tories are welcome to do the same if they wish.   Maybe it's you who hasn't been paying attention.  

 

And I refer you to my previous article. Tories were instructed by their puppet-master Cummings to ignore previous conventions when it came to party conferences. But now when suddenly the shoe is on other foot, and you want the 'opposing side' to accept convention, it's alright to cry foul play? Like I said - karma.

 

In normal circumstances I would certainly agree that it is petty to block it, but I think it's a pretty fitting punishment for illegally trying to suspend parliament. But it's also my understanding that there was a more than reasonable agreement that the Tories could have their party conference and that Parliament would only rule on non-brexit related matters during that time - such as the domestic abuse bill. That seems like a generous compromise to me, but Boris rejected that.

Think I ought to pull you up on something, the ruling was unlawful not illegal there's a big difference.

Maybe you ought to be Paying attention.

[The Horse's Mouth]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

I think the death threat thing, whilst reprehensible, is more of an ‘of the moment’ consequence than a Brexit thing. 

 

Pretty sure Maggie and co would have had multiple death/rape threats during the miners strike, as would Blair and his cronies over Iraq, had Twitter/FB been around. 

 

Don't think it’s particularly helpful to bundle it all together with Brexit. 

 

 

Definitely, feels like its now just being used as a political tool too, which is only going to devalue the threats

[Alf Bentley]

39 minutes ago, Milo said:

I think the death threat thing, whilst reprehensible, is more of an ‘of the moment’ consequence than a Brexit thing. 

 

Pretty sure Maggie and co would have had multiple death/rape threats during the miners strike, as would Blair and his cronies over Iraq, had Twitter/FB been around. 

 

Don't think it’s particularly helpful to bundle it all together with Brexit. 

 

 

 

I'm sure Thatcher, Blair & co got death threats, though Twitter/FB makes it easier. I'm also sure that most threats are sent by saddo keyboard warriors/trolls or by angry people who'd never make good on their threats.

 

But the danger from political extremists should not be under-estimated. Far Right extremists are a tiny minority - and nothing to do with most Brexit supporters - but they are a serious danger, and people like Johnson using inflammatory rhetoric risks encouraging more people to take that path.....and if more Far Right violence starts happening, there is a risk of a violent response from Far Left extremists. That's aside from inciting unhinged individuals like Jo Cox's murderer.

 

Here's MI5: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/news/mi5-and-police-issue-joint-message-on-terrorism

"Islamist terrorism predominates by scale but we are also concerned about the growing threat from other forms of violent extremism — the third theme. Violent extremism covers a spectrum of hate-driven ideologies, including the extreme right and left. The police have been working hard to combat these threats, and over the past few years have stopped a number of right-wing terrorist attacks from getting through".

 

A few months back, MI5 published figures saying that, of the terrorist plots they'd thwarted, something like 25-30% (can't remember) involved the Far Right, the majority being Islamists.

 

Although the increase in threats is doubtless partly linked to the Brexit deadlock, in a way the point about Johnson's language does not relate to Brexit. Nobody disputes that Brexit needs to be resolved - preferably quickly and in a way that most people can live with. But it needs to be resolved through democratic politics without resorting to inflammatory language that could trigger greater anger and polarisation - and violence in the case of a minority - especially as we're likely to have an election soon. It's a major problem that we now have a PM who seems to want to DELIBERATELY increase anger and polarisation, as a strategy for winning an election (and possibly facilitating a No Deal Brexit).

 

Ed Miliband makes the point well. It's not about being Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit or Remain but about not exacerbating angry division:

 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Death threats, vandalism and abuse has been happening for years towards MPs, it's nothing new. Both sides have received them unfortunately.

[twoleftfeet]

Did we vote for leave? yes we did, but did we or did we just vote for change? I voted leave or to be honest not to remain I feel that duplication in law makers is the real problem, we have 5 parliaments when 40 years or so ago took only one. I believe that what would generally benefit the French work would benefit the us too, but we don't swallow all the EU laws fully we opt out of what the rulers don't fancy, and indeed any European government can veto what it doesn't like if we are to remain in Europe then I believe that we should only remain if all nation states are scrapped. No I hear the shout the end of the pound but in reality its just a change of symbol on your bank account. Doing away with 30 governments to allow Europe to turn into a super state is the only real alternative to leave. The current model isn't working. 

If we are to have a second referendum the should be only one question do you want to be European or do you want to be British, We have already to a greater or lesser extent accepted that to water down my national status from English to British is accepting than we are not British any more, just the next step.   

[Saxondale]

1 hour ago, The Guvnor said:

Think I ought to pull you up on something, the ruling was unlawful not illegal there's a big difference.

 

Err...no there's not, if any.

[Saxondale]

On 25/09/2019 at 22:01, Heathrow fox said:

So you think letting citizens of the EU have a major say in how the UK goes forward is a good idea?In an in out referendum of all things.

So you think a Spanish doctor who's worked and payed taxes in this country for ten years shouldn't have a say? F off mate.

[twoleftfeet]

4 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

Err...no there's not, if any.

one is a sick bird the other is against the law surely every one knows that

[StanSP]

My point about it all is that Cummins so candidly says 'get Brexit done' as if it's some kind of solution or answer to stop getting death threats. 

 

I know death threats have been going on for years. It's not new and I'm fully aware of that. But when your first retort to someone talking about their own safety and vulnerability is to say 'get Brexit done' then there's something wrong. 

 

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm sure Thatcher, Blair & co got death threats, though Twitter/FB makes it easier. I'm also sure that most threats are sent by saddo keyboard warriors/trolls or by angry people who'd never make good on their threats.

 

But the danger from political extremists should not be under-estimated. Far Right extremists are a tiny minority - and nothing to do with most Brexit supporters - but they are a serious danger, and people like Johnson using inflammatory rhetoric risks encouraging more people to take that path.....and if more Far Right violence starts happening, there is a risk of a violent response from Far Left extremists. That's aside from inciting unhinged individuals like Jo Cox's murderer.

 

Here's MI5: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/news/mi5-and-police-issue-joint-message-on-terrorism

"Islamist terrorism predominates by scale but we are also concerned about the growing threat from other forms of violent extremism — the third theme. Violent extremism covers a spectrum of hate-driven ideologies, including the extreme right and left. The police have been working hard to combat these threats, and over the past few years have stopped a number of right-wing terrorist attacks from getting through".

 

A few months back, MI5 published figures saying that, of the terrorist plots they'd thwarted, something like 25-30% (can't remember) involved the Far Right, the majority being Islamists.

 

Although the increase in threats is doubtless partly linked to the Brexit deadlock, in a way the point about Johnson's language does not relate to Brexit. Nobody disputes that Brexit needs to be resolved - preferably quickly and in a way that most people can live with. But it needs to be resolved through democratic politics without resorting to inflammatory language that could trigger greater anger and polarisation - and violence in the case of a minority - especially as we're likely to have an election soon. It's a major problem that we now have a PM who seems to want to DELIBERATELY increase anger and polarisation, as a strategy for winning an election (and possibly facilitating a No Deal Brexit).

 

Ed Miliband makes the point well. It's not about being Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit or Remain but about not exacerbating angry division:

 

 

The bolded part is what it all comes down to, really - when you have a leader who is so keen on the idea of "Us and Them", then pretty soon there is an Us and Them and things work from there. It's the same in the US, not to mention other places, right now.

 

28 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Death threats, vandalism and abuse has been happening for years towards MPs, it's nothing new. Both sides have received them unfortunately.

That's true, but I'm not sure that means we should not try to address the circumstances in which they occur/accept them as a fait accompli, yes?

[The Guvnor]

14 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

Err...no there's not, if any.

The Supreme Courts judgement was he acted unlawfully. 

Boris did not actually do anything illegal.

Unlawful is not authorised by law

Illegal is forbidden by law

Something illegal is expressly proscribed  by statute and something unlawful is just not expressly authorised.

[Leicester_Loyal]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The bolded part is what it all comes down to, really - when you have a leader who is so keen on the idea of "Us and Them", then pretty soon there is an Us and Them and things work from there. It's the same in the US, not to mention other places, right now.

 

That's true, but I'm not sure that means we should not try to address the circumstances in which they occur/accept them as a fait accompli, yes?

Correct, but there didn't seem to be any outrage in the past few years, now all of a sudden there is?

[Milo]

33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm sure Thatcher, Blair & co got death threats, though Twitter/FB makes it easier. I'm also sure that most threats are sent by saddo keyboard warriors/trolls or by angry people who'd never make good on their threats.

 

But the danger from political extremists should not be under-estimated. Far Right extremists are a tiny minority - and nothing to do with most Brexit supporters - but they are a serious danger, and people like Johnson using inflammatory rhetoric risks encouraging more people to take that path.....and if more Far Right violence starts happening, there is a risk of a violent response from Far Left extremists. That's aside from inciting unhinged individuals like Jo Cox's murderer.

 

Here's MI5: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/news/mi5-and-police-issue-joint-message-on-terrorism

"Islamist terrorism predominates by scale but we are also concerned about the growing threat from other forms of violent extremism — the third theme. Violent extremism covers a spectrum of hate-driven ideologies, including the extreme right and left. The police have been working hard to combat these threats, and over the past few years have stopped a number of right-wing terrorist attacks from getting through".

 

A few months back, MI5 published figures saying that, of the terrorist plots they'd thwarted, something like 25-30% (can't remember) involved the Far Right, the majority being Islamists.

 

Although the increase in threats is doubtless partly linked to the Brexit deadlock, in a way the point about Johnson's language does not relate to Brexit. Nobody disputes that Brexit needs to be resolved - preferably quickly and in a way that most people can live with. But it needs to be resolved through democratic politics without resorting to inflammatory language that could trigger greater anger and polarisation - and violence in the case of a minority - especially as we're likely to have an election soon. It's a major problem that we now have a PM who seems to want to DELIBERATELY increase anger and polarisation, as a strategy for winning an election (and possibly facilitating a No Deal Brexit).

 

Ed Miliband makes the point well. It's not about being Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit or Remain but about not exacerbating angry division:

 

 

No argument here. 

 

Although, 

 

Did you hear car crash Abbott on R4 yesterday? 

She failed to see that senior Labour politicians and shadow cabinet members calling Johnson a dictator and saying that he was staging a coup in any way had an effect on the tone of his responses  to them. 

 

Of course it shouldn’t happen at all, but both sides are guilty of using inflammatory language. 

 

Johnson is a tool, but he’s been put in position on a one topic ticket and he’s doing everything he thinks is needed to see it through. 

 

Thought the AG’s outburst about summed it up - remain MP’s have been blocking everything in the hope that something would change, or that we’d all lose interest. 

 

Johnson has a deadline and agenda that has woken everyone up. 

 

🤷‍♂️

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Correct, but there didn't seem to be any outrage in the past few years, now all of a sudden there is?

I think that more people talking about it implies the needle has been pushed more towards 11 of late, and I agree - that the polarisation and thus the enmity and willingness to go too far has risen recently is pretty self-evident.

[Saxondale]

22 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

The Supreme Courts judgement was he acted unlawfully. 

Boris did not actually do anything illegal.

Unlawful is not authorised by law

Illegal is forbidden by law

Something illegal is expressly proscribed  by statute and something unlawful is just not expressly authorised.

I don't think you're right. Whilst the two words are often used in different contexts, I don't think such technical distinction exists. 

[The Guvnor]

1 minute ago, Saxondale said:

I don't think you're right. Whilst the two words are often used in different contexts, I don't think such technical distinction exists. 

It does

[Finnaldo]

4 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

I don't think you're right. Whilst the two words are often used in different contexts, I don't think such technical distinction exists. 

 

To be fair:

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-shows/the-mystery-hour/is-it-unlawful-or-illegal/

 

Although I feel Boris misleading the Queen deserves a stronger decision, Guv is correct.

[Saxondale]

2 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

To be fair:

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-shows/the-mystery-hour/is-it-unlawful-or-illegal/

 

Although I feel Boris misleading the Queen deserves a stronger decision, Guv is correct.

Yep, I accept that source, but the constitutional expert I heard on the radio the other day claimed there is no real distinction, other than context!

 

OED says this: Illegal and unlawful have slightly different meanings, although they are often used interchangeably. Something that is illegal is against the law, whereas an unlawful act merely contravenes the rules that apply in a particular context. Thus handball in soccer is unlawful, but it is not illegal. A third word with a similar meaning is illicit: this tends to encompass things that are forbidden or disapproved of by custom or society, as in an illicit love affair

[Finnaldo]

2 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

Yep, I accept that source, but the constitutional expert I heard on the radio the other day claimed there is no real distinction, other than context!

 

OED says this: Illegal and unlawful have slightly different meanings, although they are often used interchangeably. Something that is illegal is against the law, whereas an unlawful act merely contravenes the rules that apply in a particular context. Thus handball in soccer is unlawful, but it is not illegal. A third word with a similar meaning is illicit: this tends to encompass things that are forbidden or disapproved of by custom or society, as in an illicit love affair

 

Well that makes it awful complicated  

 

We'll just flip a coin, heads eternal Boris premiership, tales beheading for treason.

 

Will settle the matter quickly 

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Brexiteers-Want-Stab/dp/1092210776

 

Obviously it's not just the far right that we need to worry about.

[Finnaldo]

2 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Brexiteers-Want-Stab/dp/1092210776

 

Obviously it's not just the far right that we need to worry about.

 

> selling for 6 months

> no ratings 

> no reviews

> probably only one copy sold to Ed Davey

 

Truly a threat to the West

[leicsmac]

What we need to worry about is the entire idea of Us and Them, no matter what ideology is floating it.

 

Is it really not apparent we've got enough threats from outside humanity without making up more for ourselves? Evidently not.

[The Guvnor]

1 minute ago, Finnaldo said:

 

> selling for 6 months

> no ratings 

> no reviews

> probably only one copy sold to Ed Davey

 

Truly a threat to the West

I shouldn't have laughed, and I am ashamed, but I did.

[Saxondale]

2 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Well that makes it awful complicated  

 

We'll just flip a coin, heads eternal Boris premiership, tales beheading for treason.

 

Will settle the matter quickly 

Haha, either way he broke the law.

 

If Guvnor's definitions were correct, Murder (which is common law, not statutory law) would not be illegal, just unlawful.