Put money down that this MP cannot tell you the precise rationale for why the above should be done. I think the UK should walk away from this nonsense with the EU, but at least I can outline the rationale and the refinements in my thinking (as each iteration of mine got input from people more knowledgeable on stuff such as international trade rules, the thinking of other non-EU nations etc) .
Brexit was put to a vote in a referendum without any thought about what a leave vote would entail and how it would be achieved. That's because Cameron was so confident the majority would vote remain and he could use that to quash EU dissenters in his own party. But it didn't go as planned so (unsurprisingly) over two years later, everybody is still clueless. Speeches about the will of the people and not surrendering make it sound like we're at war with the EU. What a monumental **** up it's proving to be.
No UK political party had any cursory plan before the vote, in the case of a leave result. The reason (apart from arrogance) being that fear of even doing so could send a signal to the electorate that a leave vote may be an option.
Hmmm, can't quite agree with this. Most of his examples are truly shocking and should never have happened. However he ignores online grooming, bullying, sharing of intimate media etc so there must be limits to free speech. The debate is where you draw the line. There has to be a line though in my opinion. The one about Linehan is beyond for me frankly (without knowing the full details, so open to revision).
At some point somebody needs to sit down the Leave voters and explain to them very carefully that their entire campaign was based on the likes of the Daily Wail not respecting the democratic decision made by the British people in 1975 and spending four decades bitching and sniping about it from the sidelines, before David Cameron waved the white flag and caved in to the Mail's demands - and that worked out so well for everyone, didn't it?
"online grooming" 1. Converting the mind of someone to commit a criminal act ?? "bullying" 2. The harassment of someone with the intent of causing them physical/mental harm and/or to make them cause said harm to themselves ?? "sharing of intimate media" 3. The broadcasting by person X of intimate media of person Y, without the explicit consent of Y ?? "etc so there must be limits to free speech. The debate is where you draw the line." I would contend that the line is where criminal law will be broken, or the intent is to incite others to commit a criminal act.
I agree in principle. However you know and I know that there are a lot of grey areas with the law. Equally do we let someone bully someone online until it is tested in law. I would err in the direction of protecting people from "free speech" but I do recognise the dangers of this approach with it being so subjective.
Of course. The law is a system like any other, and evolves in the face of new information or unforeseen scenarios. Speed of change then becomes important, otherwise it cannot keep pace with the rate of new things arising. "Equally do we let someone bully someone online until it is tested in law." Engaging in the act is the primary thing, not the means. The means by which you then engaged can then be considered (bullying etc somebody in person may be deemed to be far more threatening than doing so from the anonymity of Internet land etc) . "I would err in the direction of protecting people from "free speech" " The main thing is that people must clearly know that the what and hows of what you spout under "freedom of expression" may have consequences (defamation of character, breaking the law, inciting others to break the law) . Beyond that, everything is fair game IMHO. Which means society must be tasked to cogently challenge rubbish presented as fact (scientific) , as and when it appears.
In his context I agree with him, although there is a clear division between what you rightly highlight and the vitriolic (and largely anonymous) name calling and low level abuse that proliferates on social media platforms, especially Twitter.
There's one grey area that's ripe for abuse: parliamentary privilege. The long and the short of it is that any MP is able to say whatever they like within Parliament and face no consequences, as evidenced a few months back when Sajid Javid referred to Momentum as a "neo-fascist" in Parliament. Now if he said that one step outside the Houses of Parliament he'd have been slapped with a libel suit by Momentum so fast the only way Javid would ever be seen in public ever again is if somebody crafted a new one out of plasticine, but because he was in the House of Commons at the time he could get away with it like the smirking twat that he is.
Feel so sorry for those people at Mexico Beach.To have to leave your house and come back a few days later to find it and hundreds of others destroyed or...gone!....or a hundred yards away! Perhaps Trump,N.Korea,Russia and Iran might take note.While they are busy stockpiling nuclear weapons,they might look at the pictures from America. It only takes a couple of bombs to cause devestation
But don't worry, they can all draw comfort from knowing the Orange Overlord's been hanging out with his new bestest friend Kanye West while their homes were getting destroyed
So here's something weird that happened: the Six O'Clock News showed a clip of the Dire Leader misidentifying a cup of coffee as a cup of tea, even though the jar of coffee was right in front of her - and seconds later Laura Kuntessberg did the exact same thing The last time I saw something like that happen was in that well-known documentary Brazil, where Michael Palin keeps addressing his wife by a different name because his superior keeps forgetting his wife's name, so he decides it's best that he address his wife by whichever name his superior gives her to show loyalty to The Ministry
So after years of the Orange Overlord mocking her for claiming she had Cherokee heritage, going so far as to pledge a cheque for $1m to the charity of her choice if she could prove it, Warren took a DNA test that proves that she does have Cherokee blood - albeit between six and ten generations back, or to put it another way she's between 1/64th and 1/1024th Cherokee. Guess which one of those numbers the Trumpists have been vomiting all over social media ever since, somehow failing to understand that all they're doing is underlining that their god should be writing a cheque about now? Also, I find it highly amusing that one of the rote-learned quotes of the Trumpists is how all the mockery they received from the "leftards" galvanised the voter base and created the wave that led him to power (although they keep ignoring the small detail about not winning the popular vote, funnily enough...) - yet they somehow seem to not heed their own lessons considering that, after two years of mockery from their orange deity and various Breitbart-led hate campaigns, Warren's emerged as a contender for the Democrat nomination in 2020.
And guess what the Russian bots are spouting on social media: please log in to view this image What a stunning coincidence. The bizarre thing is that they don't seem to have noticed that Trump didn't actually make the $1m bet. He said that it was what he'd do if she were to run or something along those lines. Not that it matters, as he still hasn't produced his incontrovertible evidence that Obama was born in Kenya or paid his bet on that.
Checking dafaqs ... 1. Apparently the ancestry match is on MESO-American DNA. not NORTH American native. Meso-American includes all indigenous/historic peoples of North/Central/South America. 2. This had to be done so because the DNA databases do not contain a statistically significant sample of North American native DNA. 3. Add that to the very large range of probabilities stated above, and that does not look good at all. Compounded with the : - claim that the average white USA denizen of today may have an ancestry upper probability twice that of Warren - Cherokee Association saying they would NOT accept Warren as being of Cherokee lineage based on those probabilities then it looks very embarrassing indeed. If I was Trump, I would pay the million to the Cherokee Association to maximise the political "blood loss" already coming from Warren shooting off her own foot.
#fauxcahontas #pocahonky #liarwatha Even Fox News have got in on the act with #MeSioux I dread to think what the meme melee will be on this one.
