As proof It's already s criminal offense of course. But his supporters aren't exactly going to be running to the press when he's telling them it's okay to verbally abuse politicians. I'm certainly not going to bother if he says it's okay.
You have a valid point about the disenfranchised millions, but what I’ll never accept is that of all the injustices there are in this country, they had to make Brexit their focal point, a Brexit which if it happens, deal or no-deal, will leave 99.999% of the disenfranchised WORSE OFF. Rally around climate change, electoral reform, tax evasion, poverty, or a zillion other things, and I’ll be with them, but don’t ever try and tell me that Brexit does anyone but a tiny minority of this country any good at all.
Guido? Heavens above. Presents himself as a libertarian whistleblower, acts as a propagandist. That's a long way down the rabbit hole. Wasn't it you who told us that you sought views that opposed your own rather than just sticking with people who agreed with you? (Might have been someone else.) I suspect the outrage over Soubry is that there was a time when decent people might well have considered verbally assaulting a woman as beyond the pale. In the Britain that's been unleashed by Brexit, that fence has been crossed by these Brexit-supporting nutters. As for the Police's reaction, one of the things to note is that the yellow jacket cretins film themselves all the time. Incessantly. Then they do everything they can to get themselves arrested. Hence the restraint, possibly a realisation that arrest will just pour petrol on the fire. And, after all, we have pro-Brexit MPs saying Brexit must go ahead for fear of violence. So the more scary these poltroons can make themselves the better. Vin
We're on page 666. Behold the beast. Except its number was originally 616. Anyway, in today's good news section, a 13-mile stretch of the M3 could be closed and used to park lorries in the event of customs delays at ports caused by a no-deal Brexit. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-46793341 What a ****ing triumph! Vin
Vince Cable has effectively destroyed anyone who actually thinks that leaving the EU and trading on WTO terms is a good idea. You can read the details elsewhere I’m sure, but as he said, the WTO is to world trade what the UN is to world peace: worth having, but you wouldn’t want to rely solely on it. The WTO settles trade disputes by convening a Disputes Panel, which normally settle in favour of the larger, more powerful country. If they don’t, as happened recently in a dispute between the USA and Costa Rica, the USA simply ignore the ruling with impunity. And people think that we’re taking back control!
It seems to be particularly aimed at female MPs and journalist which also makes it seem worse. Cowardly springs to mind
Sums it up nicely. It feels very much as though "bringing back powers to our Parliament" only works as a slogan. If someone actually does it, it's a travesty. Vin
Spot on Vin. And I happened to watch the coordinated attempts by the nodealers to delay the vote on the amendment this afternoon, by an orchestrated series of points of order, most of which were variations on the same theme, which touched on the Speaker’s constitutional right to select amendments. As Bercow said, he is elected by the Commons to enable the Commons to stand up to the Executive. If the government don’t want the Commons to vote against them, they shouldn’t behave like a bunch of ****ing twats. (Those were my words by the way.) I can’t believe there are going to be 4 more days of this sort of thing to come before May has to finally admit that the EU fairy godmother isn’t actually going to offer her a way out.
Some of our UK suppliers -- and almost all of our suppliers are in the UK -- have started suggested that they're preparing for significant delays in restocking. Given that everyone in this damned industry seems to run on a shoestring, this could get a wee bit ugly.
I find it distasteful that May is now, allegedly, going to offer to enshrine EU workers rights and environmental laws into UK laws, as a bribe to Labour MPs etc to support her deal. They should never have been under threat in the first place.
Is it "particularly aimed at female MPs and journalists" or is that just a perception? I don't mean solely that a female might be more likely to bring it to attention, but also that people might think it is more worthy of attention because someone is female!!! Seems strange in this world of equality, equal treatment, equal rights that there is an angle on this of protecting females more than males. I think the reality is that males get it just as much as females. We just don't notice it or are informed of it as much. Can you recall female MPs being hit by eggs? I remember numerous occasions. I don;t want to sound all Philip Davies but we do need to get away from this "protecting females" angle and start talking about "protecting everybody." or "protecting "people" to be gender neutral. And we also need to stop focusing when it is a "respectable" person like Soubry on the receiving end while ignoring it if it is a "non respectable" person on the receiving end like Nadine Dories or Farage. Above Vocal Minority puts "As proof" and then puts Farage saying "you can;t stop verbal abuse" when what I detailed was groups following him and his family to public places like Restaurants and even jumping up and down on his car bonnet when he was trying to escape...........that is not "verbal abuse." There is most definitely in society, and on this board, a kind of assessment on who deserves what where people are quite happy to dismiss something if it happens to someone they don't like, whereas it is suddenly the worst thing ever if it happens to people they do like. If a mad nutter remainer causes physical injuries to a prominent leaver, will people question Soubry knowing that she will always get her 15 minute soundbite calling them extremists on the news?
The last one is wrong. The speaker told 3 MPs that the government's motion was not open to amendments and they wouldn't be debated. And then ignored his own legal advice deciding to allow an amendment and for it to be debated, which just happened to be from his pal Dominic Grieve. The outrage is because he told 3 they couldn't put amendments forward before then allowing one to go forward.
