Off Topic News & Current affairs

There's nothing wrong with wanting an offensive statue removed.
There is nothing wrong with lobbying and petitioning for its removal, and even protesting about it.

Where I have a problem is that (unlike in the past) there is now nothing wrong with a mob tearing it down.
There is also now nothing wrong with climbing onto a tube train at a station in rush hour and gluing yourself to it.
And I fully expect there to be nothing wrong with blocking motorways, if/when those activities ever come before a jury.

Mob violence is now legal if the mob's motivation is part of the Woke agenda.
Governments here are elected to make laws.
Juries are not elected. They should not take it upon themselves to disregard laws when it suits their political sympathies.


If people don't like what a Government or a Council does, they vote for an alternative.
They don't form a mob and smash whatever they are upset about.
That's what we saw a year ago in Washington DC.

Violence is violence.
The acceptability of it should never depend on political factors, right or left.
Once you say it's OK for a mob to smash something, or protesters to block roads and railways, you undermine law and order. You abandon those who are too weak to defend themselves and you hand over society to whoever is aggressive enough to use force to push their agenda and take direct control of people's lives.

 

Juries are part of the democratic process. They are there to make a decision. Nobody asks to be on a jury. When your name is drawn by lot it's a privilege to serve the justice system and do your duty as a private citizen. What alternative is there? A kangaroo court? To use the war on woke to attack fellow citizens for doing their public duty doesn't sit well with me, I'm afraid. These decisions are difficult and the adversarial legal system doesn't always serve justice perfectly, but that's not the fault of the jurors.

 

The evidence for criminal damage in the Colston statue case is beyond doubt.
There are minutes of good quality video footage, clearly showing what was done and who did it.

The decision of Not Guilty of criminal damage is in direct conflict with the evidence of the violence and destruction carried out.

Jurys are supposed to decide a verdict based on the evidence presented.
Not their personal political views or prejudices. The evidence presented.
I've served on a Jury. I remember what I was told.
The Colston four jury clearly decided that the motivation (the politics) of the mob made what they did legal, not illegal.

My criticism of the verdicts is not harming the principles of trial by jury.
And I have never attacked the Jury system.
The juries that found the Colston four and the XR train protesters not guilty have given more ammunition to those who would like to see the jury system curtailed than I ever will.
Their verdicts, and in the Colston case their stated reasons for deciding Not Guilty, are what has damaged the jury system.
The political nature of that verdict has brought the whole Jury system into disrepute.

In this country now you can take the law into your own hands if your cause is Woke enough.
Even in direct contradiction to watertight evidence of violence and disorder.
That is the plain truth.

When democratic processes are seen to fail, the door is opened to the peddlars of dictatorship.
Germany in the 1930's. Trump in America right now.
Direct action over respect for peaceful process. Selfishness and hate over reason and moderation. We have all seen where that leads to.
It is never justified.

 

Whilst it’s quite hard to pick out the most pious, biased and condescending presenter on BBC I’d like to nominate Martine Croxall.

According to her the government is wrong to try to do something about the illegal immigrants entering the country via the channel. She claims the government is just bringing in ‘populist’ policies to deflect attention away from its own errors. Presumably by ‘populist’ she means popular with those grubby, detestable people that make up the British public. The same people that pay her inflated salary. I don’t suppose she and the BBC are angry about the proposed changes to the licence fee by any chance are they ? Or is that just another ‘populist’ policy ?

And the following item was a report on Novax, which basically asked the question why should he be given preferential treatment over the visa issue. And the answer……..because he’s Novax Djokovic of course and he’s special and it’s not right that people are ‘deprived’ of watching him play tennis. I’m not sure how much more out of touch the BBC can actually become.

The sooner it is changed and the funding model adjusted to reflect the modern world, the better. Or is that just a populist opinion from an uneducated pleb which should be treated with the scorn it deserves ?

 

Dominic Cummings appears again to say he'd lie under oath - sorry, swear under oath, that Boris lied to Parliament. Two proven liars, Cummings the architect of B****t, Johnson who carried it through, the pair of them with the infamous £350m to the NHS on the side of the bus. It has it's funny side, but Johnson is Prime Minister of our country FFS. DEmocracy has been devalued, ever since the Labour Party made itself unelectable by voting Corbyn in as leader, thus making the Tories believe they could get away with anything. They even tried to get parts of Ms Patel's Bill ratified by tagging them on at the last minute without being debated by MP's, leaving the Lords- yes the unelected Lords to throw them out.

 

So can I just clarify - are we saying that ‘populist’ is a negative thing or a positive thing ?

 

It depends on your point of view. Obviously the idea of controlling our borders is popular, but floating impractical ideas just to get immigration back into the political debate is a simple political stunt to take the heat off Boris.

 

It depends on your point of view or depends on how it is spun ?

Here is the definition of populist…..


noun

1. a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
   "he ran as a populist on an anti-corruption platform"
   

adjective

1. relating to or characteristic of a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
   
   
   
   So if no one adds any spin to the word, isn’t it actually exactly what we want the government to do. And that’s any government, Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Monster Raving Loony ?
   
   Put in place policies that a majority of people want. I don’t see the problem with that, unless the word is spun by those that don’t like the literal meaning of course.
   
   

 

As long as the proposals stand up to scrutiny that's fine. But if they don't then that means the motives behind them are cynical, to say the least.

 

Russian brinkmanship?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60048395

Or a new War in Europe?
If it happens, I can't believe tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons won't eventually be used.

 

It’s very worrying, but personally I think it is brinkmanship. I don’t believe Russia will invade. But who knows what would happen if a small engagement occurred between opposing forces almost by accident. There is a risk of unintentional escalation.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60054968

So is it correct then that this man can just cross the commons and become a Labour MP ? Surely the people of Bury South voted for him because of the Tory policies he was advocating ? Whichever way an MP decides to change this seems wrong. Fine, if you no longer support your original party then resign and let the people choose a new MP. It’s wrong that the voters get no say in this, regardless of which political parties are involved.

 

I think Mr Wakeford's constituency should be able to vote on whether to have a by-election.
If the majority of his constituents are OK with him switching parties then no problem.
If a majority vote for a by-election then he should stand down, and fight the by election if he wishes to, for his new party.

With the mood the way it is in in the 'red wall' seats right now, I would not be surprised if a majority of voters backed this defection.
Plenty of red wall voters are saying they'll never vote Tory again.

 

Both right, but it's always the same. Whenever an MP crosses the floor his new party loves it, his old party cries foul.
PMQ's was a disgrace to democracy. ONE question about the cost of living crisis which affects millions, loads about Partygate, most of them similar, with the same predictable non-answer. OK so Boris lies shock horror, as if nobody knew it already.

 

I think most people vote for a party rather than a person - if they get a by election, this guy is unlikely to carry too many previous votes with him.

 

That’s my view as well. Can’t be right to just change it to a Labour seat when the majority of people voted Tory. How is that democracy ?

Would be the same the other way as well.

What’s to stop candidates standing for the opposing party undercover, if they knew their own party couldn’t win, and then just changing sides after a few months ? Or is that a bit James Bondish ?

 

Johnson is now under attack from his own party, including prominent hard-line Brexiteers, with the whips being accused of using public money to blackmail MP's into subservience. Is the Conservative Party following the Republican Party down the rabbit-hole? I really hope not, but as long as Johnson is at the head of government it is not impossible.

 

It’s interesting isn’t it. I think if the Tories decide to remove Boris as their leader and PM I think they will be guaranteeing that they lose the next election and we will have Sir Keir, or God forbid, Angela as PM. Considering how much debt the country is in already that would be a truly scary thought.

So what to do ? Keep Boris and hope the electorate forgive/forget his errors, or at least decide that there are other more important things to cast your vote on or ditch him, lose the election anyway and let Labour sort out the economic mess we are in ?

Its been said before, but the next election may well be a good one to lose.

 

A lot of Tories said that about the 1987 GE, and were proved right, thanks to Neil Kinnock snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

If the Conservatives were to ditch Boris and install Sunak it would be like a rerun of when they ditched Mrs T and installed John Major, which created the impression of a change of government, and enabled them to win the next election. The difference is that the party was fairly united then. The situation now is so febrile and unpredictable though that anything could happen, although a Labour government without support from the LibDems is not a possibility IMO.