The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[peterms]

10 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

That wasn’t 3rd para  

It was 1 para.  Do you think there is a big difference in ethos, values, training, approach between different groups within the same unit?  If so, could you explain why?

10 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

im unaware of children being shot in the back , I’d be interested to see more about that . 

I said people shot in the back, and children shot, rather than the conflation you present, but here is the list of deaths from Bloody Sunday.  Half the deaths are people not old enough to vote.

Quote

In all, 28 people were shot by the paratroopers; 13 died on the day and another individual died of his injuries four months later. Most of the fatalities were killed in four main areas: the rubble barricade across Rossville Street, the courtyard car park of Rossville Flats (on the north side of the flats), the courtyard car park of Glenfada Park, and the forecourt of Rossville Flats (on the south side of the flats).^[44]

All of the soldiers responsible insisted that they had shot at, and hit, gunmen or bomb-throwers. The Saville Report concluded that all of those shot were unarmed and that none were posing a serious threat. It also concluded that none of the soldiers fired in response to attacks, or threatened attacks, by gunmen or bomb-throwers.^[51]

The casualties are listed in the order in which they were killed.

10 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

i don’t see what accountability has to do with soldiers letting off some steam firing paint balls at Corbyns head shot  

If you don't see why shooting at a picture of Corbyn is not "letting off steam" but rather a sinister and wholly inappropriate indication of something seriously amiss in the leadership and culture of this bit of our armed forces, perhaps you should start by wondering why senior armed forces figures are so very embarrassed by the incident.

Edited April 4, 2019 by peterms
Forgot quote

[chrisp65]

40 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

i don’t see what accountability has to do with soldiers letting off some steam firing paint balls at Corbyns head shot 

Lance Corporal Mikko Vehvilainen and Private Mark Barrett, both recently of banned nazi organisation National Action, say hi!

[tonyh29]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Kevin McElhinney, aged 17 shot dead from behind

John Duddy, aged 17, shot dead running away from the scene

Hugh Gilmore, aged 17, shot dead whilst running away

John Young, 17, dead from a single head shot

Michael McDade, 20, dead from a single head shot

Pat Doherty, 31, shot in the back whilst crawling away

Bernard McGuigan, the guy that was shot in the head whilst waving a white hanky, he was in his 40's

Willie McKinney was shot dead with a rifle shot to the back, but he was 27

James Ray, 22, shot dead, two shots in the back

 

In total, six of the dead were 17 years old

 

We have a different definition of children it seems ,but lets not going to get bogged down on it , it sorta clarifies what was being referred to , I thought perhaps there was something else 

[chrisp65]

Yeah, they weren't exactly toddlers, and they were at a protest, but they also weren't old enough to buy a can of lager or cigarrettes.

Aged 17 and shot in the back running away, I can see why people use the word child.

[tonyh29]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Lance Corporal Mikko Vehvilainen and Private Mark Barrett, both recently of banned nazi organisation National Action, say hi!

Barrett was acquitted wasn’t he ? 

 

[chrisp65]

Just now, tonyh29 said:

Barrett was acquitted wasn’t he ? 

 

yeah, acquitted of being an actual signed up member of NA, but kicked out of the army because of his collection of swastikas

[peterms]

A good piece on the tories' struggles with the concept of treason, and the rhetoric they employ to express their confusion.

Quote

Don't you dare call it treason.

How sad are we, and how sad have we been?

Theresa May is already being accused of treason by her own grassroots. She is going to negotiate with a Marxist -- a Marxist, mind you -- who has never put Britain first.

Put aside hyperventilating denunciations for a second. It's clear what has happened here. The two party leaders have been in a sort of dance-off over who will split their party first. May has yielded, largely because nothing she did could alleviate the Tories' existential crisis. That's a partial victory for Corbyn. Partial, because it remains to be seen what will come of their negotiations. Because May has played games before with proffered discussions that went nowhere. Because if it is unlikely that the two can agree a settlement, it is highly likely that the Tories will try to engineer a situation in which Corbyn gets the blame for it.

But, having over-estimated its own leverage, and forced May's hand, the Brexit hard-right has now gone red-hunting. Jacob Rees-Mogg knows very well that this outcome is a result of the ERG overshooting. He argued a week or so ago that they should back May's deal, or risk 'no Brexit'. What they were really risking was that they would lose all influence over the process, and the opposition might get a say in the outcome. Rees-Mogg knows this. What he says in public, though, shrouding moronic hyperbole in upper-class understatement, is: "To allow Labour to run Brexit and to decide you would rather be supported by a Marxist than your own party is unwise." 

Arron Banks, foreswearing the understatement, expostulates that May has "put the future of the country in the hands of the Jeremy Corbyn, a Terrorist loving communist". Ian Duncan Smith likewise excoriates May for dealing with a "harsh Labour Party run by a Marxist, whose sole purpose in life is to do real damage to the country". Note: both Rees-Mogg and Smith made their comments in live television interviews. Neither was queried or challenged over these demented comments.

I wish the reactionaries were right. It would be a great thing for this country if its constitutional future really was being settled by a Marxist. But Corbyn is and always has been a parliamentary socialist, and his stated conditions for accepting a deal are extremely moderate. They're, frankly, the bare minimum that any Labour leadership would ask for. Oliver Letwin and the other Tory centrists who are happy at this outcome, know this very well. And May, in seeking cross-party consensus, is belatedly doing what she should have started doing immediately after losing her majority in the Commons. Stitching together a coalition with the ruddy-faced DUP provincials and trying to appease the ERG was always a road to ruin.

May has created this situation for herself. In addition to vilifying 'saboteurs', and denouncing parliament for not signing off on her terrible deal, her comms unit has been demonising Corbyn as a communist, terror-loving traitor for years. Perhaps, prior to June 2017, it was possible to see this as merely a cynical electoral game. But the generalised panic about Corbyn was always excessive, and it didn't stop even when it was shown that it didn't work. This suggests a genuine phobia. It is easy to laugh now at the Czech spy falsehoods, for example, but it's important to remember how extremely seriously this smear was deployed. Senior cabinet ministers were allowed to repeatedly accuse the Leader of the Opposition, a constitutionally important role, of being the paid agent of another country. 

This language, rampant during the election two years ago, failed to secure for May the mandate that she needed to deliver a viable Brexit deal. But it did add to a state of generalised right-wing rancour. The British media has been very attentive to, sometimes, the smallest sleight aimed at a junior politician on Twitter. More seriously, it has paid full attention to the mobbing, abuse and death-threats aimed at a number of politicians, from Luciana Berger to Anna Soubry. It is less well-acknowledge in the press how much of this is aimed at Corbyn. In part, this is because abuse from members of the public simply echoes what the media has already been throwing at the Labour leader. But we're not just talking about verbal abuse.

When Darren Osborne conducted his van attack on Seven Sisters Road, he admitted to the court that he had hoped to kill Jeremy Corbyn. His initial plan was to attack the pro-Palestine Quds Day march, where he hoped he might murder Corbyn. Instead, that evening, he chose to drive toward Finsbury Park and carry out a murder there, because it was in Corbyn's constituency. It was just over a month ago that Corbyn was assaulted by a Brexit protester while visiting Finsbury Park mosque. This was misleadingly reported at the time as an egging, a form of protest that many politicians receive and, usually, trivial. A police statement referred to an egg being 'thrown'. But what happened was that a young man shouted at Corbyn to "respect the vote" and then, with an egg in his closed fist, punched Corbyn hard in the back of the head. Just this morning, video footage emerged showing a number of British soldiers in Kabul firing several rounds of bullets into a poster of Corbyn. These people are putting into practice what Rees-Mogg, Ian Duncan Smith, Arron Banks and, until recently, Theresa May, have expressed rhetorically.

Now, this man, whom May, the Tories, the press, and even some Labour MPs have consistently represented as beyond-the-pale, a traitor, is Theresa May's negotiating partner. Is it any wonder some of her people think she's sold out? Is it any wonder the McCarthyism that she has tried to build her political success on, is now coming back to bite her?

 

[blandy]

13 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

kicked out of the army because of his collection of swastikas

They were very cross.

[Seat68]

I mean who owns a swatika, let alone a collection of swastikas.

[tonyh29]

4 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

I mean who owns a swatika, let alone a collection of swastikas.

Jeremy Corbyn and nearly everyone in the labour party if you read the news

 

 

 

[dAVe80]

24 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

I mean who owns a swatika, let alone a collection of swastikas.

Nazis and Lemmy.

[Seat68]

25 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Nazis and Lemmy.

Mainly Lemmy, the nazis are trying to recover their artifacts that Lemmy stole during the war.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

Mainly Lemmy, the nazis are trying to recover their artifacts that Lemmy stole during the war.

That's Overkill.

[Seat68]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's Overkill.

[Xela]

5 hours ago, Seat68 said:

I mean who owns a swatika, let alone a collection of swastikas.

Why would you need more than one? They all look the same

[Xann]

[VILLAMARV]

 

  This story is awful.

Quote

a review into inappropriate behaviour in the military

[Chindie]

Being Gavin Williamson, he'll send in a tank division to investigate.

[peterms]

A thread exploring discussions on a site for people wanting Moggy to be in charge.

 

[bickster]

33 minutes ago, peterms said:

A thread exploring discussions on a site for people wanting Moggy to be in charge.

 

I was just reading that myself, utterly depressing