Brexit Schmexit

[zahidf]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's a step *before* (to them) sovereignty gets returned. It's (potentially) stopping sovereignty being returned.

 

May wanted there to not be a vote. She lost on that. Parliament seems to be working pretty well to me.

She didn't scream 'traitors', that was other people outside of Parliament.

nah she prefers calling remainers 'citizens of nowhere'

[zahidf]

'All talk'

 

 

[lost]

And on the same subject the canary has been forced to apologise for the article it ran on Laura Kuenssberg speaking at the tory conference which lead to all the threats and anti-semetic abuse the bbc journalist got from momentum supporters:

https://www.thecanary.co/uncategorised/2017/12/20/correction-of-article-published-on-the-canary-on-27-september/

 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

It should be challenged, all this talk of traitors and enemies of the people has a worrying precedent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

 

The media should always be challenged, I would never dispute that. The reality is the media have been calling people traitors for years,. Sol Campbell was a traitor when he left Spurs for Arsenal, Gove was a traitor when he turned on Boris. I don't always agree with it's use, but as a defender of free speech believe a newspaper has the right to use it.

If somebody attacks someone because the daily mail calls them a traitor, chances are that person was going to attack someone anyway.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, feral chile said:

I realise this, but these other people are essentially wanting to have a dictatorship.

no they're not.

They want the UK and only the UK to control its laws - and that (from their point of view) doesn't happen until *after* brexit, which is why they're not interested in supposed acts of sovereignty (like having a vote on the final deal) that might cause brexit (and so the return of sovereignty) to never happen.

You're deciding that their opinion towards the one thing of that particular vote defines everything about them. It's a very shallow take on things, and casts those people as one dimensional mono-minded bigots - which is an expression of your own bigotry about their different view, not theirs.

Edited December 21, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, zahidf said:

nah she prefers calling remainers 'citizens of nowhere'

care to show me the privileges you have a citizen of the world? No?

Meanwhile you have plenty from the citizenship you say you reject. When are you giving it up and moving out of the UK, then? No? Not that either?

You're more confused than May is about this.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, zahidf said:

'All talk'

that's exactly what it is. Jo Cox: no threats to her, but killed anyway. Countless MPs since: endless threats, and fuck all has happened.

Get some fucking perspective.

And as i've already pointed out, if they killed one or even 30 MPs, those types would still be on the opposite side of power. 

3 people are murdered each and every day in the UK, and sometimes many many more via a large scale terrorist atrocity (which gets little mention by you).

But suddenly you're really concerned about MPs, and even the tory ones, where a few over-gobby no-action vacuous w*nkers get a stream of endless comment (which you didn't do when some of the MPs getting threats weren't friends of the beard)? 

Edited December 21, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's exactly what it is. Jo Cox: no threats to her, but killed anyway.

According to reports, Jo Cox - the sunny, dedicated woman whose smile radiates out of photographs - was subjected to three months of harassment earlier this year. The abuse became so frequent the police were considering stepping up security at her constituency surgery in Birstall and her houseboat in London.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/jo-cox-murder-death-threats-and-sexual-torment-have-become-part/amp/

 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

According to reports, Jo Cox - the sunny, dedicated woman whose smile radiates out of photographs - was subjected to three months of harassment earlier this year. The abuse became so frequent the police were considering stepping up security at her constituency surgery in Birstall and her houseboat in London.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/jo-cox-murder-death-threats-and-sexual-torment-have-become-part/amp/

 

ahh, ok .... were those threats from her killer, or were they utterly irrelevant to her murder?

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

ahh, ok .... were those threats from her killer, or were they utterly irrelevant to her murder?

They were not from her killer. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

They were not from her killer. 

so they're not actually related to her murder, which most-likely would have still happened if they'd not been those threats.

The existence of threats is because feelings are running high - but on both sides, not just 'the other'. There's equal numbers of people on both sides talking everything up into the extreme.

[pink_triangle]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

so they're not actually related to her murder, which most-likely would have still happened if they'd not been those threats.

The existence of threats is because feelings are running high - but on both sides, not just 'the other'. There's equal numbers of people on both sides talking everything up into the extreme.

Whatever the reason for the threats they are illegal and should be prosecuted. I'm guessing s tiny fraction of those who make threats carry them out, but I'm sure it's very distressing for those who receive them.

Saying that I wouldn't outlaw the use of the word "traitor" because it was used by a murderer.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Whatever the reason for the threats they are illegal and should be prosecuted.

Absolutely, I'm not saying different.

I just disagree with the background idea that some are pushing that a fascist coup is just round the corner.

There's no need to talk the threats up into something they're not. It's no less extreme than the threats are.

10 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I'm sure it's very distressing for those who receive them.

I agree, 100%. They're perfectly entitled to complain about them. I'm very happy for them to be reported about in the press, too.

It's the way others then use the existence of threats for their own purposes I'm taking issue with. It's something which comes from the same dark place as the threats do.

If someone were banging on about the existence of 'Islamic terrorism' in the same way, I reckon some people might take issue with it, don't you think....?

Edited December 21, 2017 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so they're not actually related to her murder, which most-likely would have still happened if they'd not been those threats.

The existence of threats is because feelings are running high - but on both sides, not just 'the other'. There's equal numbers of people on both sides talking everything up into the extreme.

but the MPs getting the threats specifically said the Daily Mail were responsible for them in parliament. Are you saying they are wrong/exagerating?

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, zahidf said:

but the MPs getting the threats specifically said the Daily Mail were responsible for them in parliament. Are you saying they are wrong/exagerating?

Nope. Just as with the threats against Eagle, the link to what's likely to be driving them is there.

I'm simply saying that it's no big deal in the scheme of things.

The mail is allowed to think of MPs as traitors for the particular thing they did, and to say it. 

What others might choose to wrongly do off the back of that is something else.

It should be made clear by senior politicians that threats are unacceptable, and it has been (by May a day or three ago).

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

but the MPs getting the threats specifically said the Daily Mail were responsible for them in parliament. Are you saying they are wrong/exagerating?

I would say they are wrong/exaggerating many people read the same crap and choose not to make death threats. I think trash like the mail and canary should be allowed to be inflammatory within the law.

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope. Just as with the threats against Eagle, the link to what's likely to be driving them is there.

I'm simply saying that it's no big deal in the scheme of things.

The mail is allowed to think of MPs as traitors for the particular thing they did, and to say it. 

What others might choose to wrongly do off the back of that is something else.

It should be made clear by senior politicians that threats are unacceptable, and it has been (by May a day or three ago).

But how can you comdemn the threats without condemning the body driving them? (in this case, the Mail?)

We prosecute hate preachers for inciting people to commit murder. whats the difference between their incitement and the Mail's

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But how can you comdemn the threats without condemning the body driving them? (in this case, the Mail?)

I await your condemnations of Jez and momentum, and your acceptance that Abbott deserves all she gets

 

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

We prosecute hate preachers for inciting people to commit murder. whats the difference between their incitement and the Mail's

Understanding of different words? Law? Not being bigoted?

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

But how can you comdemn the threats without condemning the body driving them? (in this case, the Mail?)

We prosecute hate preachers for inciting people to commit murder. whats the difference between their incitement and the Mail's

The daily mail don't go out and tell people to murder MPs, if they did it would result in prosecution.

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

The daily mail don't go out and tell people to murder MPs, if they did it would result in prosecution.

neither do Britain first.

[pink_triangle]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

neither do Britain first.

So do you think the daily mail should be banned, do you think the word traitor should become illegal to use?

[feral chile]

10 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

So do you think the daily mail should be banned, do you think the word traitor should become illegal to use?

boycotted maybe

wasn't there a campaign to pressure papers to behave? cant remember the details but involving advertising/other companies I think.

 I know it was something that hit them in their wallet.

Edited December 21, 2017 by feral chile

[lost]

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

 

wasn't there a campaign to pressure papers to behave? 

Stop funding hate. Then it turned out the guy who founded it had had his book serialised in the mail and been paid by them for it. 

[feral chile]

7 minutes ago, lost said:

Stop funding hate. Then it turned out the guy who founded it had had his book serialised in the mail and been paid by them for it. 

you're kidding!

so they basically bought him off?

Edited December 21, 2017 by feral chile

[lost]

9 minutes ago, feral chile said:

you're kidding!

so they basically bought him off?

No it happened before.. He developed his morals when the money was already sitting in his bank account.