This is not what this is about. He didn't select which amendments to put forward. He told 3 MPs that the motion was not open to amendments and would not be debated, then allowed Grieve's. He didn't allow the others and then select which ones to put forward. He told the others they could not put amendments forward.
I’m surprised you’re believing what the Tory front bench are saying, because that is not the case at all. The amendment wasn’t about the Draft Agreement itself but about the timetabling of the debate about the Draft Agreement. That is completely within the Speaker’s remit.
Well it was not questioned by the lefty expert Peston last night!!! If it is as you have said why did he not question it? And how come the BBC hasn't sprung to the rescue with their "reality check" articles they are so prolific with?
I can’t answer for them. Maybe they are more interested in the story than the reality behind the story.
"Peter Bone, the Tory Brexiter, says he was told by the clerks yesterday that he could not table an amendment to the business motion. But an amendment tabled by Dominic Grieve has been allowed." https://www.theguardian.com/politic...live?page=with:block-5c35f169e4b02fb91ff11112
I think I could use Blair's favourite term for that - modernity. What you have written there is in reality the whole day in politics, on TV everything. This is not a right/left, leave/remain thing. This is wholesale. All we get all day long is manipulations, misrepresentations, blurred lines or plain lies.
He doesn't say you can't stop verbal abuse it he says it shouldn't be a crime, Which it currently is. That's actively promoting verbal abuse. There's no hypocrisy in not defending farage. He has his own supporters who can defend him if they so choose. Leave supporters had a majority on the referendum did they not? And he of course credits himself for the whole of brexit. They can make something headline news if they want. If Farage supporters were so into protecting people's rights then he probably wouldn't be so hated in the first place and you wouldn't be using him as an example. Arguing that his opponents should start spending their time campaigning to protect him against something he is perfectly capable of campaigning for himself is just strange. As I said, he and his supporters just prioritise different things and that's all there is to it.
I’d never get tired of kicking Farage in the face. But that would be a criminal offence, as would threatening to do so. Therefore, being a law abiding citizen, I intend to resist the temptation, should it ever arise.
Right. I imagine that's the same viewpoint of a lot of people. If you actually asked people whether they support violence directed towards Farage the answer would be no. They simply have no interest in campaigning on his behalf. And as he has little interest in campaigning against verbal abuse in the first place it rarely gets headline news.
This is an excellent thread and should be read in full. For what it's worth, David Allen Green is strongly anti-EU (I know that the Brexit bunch insist that only their supporters' voices matter). And here it is rolled up onto a single web page: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1083290033082249217.html Vin
The thread of the last couple of pages has been to focus not on Soubry being called a nazi from a distance (verbal abuse.) It has been them following her and hounding her and making her feel afraid (which I agree should not happen.) I bring up an example where Farage was not just verbally abused but was hassled (when not working and with his family) followed and hounded and them jumping on his car bonnet while he tied to get away. You bring up an example of Farage saying "verbal abuse should not be a crime" as proof. Is what he suffered above "verbal abuse? You seem to equate Farage talking about "verbal abuse" as being a red light for "anything goes." And no-one has come back to me with the "targetted at females" part. Are females targeted more than males? or just more is made of it? There was a twitter analysis that showed male Tory MPs get more abuse than other MPs. For Labour as well Male MPs got more abuse. % of replies not number so it isn't because there are more male MPs. Yes Dianne Abbott was an outlier and but this general idea that females get targeted more than males seems to be an assumption rather than being proven. https://www.conservativehome.com/th...-the-most-abuse-on-twitter-conservatives.html This just seems to me to be yet another false correlation. She is being targeted beccause of what she says, not because she is a woman so an "easier target." In the same way attacking Soros is not anti-semitism unless you are attacking him because he is a jew. In the same way criticising a black player is not racist unless you are criticising him because he is black. Soubry gets abuse because of her stance, her grandstanding and the language she uses to smear her opposites while she complains about the language others use. That doesn't mean I agree with what happened the other day. That goes past "sticks and stones" by a large margin. EDIT: Has anyone seen that video of the man in the dark cap that starts the chants? That the "nutters" following Soubry say they don't know who he is and just turned up a couple of weeks ago.......then shows the man in the dark cap sneaking his phone over to Soubry's male colleague? If nothing else just watch the "switch" in the last quarter of the video.
Its the same law Imps. Anyway i'm saying that Farage and his supporters don't make a big deal out of it compared to politicians in the middle. I'm saying if they cared it would be headline news. They would much rather highlight a few dozen immigrants crossing the channel than abuse of Farage. I believe women are more likely to feel threatened by that kind of behaviour, and culturally i think its more acceptable for women to feel threatened so again more likely to highlight it. these are just assumptions but this would make the exact same logic applies to this point as well. And again, I'm perfectly happy to let women bring this up themselves, they don't need men championing them, like Farage doesn't need left wingers championing him.
They do make a big deal out of it but it is not headline news because they do not have the platform. It is ignored by the news or passed over in a "laugh at Farage way" if it is mentioned. I do agree women are more likely to "feel"(<edited) threatened. I agree. But the past posts tried to suggest that women are targeted when the reality is (I can only find the twitter analysis) that the opposite is actually the truth. Yes women may feel more threatened but that does not mean that they are targeted more for abuse. I agree Farage doesn;t need left wingers championing him. However there should not be this blindspot that ignores what ones side does and furore if the other side does when it is the same thing. I would even suggest that being hounded when off work, when with your family, the mob jumping on your bonnet would be infinitely more threatening than what happened to Soubry yet this has had a massive amount of airtime whereas hardly anyone ever heard about that instance with Farage let alone all the others. Did people not care that his wife and kids might feel threatened? My point is not to say they didn't care with others so why care now. It is to ask WHY people only care if it is someone on the "right" side and pfft if it is Boris, Mogg, Farage, Dories etc.
I was expecting her to be a car crash but Fiona Bruce has been excellent. These politicians are going to have to rethink how they trundle through QT now. Hopefully it isn't a "honeymoon" thing where she gets comfy in the seat and just "pals" it through each week.
There's no blind spot. he gets headline news all the time. He doesn't about this because he doesn't push it. The reason his opponents don't care is because you can't champion everything at once, its not their cause and he has the means to do it himself. If his supporters put as much effort into pointing out what is happening to farage as they did going after immigrants then you would hear about it but they don't and that's his choice. If he kept complaining about being bullied he would appear weak and a snowflake to his supporters and is against his brand of dog eat dog politics so he doesn't campaign as much as more central politicians and as such it doesn't get in the news as much. And even now despite complaining that it has happened to him too he's adding on that politicians should be able to take a small amount of abuse to show he's less of a snowflake than politicans that want protection from it. Thats what he cares about most. The law applies to both sides equally anyway , most left and right wingers do support the law protecting both sides I imagine. The only time you really need to speak out for people who you don't support is for people who dont have a voice, like Abbot bringing up the rights of criminal moped riders even though I can't imagine she likes ram raiders.
"I would even suggest that being hounded when off work, when with your family, the mob jumping on your bonnet would be infinitely more threatening than what happened to Soubry" Anyone is welcome to hound me at work if I get an MP's pay while they do it. Actually only last month I was called a f*****g c*** by an ex client while out shopping with my nipper. It's very wrong, and hurtful, but a proportional response is required which takes into account all circumstances.
This is an example of the levels of mendacity being exhibited by the Brexit Bunch. It's an EU trade deal, negotiated by the EU regarding trade between Japan and (you've guessed it) the EU. Yet here we have a Brexit-supporting buffoon implying that it's a sign of how well the UK can trade with Japan. What a ****ing triumph! Vin
