The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Surely the murder of an MP over this issue fundamentally changes the dynamic for other MPs dealing with this abuse compared with abuse you reference in the past.

If you mean by 'fundamentally changing the dynamic' that the starting point, reference or ever present thought for any discussion about behaviour involving the public and politicians should from now on be her murder then no.

Obviously, it ought to be considered as it's sensible to consider relevant things (I wouldn't leave out Stephen Timms's attempted murder as a recent event, too) but Jo Cox was not the first public figure or politician to be murdered and I very much doubt that she will be the last.

We are now getting the line from the bloke at the met about increasing policing there and intervening if people are not allowed to go about their daily business. And we're also now getting all this 'place of work' guff that we get everywhere else.

[ml1dch]

18 minutes ago, snowychap said:

This is being presented as something new and 'astonishing' and so on. Is it really? Don't we remember politicians being egged, jostled, shouted at, abused, booed, surrounded, called all sorts of names by the public happening before?

We do, but in (what I remember as being) the most famous incident of that (Prescott) the culprit was arrested and detained.

So I don't think it stands up as precedent to why there is no police action in these instances.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

We do, but in (what I remember as being) the most famous incident of that (Prescott) the culprit was arrested and detained.

So I don't think it stands up as precedent to why there is no police action in these instances.

You have misunderstood what I posted, then.

It wasn't meant as any sort of 'precedent to why there is no police action in these instances'. I'll quote the first two lines of the post so as to give the line you took issue with context:

Quote

Is that the concern? It may be your genuine concern but I don't think it's much more than a largely manufactured concern by those politicians and commentators from whom I've heard in the last 24 hours.

Was that the concern when other politicians and political figures have had to deal with similar things? With some it may have been but with the vast majority it wasn't.

This is being presented as something new and 'astonishing' and so on. Is it really? Don't we remember politicians being egged, jostled, shouted at, abused, booed, surrounded, called all sorts of names by the public happening before?

It was, as you can see, a comment in reference to what I thought was a certain amount of 'manufactured concern by those politicians and commentators from whom I've heard in the last 24 hours' and whether or not events such as these were new and 'astonishing'.

Edited January 8, 2019 by snowychap

[ml1dch]

36 minutes ago, snowychap said:

You have misunderstood what I posted, then.

It wasn't meant as any sort of 'precedent to why there is no police action in these instances'. I'll quote the first two lines of the post so as to give the line you took issue with context:

It was, as you can see, a comment in reference to what I thought was a certain amount of 'manufactured concern by those politicians and commentators from whom I've heard in the last 24 hours' and whether or not events such as these were new and 'astonishing'.

That's fair enough. I don't think it's "astonishing" at all. But I do think that when the line is drawn between what is acceptable and unacceptable, yesterday was on the side of the latter, and other examples you gave (being booed) are on the side of the former. 

But then that is always going to be for everyone to do decide for themselves.

In the same way as saying mean things about Jacob Rees-Mogg on the internet isn't really something that needs any major censure, but turning up at his house and harassing his children absolutely does.

I'll not judge on whether politicians are "manufacturing concern", but if they want to voice concern about gangs of men following people around shouting at them, while claiming that they are "fair game" and that "a war is coming" I have no problem with them doing so.

Edited January 8, 2019 by ml1dch

[snowychap]

24 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I don't think it's "astonishing" at all.

I didn't say you did. I was using Soubry's word.

25 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

gangs of men following people around shouting at them, while claiming that they are "fair game" and that "a war is coming"

Are these not two separate videos and incidents? One with the clearing in the woods on his own shouting the above towards god knows who (I'm assuming it's the police but it may be someone behind them) and then one with the same bloke amongst a group of others who were causing the issues with Soubry?

[peterms]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Is that the concern? It may be your genuine concern but I don't think it's much more than a largely manufactured concern by those politicians and commentators from whom I've heard in the last 24 hours.

Was that the concern when other politicians and political figures have had to deal with similar things? With some it may have been but with the vast majority it wasn't.

This is being presented as something new and 'astonishing' and so on. Is it really? Don't we remember politicians being egged, jostled, shouted at, abused, booed, surrounded, called all sorts of names by the public happening before?

And where I have a particular difficulty is with politicians claiming that it's a terrible and new state of affairs from their seats (or rather perhaps standing) in a place where the most boorish, unpleasant, antagonistic behaviour passes as routine.

I do think the continual reference to the horrible event of Jo Cox's murder is not helpful, either.

Soubry has said she thinks a line was crossed in December, and again with the more recent incident.  She is distinguishing abuse from threatening behaviour, reasonably enough.  I haven't heard anyone say politicians shouldn't be shouted at or booed, but I do think they would reasonably object to being egged or jostled.

The reason why people will recall Jo Cox in connection with this incident is the involvement of people with extreme right wing views (Thomas Mair hung around Britain First, and James Goddard, the deeply racist organiser seen in the clips, has enquired about how to get involved with BF), the comments about war and fair game, and the allegations of betrayal, a notion which seems to trigger fascists into thinking violence is acceptable and justified.  That's all a bit more sinister and threatening than someone egging Prescott, which is something intended to cause humiliation rather than injury.  If I were Soubry, I would feel personally at risk of potentially serious violence, not necessarily from the ones on camera in those clips, but perhaps others of a similar mindset who are stirred up and emboldened by their actions.

[snowychap]

10 minutes ago, peterms said:

She is distinguishing abuse from threatening behaviour, reasonably enough.

The Grauniad:

Quote

During the BBC interview, Soubry broke off from answering questions to tell the presenter Simon McCoy: “I do object to being called a Nazi actually. I’m sorry but I just think this is astonishing.”

The abuse continued as Soubry was interviewed by the Sky News presenter Kay Burley, with chants of “liar, liar” heard throughout the live broadcast.

Soubry told Burley: “I don’t have a problem with people demonstrating and making their views heard. I have a real problem with people who call me a traitor, or ‘Soubry, you Nazi’. That is a criminal offence and I’m a criminal barrister.

“I’m told that we should get used to it, but we shouldn’t have to. Apparently it’s democracy in action and the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] believe that no offences are being committed.”

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, peterms said:

The reason why people will recall Jo Cox in connection with this incident is the involvement of people with extreme right wing views (Thomas Mair hung around Britain First, and James Goddard, the deeply racist organiser seen in the clips, has enquired about how to get involved with BF), the comments about war and fair game, and the allegations of betrayal, a notion which seems to trigger fascists into thinking violence is acceptable and justified.  That's all a bit more sinister and threatening than someone egging Prescott, which is something intended to cause humiliation rather than injury.  If I were Soubry, I would feel personally at risk of potentially serious violence, not necessarily from the ones on camera in those clips, but perhaps others of a similar mindset who are stirred up and emboldened by their actions.

I don't need an explainer on what happened, thanks.

I do think that sometimes it would improve discussions if you accept that some knowledge and understanding should be largely taken as read rather than explained as if to someone without a long and prior history of engaging with you in a wide variety of discussions on multifarious topics in countless politicial threads. It would be a show of willing at the very least.

On this specific issue, I think we'll have to agree to disagree as per the forum's guidelines.

Edited January 8, 2019 by snowychap

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Are these not two separate videos and incidents? One with the clearing in the woods on his own shouting the above towards god knows who (I'm assuming it's the police but it may be someone behind them) and then one with the same bloke amongst a group of others who were causing the issues with Soubry?

They are separate videos, but if you were to assess the potential threat that this particular throbber poses, I think you're going to view his whole day of being a dick as a whole.

So someone harassing MPs and journalists and calling them traitors, who had been filmed earlier shouting about unleashing a war would be higher up my list of concerns than someone who hadn't.

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

They are separate videos, but if you were to assess the potential threat that this particular throbber poses, I think you're going to view his whole day of being a dick as a whole.

So someone harassing MPs and journalists and calling them traitors, who had been filmed earlier shouting about unleashing a war would be higher up my list of concerns than someone who hadn't.

That's a different and more appropriate way of viewing it, I think.

It's not merely nitpicking for the sake of it, I assure you. It's just about trying to be as accurate as possible.

[ml1dch]

31 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's not merely nitpicking for the sake of it, I assure you. It's just about trying to be as accurate as possible.

I take no issue with it either way.

As a self-identifying nitpicker you won't find me criticising that excellent quality in other people 

[bickster]

The bloke I share my office with - notionally my boss, has just declared that he wants Brexit to go ahead, so we can then do what the Australians do and turn these bastards around in the channel and point them back to France, thats what Brexit is all about to him in a nutshell

Makes me very sad

 

[tonyh29]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

The bloke I share my office with - notionally my boss, has just declared that he wants Brexit to go ahead, so we can then do what the Australians do and turn these bastards around in the channel and point them back to France, thats what Brexit is all about to him in a nutshell

Makes me very sad

 

me too .. nobody deserves to be sent to France

[ml1dch]

Nick Boles on the Amendment 7 debate, saying that he'll be voting "for the amendment and any other legislation proposed by anyone, to ensure that we either leave with a deal or not at all".

I'm still as skeptical as Chindie and others, but those are some pretty unequivocal words.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Nick Boles on the Amendment 7 debate, saying that he'll be voting "for the amendment and any other legislation proposed by anyone, to ensure that we either leave with a deal or not at all".

I'm still as skeptical as Chindie and others, but those are some pretty unequivocal words.

Was just popping in to make the same point and to say that Letwin, too, said much the same thing apparently. I missed his speech but this was what the Grauniad's live blog has on it:

Quote

Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative former cabinet minister, is speaking now.

He is sitting alongside Sir Nicholas Soames. He says between them they have been in the Commons for 56 years. Between them, they have only voted against the government once, he says.

But they are both backing the amendment.

He says the amendment will not have a significant impact on what the government can do. But it will set a precedent. It will shows how MPs can attach amendments to other pieces of government legislation stopping powers being exercised in a no-deal situation. And he goes further.

It is my proposal that we should indeed do that.

He says for five years as a minister he was in charge of resilience on government. He says two years ago he argued that the government should seriously prepare for a no-deal Brexit. But that was not done, he says.

He says he has been through the briefings in “awesome detail”. He has attended the privy council briefings.

He knows exactly what the problems are with things like gas connectors, he says.

He says some people assume that, if the UK goes for no-deal, the EU will then cooperate on managing a no-deal Brexit.

That may be so, he says. But nobody can know that it will be the case, he says.

He says it would not be acceptable to submit the country to that.

He says he will vote for amendment 7 tonight. And he will go on voting for amendments like this if necessary until March 29.

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

Tories cutting police funding and then moan about a lack of protection, hilarious irony.

[a m ole]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

The bloke I share my office with - notionally my boss, has just declared that he wants Brexit to go ahead, so we can then do what the Australians do and turn these bastards around in the channel and point them back to France, thats what Brexit is all about to him in a nutshell

Makes me very sad

 

Australia sends people to France? 

My work has no vocal Brexiteers as atmosphere is heavily remain but I think conversations like that at work are best avoided, at least beyond the superficial.

Edited January 8, 2019 by a m ole

[ml1dch]

44 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Was just popping in to make the same point and to say that Letwin, too, said much the same thing apparently. I missed his speech but this was what the Grauniad's live blog has on it:

 

Passed, 303 to 297.

Good news, more for what it might mean in future rather than anything particularly significant that this amendment does.

[Chindie]

5 minutes ago, a m ole said:

Australia sends people to France?

No, they turn people away to drown. The ones that do make it often end up in camps in Papua New Guinea, Nauru etc to be forgotten. And they put up adverts in surrounding poor countries basically telling locals not to even think about Australia as a place that they could live.

Australia isn't a good place to look to for many things.

[LondonLax]

51 minutes ago, Chindie said:

No, they turn people away to drown. The ones that do make it often end up in camps in Papua New Guinea, Nauru etc to be forgotten. And they put up adverts in surrounding poor countries basically telling locals not to even think about Australia as a place that they could live.

Australia isn't a good place to look to for many things.

That first line is not correct. Refugees used to drown when boats were able to travel freely to Australia. The current policy is to intervene when a boat heads off from Indonesia and escort it back rather than let it travel in the dangerous waters of the Timor Sea. That’s not a bad policy, the boats refugees are put on when they engage the services of a people smuggler are not sea worthy for the kind of distances involved in getting to Australia.  

The 1st controversial part is the current policy that says any refugee using a people smuggler to get them to Australia by boat will never be allowed to have their asylum processed in Australia and further, will never be allowed to settle in Australia. Even if they dodge border patrol and survive the crossing they will be sent off to a Pacific Island camp for processing and offered a choice of returning home or to a third country (usually the country on offer is somewhere like Papua New Guinea) The idea being that this acts as a deterrent from using people smugglers in the first place.  

The 2nd (even more) controversial part is the legacy case load of refugees who are still on these island camps who do not want to return home or go to the third country, often because they have family ties to Australia. They are essentially in a limbo with no prospect of leaving a camp which is little more than an open air prison. Families will have children in these camps and their are kids who are 3 or 4 years old who know no other life. 

Australia negotiated a refugee swap with Obama to take many of these legacy refugees but Trump threw a spanner in the works and has taken far fewer than planned. New Zealand has also said it will take most and potentially resolve the issue but the current Aus government believes that would act as a back door to Australia and encourage people to try to make the crossing again (Australia and NZ have free movement of people between the two countries).