Not The Politics Thread.

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

 

But that's exactly the point - that stuff isn't in alternative media and social media. It's in the mainstream and establishment media.

I meant by those words alternatives to the Mail/Express, so still mainstream. The Guardian will still have opinion pieces. The Mirror will still use emotive language to elicit a response. All they lack is a readership as large as the Sun. Essentially, every leader of a major party in this country gets mocked and criticised by the press, and long may that continue. For Corbyn, the reaction from his supporters was what I saw as being different - there was a determination like never before that they weren’t going to stand for any of it, as though any mockery or criticism needed to be shut down and bemoaned for impropriety. Which is precisely why threads like your linked one exist.

 

But regardless, for me, a lot of this is stuff that refers to something genuine that is either part of Corbyn’s past or was his responsibility at the time. He wasn’t misrepresented to the extent that Milliband was.

 

(Although I did say unpopular opinion.) 

[ealingfox]

8 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I meant by those words alternatives to the Mail/Express, so still mainstream. The Guardian will still have opinion pieces. The Mirror will still use emotive language to elicit a response. All they lack is a readership as large as the Sun. Essentially, every leader of a major party in this country gets mocked and criticised by the press, and long may that continue. For Corbyn, the reaction from his supporters was what I saw as being different - there was a determination like never before that they weren’t going to stand for any of it, as though any mockery or criticism needed to be shut down and bemoaned for impropriety. Which is precisely why threads like your linked one exist.

 

But regardless, for me, a lot of this is stuff that refers to something genuine that is either part of Corbyn’s past or was his responsibility at the time. He wasn’t misrepresented to the extent that Milliband was.

 

(Although I did say unpopular opinion.) 

 

The difference is what they get mocked and criticised for, and it's very much arguable that it was worse for Corbyn than anyone else. You're essentially saying that you don't agree because you think he deserved it - that's fine, there's no point going through it really. If you can find the equivalents of being criticised for wearing a tie, or a coat, or riding a bike for Boris Johnson, I'll gladly consider them. How do those things refer to something genuine?

 

Johnson has been criticised at various points for looking scruffy. Corbyn as you can see got criticised both for looking scruffy and for not looking scruffy. That's the difference.

[RoboFox]

 

It must be so hard. Let's have a quick look at his voting record:

 

"Almost always voted for restricting the scope of legal aid"
"Generally voted against restrictions on fees charged to tenants by letting agents"
"Almost always voted for capping civil service redundancy payments"
"Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits"
"Almost always voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices"

[The Horse's Mouth]

16 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

This is exactly the point that always irks me - “Labour are a bunch of champagne socialists, so I’m gonna vote for the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg, cos you know these public school millionaire landlords on the boards of oil companies and the like are just like me”

Youve got it slightly wrong here, Labours transition into a Tory lite usually means the majority of those voters won't vote anymore

[HighPeakFox]

16 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

This is exactly the point that always irks me - “Labour are a bunch of champagne socialists, so I’m gonna vote for the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg, cos you know these public school millionaire landlords on the boards of oil companies and the like are just like me”

The sad Irony is that a proportion of people who buy this will be voting for JRM and his ilk BECAUSE they actually think 'you know what, I'd be just like that if I were in his position'. 

[urban.spaceman]

41 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

 

It must be so hard. Let's have a quick look at his voting record:

 

"Almost always voted for restricting the scope of legal aid"
"Generally voted against restrictions on fees charged to tenants by letting agents"
"Almost always voted for capping civil service redundancy payments"
"Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits"
"Almost always voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices"

I checked his expenses from last year. £160,000 in 2019/20. Bulk of which is claimed to be for “staffing”. In October 2019 he was so hard up for cash despite his £81,000 salary he charged the taxpayer 56p for stationary. 
 

His wife (in the House of Lords) claimed £7,500 in 2007/08 for 75 overnight stays in London to attend the Lords. £100 a night at the cost of the taxpayer when her husband has a second ****ing home in Westminster. 

These people are ****ing parasites using their position to sneer at and steal from the poor. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

 

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

 

Shockingly early to go for someone who seemed in good health fairly recently (remember him as a minister). 

 

Tragic for his family as I understand he had 3 kids, who will presumably still be relatively young.

[ealingfox]

RIP, very sad indeed and condolences to his friends and family.

[Corky]

6 hours ago, RoboFox said:

 

It must be so hard. Let's have a quick look at his voting record:

 

"Almost always voted for restricting the scope of legal aid"
"Generally voted against restrictions on fees charged to tenants by letting agents"
"Almost always voted for capping civil service redundancy payments"
"Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits"
"Almost always voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices"

Generally speaking, any person who moans about that level of wage is going to be a prat.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

8 hours ago, Dunge said:

I meant by those words alternatives to the Mail/Express, so still mainstream. The Guardian will still have opinion pieces. The Mirror will still use emotive language to elicit a response. All they lack is a readership as large as the Sun. Essentially, every leader of a major party in this country gets mocked and criticised by the press, and long may that continue. For Corbyn, the reaction from his supporters was what I saw as being different - there was a determination like never before that they weren’t going to stand for any of it, as though any mockery or criticism needed to be shut down and bemoaned for impropriety. Which is precisely why threads like your linked one exist.

 

But regardless, for me, a lot of this is stuff that refers to something genuine that is either part of Corbyn’s past or was his responsibility at the time. He wasn’t misrepresented to the extent that Milliband was.

 

(Although I did say unpopular opinion.) 

Corbyn? Wasn't he the guy who lived under a stone? 

[urban.spaceman]

This is a very good idea and definitely won’t get exploited by any sinister people whatsoever and it will definitely, definitely work everywhere in the country. 
 

 

[urban.spaceman]

.

Edited 8 October 2021 by urban.spaceman

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

This is a very good idea and definitely won’t get exploited by any sinister people whatsoever and it will definitely, definitely work everywhere in the country. 
 

 

Yeah having all the women submit their home addresses and consent to geo-tracking will never go wrong.

[blabyboy]

Be interesting to see the reaction if it was reversed and men had to use the app when they went out...

[StanSP]

12 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

This is a very good idea and definitely won’t get exploited by any sinister people whatsoever and it will definitely, definitely work everywhere in the country. 
 

 

Why is it so difficult for people in power to acknowledge that something needs to be done about violence against women by men as opposed to making life for women a bit easier without tracking them or making them feel like they're the victims. It's pathetic and quite disheartening the approach that seems to be taken. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Why is it so difficult for people in power to acknowledge that something needs to be done about violence against women by men as opposed to making life for women a bit easier without tracking them or making them feel like they're the victims. It's pathetic and quite disheartening the approach that seems to be taken. 

Because apparently some blokes are what they are and it's much easier to limit the freedom of women pre-emptively to "protect" them than it is to limit the freedom of those blokes pre-emptively instead.

 

Or you know, put some resources into finding ways to make sure they don't become those blokes in the first place.

[StanSP]

 

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

16 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

That's the gammonest thing I've heard all day

[Dunge]

18 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

Honestly, this pissed me off when I saw it earlier today. Proper descent into the gutter stuff.

Threatening people with their jobs for having an opinion. I generally think the Tories are over-criticised but this is dangerous bollocks.

[when_you're_smiling]

11 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Honestly, this pissed me off when I saw it earlier today. Proper descent into the gutter stuff.

Threatening people with their jobs for having an opinion. I generally think the Tories are over-criticised but this is dangerous bollocks.

It’s fascism. 

[Corky]

Sacking people when you've already got a shortage is really the right way to go.

 

To be honest, I'm sure plenty are looking for a way out anyway.

[I am Rod Hull]

15 hours ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

You need to read what he said in full context, instead of listening to a twitter post. I doubt you`ve bothered to do that though....

 

[StanSP]

5 minutes ago, I am Rod Hull said:

You need to read what he said in full context, instead of listening to a twitter post. I doubt you`ve bothered to do that though....

 

I read what he said. I still think it's a stupid thing to say.

 

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, I am Rod Hull said:

You need to read what he said in full context, instead of listening to a twitter post. I doubt you`ve bothered to do that though....

 

 

Go on, then - I'll bite.

 

Listen to the video and tell us how the context makes a difference.

 

 

A Conservative MP has been criticised for suggesting anyone using the term “white privilege” should be reported to the Home Office as an extremist.

The Independent has obtained a leaked recording in which Jonathan Gullis says anti-racism campaigners using the term should be referred to the government’s Prevent programme – which is meant to track down potential terrorists.

 

Mr Gullis, who made the comments in front of an invited audience of Tory activists at a late-night event last week, was branded “dangerously authoritarian” and urged to withdraw his remarks.

 

During a question time session on the fringes of his party’s conference Mr Gullis, who until recently sat on parliament’s education committee, also said Labour-supporting teachers that criticise the Tories should be sacked.

“The term white privilege – very quickly – is an extremist term, it should be reported to Prevent, because it is an extremist ideology,” he told the activists.

“It’s racist to actually suggest everyone who’s white somehow is riddled with privilege.”

The Home Office’s Prevent programme was set up to counter violent extremism and stop people from sympathising with terrorism – but it has been criticised for restricting freedom of expression and institutionalising anti-Muslim racism.

 

Mr Gullis, who was speaking at an event organised by the Conservative Friends of Education, added: “I hope [using the term white privilege] will be reported, I hope that will be looked into, and any teacher who’s perpetuated it in the classroom ultimately should face a disciplinary hearing at the very least.”

Speaking at the same event, the Stoke MP promised “consequences” for left-wing teachers, telling the audience: “The other way we can stop the cancel culture is by actually saying to the woke left lecturers and the woke left teachers – who seem to becoming more and more apparent – is that ultimately, what’s going to happen if you are going to push your ideology in the classroom, there are going to be consequences for you.”

 

 

He added: “For some reason if a Labour Party member wants to stand up in front of the classroom and say how bad and evil the Tories are, then the headteacher has to take some kind of sympathetic view to that. It’s absolutely disgusting, we need to start sacking people who are pushing their political ideology.”

 

Labour MP Dawn Butler told The Independent: “For a member of parliament and recent member of the Education Select Committee to show such ignorance is as shocking as it is dangerous.

 

“To insist that anyone using the term white privilege should be referred to the counterterrorism Prevent course is not only bizarre, it is dangerously authoritarian and from a dystopian philosophy.

“Jonathan Gullis must withdraw his comments immediately and apologise for his insensitive and frankly offensive remarks.”

White privilege is the idea that a person who is white benefits from inherent advantages in a society where racism exists.

The Independent understands that the concept of white privilege is not considered an indicator of extremism by Home Office officials, and would not be used as a threshold for intervention by the Prevent programme.

Mr Gullis is far from the first Conservative MP to make extreme remarks on the subject of anti-racism.

His MP colleague Tom Hunt previously claimed the Black Lives Matter movement wants to abolish the family, while attorney general Suella Braverman has referenced the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theory.