The Politics Thread 2020

[MC Prussian]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

"Some reports of vandalism and looting", that are unsubstantiated. Fair enough - it's certainly possible, but personally I'm going to wait for more information on this one before deciding either way.

 

What does crime rate have to do directly and solely with increased polarisation? Obvious "gish gallop" is obvious, let's not go down that road.

 

I stand by what I said in that there is a massive double standard in the way two different groups of protestors have been treated based on their skin colour as opposed to their behaviour.

You want proof of looting?

https://www.startribune.com/mayor-frey-calls-for-peace-as-looting-flames-erupt-around-police-station/570816112/

Also, check Andy Ngo's Twitter.

 

From your statement, I gather that you claim that the increase in polarization (certainly done by the president, the media and both major US political parties alike), would negatively influence the population (or certain minorities), thus leading to more violence and/or criminal offenses.

And that's definitely not the case, especially given the fact that crime rates are going down whilst the population keeps increasing. Which, in this context, is nothing but positive.

 

What "groups of protesters" are you referring to?

Edited 28 May 2020 by MC Prussian

[Alf Bentley]

13 hours ago, StanSP said:

I think it's a bit harsh for her to lose the slot tonight in all honesty. I know they put that reasoning out but when you have people like Neil and Kuenssberg do their thing whilst not always showing impartiality and perhaps being even ruder than anything Maitlis has said you begin to wonder what's gone on behind the scenes here. Maybe it's just me! 

 

Although the BBC statement was effectively a rap across the knuckles for Maitlis, she says that she asked to have the night off.

She didn't lose her slot - and certainly hasn't lost her job as someone else suggested.

 

Although I can see why she did the provocative "we all know" intro that she did, I can also see why BBC top bods weren't happy about it. Perfectly possible to present such accusations rhetorically, not as bald "we all know" claims.

 

Mind you, it doesn't help that the Govt are so utterly contemptuous of the public that they haven't been prepared to put a minister on Newsnight for months, as far as I can recall.

If they'd had sufficient respect for public opinion to put someone forward, Newsnight could have presented the accusations against Cummings - and the Govt could have responded.

Pretty ironic when the charge against Cummings was partly one of contempt for the public.....and the Govt is too contemptuous of the public to defend him against that charge on the main news analysis channel of the main channel.

[StanSP]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Although the BBC statement was effectively a rap across the knuckles for Maitlis, she says that she asked to have the night off.

She didn't lose her slot - and certainly hasn't lost her job as someone else suggested.

Yes have seen she's clarified that

[StanSP]

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

25 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

If people are actually using Cummings as an excuse to do things they wouldn't have done anyway I would be surprised.  People do love bullshit to hide behind.

[Beliall]

Long live the politics thread! 

support who you like, have whatever opinions you like, just dont insult anyone and this thread might actually survive. The political opinions of posters on here are one of the greatest parts of this forum. intelligent discussion (for the most part) and debates that help plebs like me understand what the funk is going on out there. i trust this more than the news.

[Voll Blau]

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

If people are actually using Cummings as an excuse to do things they wouldn't have done anyway I would be surprised.  People do love bullshit to hide behind.

Responsible people won't, thankfully, but will still feel angry because they will now feel they could have done what he did were they in a similar situation. If everybody in similar, or worse, situations had done what he did at the the time then it doesn't bear thinking about how many accidental transmissions could have occurred across the country.

 

Irresponsible people will use it as an excuse, but fewer people will now be willing to condemn them for it (if the government don't then why should we?) and it will be a much harder situation to police. The government message (which was actually very good and clear at the time - and deserves praise) has completely lost credibility as a result. That's the problem.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

41 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

Hes got a point but I honestly think he's better off avoiding the cummings nonsense and focusing on the actual failings.

[StanSP]

17 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

If people are actually using Cummings as an excuse to do things they wouldn't have done anyway I would be surprised.  People do love bullshit to hide behind.

Where has he said Cummings is being used as an excuse? 

 

I'd like to think majority of people won't use Cummings as an excuse. Some will but that's their choice. At the end of the day the large majority of people have still stuck by the rules and still will. That doesn't mean they still can't feel aggrieved that one of the rule-makers themselves decided to bend those rules? 

[The Guvnor]

16 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Responsible people won't, thankfully, but will still feel angry because they will now feel they could have done what he did were they in a similar situation. If everybody in similar, or worse, situations had done what he did at the the time then it doesn't bear thinking about how many accidental transmissions could have occurred across the country.

 

Irresponsible people will use it as an excuse, but fewer people will now be willing to condemn them for it (if the government don't then why should we?) and it will be a much harder situation to police. The government message (which was actually very good and clear at the time - and deserves praise) has completely lost credibility as a result. That's the problem.

Irresponsible people, and there are many, will do whatever they like regardless.

For the last three weeks it's been crazy busy here, people from miles away on day trips.

[Voll Blau]

13 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Irresponsible people, and there are many, will do whatever they like regardless.

For the last three weeks it's been crazy busy here, people from miles away on day trips.

 

Like I say though, the issue is that it's now harder to police - as a number of police chiefs have admitted - because of the "Cummings Defence".

[StanSP]

Well... 

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

6 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Well... 

 

 

This is the PEFFECT time for him to come out and say "I didn't think I did break lockdown rules at the time, but the Durham Police has concluded that I did, so for that I must apologise"

 

Would that draw a line under it do we think?

Edited 28 May 2020 by Dahnsouff

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

10 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Well... 

 

 

The police are full of lefties....

[StanSP]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

This is the PEFFECT time for him to come out and say "I didn't think I did break lockdown rules at the time, but the Durham Police has concluded that I did, so for that I must apologise"

 

Would that draw a line under it do we think?

I'm not sure!

 

It may be a 'damage limitation' kind of thing if he did. I feel like there's been so much attention (warranted) on it and the PM/other senior figures have given him so much backing to the point there's not even been any apologies or regrets about it anyway that giving an apology will just tone down the criticism for now. It may just be it shows them up to be weak and they only said sorry when they literally have no other option (when in fact they could have said it much earlier, taken some responsibility and garnered more respect for their honesty as a result). 

 

I think it will draw a partial line so to speak and the focus will gradually shift if an apology is made. 

[CosbehFox]

If I was Cummings I’d want that outcome - £60 fine or a potential banning order under a Road Traffic Offence?

[jammie82uk]

45 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Well... 

 

 

Except the police actually didn’t say that 

[The Horse's Mouth]

39 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

This is the PEFFECT time for him to come out and say "I didn't think I did break lockdown rules at the time, but the Durham Police has concluded that I did, so for that I must apologise"

 

Would that draw a line under it do we think?

he cant apologise at this point, it's gone too far to go back

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

he cant apologise at this point, it's gone too far to go back

If this Durham Police report is new, I would disagree, not that I think for one second he will apologise

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

7 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Except the police actually didn’t say that 

They said it was. A minor offence that doesn't require further investigation. Where does it not say that in those tweets?

[Jon the Hat]

11 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Except the police actually didn’t say that 

Indeed, they said he MIGHT have broken the rules.  Unlike a load of Labours MPs including Stephen Kinnock who absolutley 100% did and have had no punishment whatsoever.  Yet somehow an unelected advisor must quit or be sacked.  Utter nonsense.

[jammie82uk]

Just now, Abrasive fox said:

They said it was. A minor offence that doesn't require further investigation. Where does it not say that in those tweets?

Full statement is here 

 

https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-events/Pages/News Articles/Durham-Constabulary-press-statement--.aspx

key word in bold, no where in the statement do they say he has broken any rules or laws 

Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention.

[Innovindil]

The force said it had "no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident", since this would amount to "treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public."

 

If that's a direct quote it's half decent banter tbf. 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

You don't seem to get that Trump was stating an opinion, not fact.

Just like every other Twitter user.

 

Twitter themselves say that as long as you don't target an individual repeatedly, this is just fine and everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

It's not as if Twitter aren't innocent in all of this: They have a very odd way of moderating tweets, and tend to allow more leeway on the left than on the right (I'm not talking about extremist views here).

As somebody else once said: If Twitter disappeared overnight, the world would be a better place. Twitter is toxic, Twitter is an absolute trash heap of people swinging their useless opinions around.

 

As for centralized voting, it's not perfect, sure. There's voting suppression, as demonstrated in 2016 in California:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression/were-suing-california-because-it-threw-out-more-45000

I just find the timing rather odd now. I'm all up for a thorough voting system reform in the US - right after the elections.

You don't get there with a hasty decision within less than six months (before November 2020).

I entirely get that Trump was stating an opinion...but seeing as he blatantly failed to qualify his remark as such, there isn't an awful lot of difference between "opinion" and "fact" to many of those who follow him - which of course he's well aware of. Dog-whistle, I believe it is called - puts across a message whilst maintaining a veneer of deniability in a way...well, in the way you've exactly described here.

 

I do actually agree that Twitter as a platform can be utterly toxic, but then at the same time such platforms tend to be only as good or as bad as the people that use them - just like any other technological application.

 

WRT voter suppression, I have but one question; why wait until such tactics can be used in a key election before addressing it? "There's not enough time" doesn't seem good enough to me when the democratic process itself is being subverted like this.

 

 

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

You want proof of looting?

https://www.startribune.com/mayor-frey-calls-for-peace-as-looting-flames-erupt-around-police-station/570816112/

Also, check Andy Ngo's Twitter.

 

From your statement, I gather that you claim that the increase in polarization (certainly done by the president, the media and both major US political parties alike), would negatively influence the population (or certain minorities), thus leading to more violence and/or criminal offenses.

And that's definitely not the case, especially given the fact that crime rates are going down whilst the population keeps increasing. Which, in this context, is nothing but positive.

 

What "groups of protesters" are you referring to?

Fair enough, I'd like a corroborative source but that article seems detailed enough - as for Mr Ngo, perhaps I wasn't clear, I said reliable sources (as in ones that probably don't have their own axe to grind and the means to do so.) AS I said in the original post, I just hope this doesn't get uglier and the officers involved answer in full for what they did.

 

I'm still not sure how we got into crime stats in this particular gish gallop but I'll answer anyway: polarisation only results in increased crime statistics when people act on that polarisation and (more pertinently) it is recorded by a relevant authority. But that is a whole 'nother discussion.

 

By the last line, I mean:

 

 

and

 

 

But yes, I'm sure they were all very law-abiding (even when flouting lockdown regs) and so thoroughly deserving of kid gloves rather than the treatment the protestors got yesterday.

[bmt]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

If people are actually using Cummings as an excuse to do things they wouldn't have done anyway I would be surprised.  People do love bullshit to hide behind.

I actually disagree.

 

For me - it wouldn't convince me to do something I thought dangerous, but it could convince me to ignore the rules/law when I am confident a situation isn't dangerous.