Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no way we could get that lucky. In any case she's already proved herself to be something that won't flush away - she's already been sacked once for breaking the ministerial code. She paused just long enough to pick up the termination money, then Sunak brought her straight back onboard. Certainly not for her intelligence or governance skills; I'm guessing that she's got enough dirt on Sunak and others in the cabinet that if she goes, she can take the rest of them down with her." Is it just her persona, or is shes manoeuvring to replace sunak? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If she is sacked it will be real shame as she is the only one with sensible policies. These are thwarted at every turn by the wokie leftie blob in her department. Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches." This is what I'm saying. There is an element of the electorate that lap up her hate based rhetoric and distraction tactics. She brings along the voters who might be tempted to defect to the more fringe lunatic parties like Reclaim. The party have to weigh up if her repulsive views will put off more moderate voters than she attract the further to the right elements. Personally, I think she'll stay on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think the party Right might have a quiet word with the PM and she will stay. " If she stays which I doubt she might as well move into Number 10 and Sunak can go back home .. But it's politics and it's the Tory party so given the last 7 years of internal chaos she could well stay but she has to publicly correct her comments in the article.. She has to publicly confirm that our police are free from political interference.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If she is sacked it will be real shame as she is the only one with sensible policies. These are thwarted at every turn by the wokie leftie blob in her department. Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches. This is what I'm saying. There is an element of the electorate that lap up her hate based rhetoric and distraction tactics. She brings along the voters who might be tempted to defect to the more fringe lunatic parties like Reclaim. The party have to weigh up if her repulsive views will put off more moderate voters than she attract the further to the right elements. Personally, I think she'll stay on. " Why are her views hate filled and repulsive? They are sensible and fairly moderate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If she is sacked it will be real shame as she is the only one with sensible policies. These are thwarted at every turn by the wokie leftie blob in her department. Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches. This is what I'm saying. There is an element of the electorate that lap up her hate based rhetoric and distraction tactics. She brings along the voters who might be tempted to defect to the more fringe lunatic parties like Reclaim. The party have to weigh up if her repulsive views will put off more moderate voters than she attract the further to the right elements. Personally, I think she'll stay on. Why are her views hate filled and repulsive? They are sensible and fairly moderate." 
Some good comedy to start the day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If she is sacked it will be real shame as she is the only one with sensible policies. These are thwarted at every turn by the wokie leftie blob in her department. Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches. This is what I'm saying. There is an element of the electorate that lap up her hate based rhetoric and distraction tactics. She brings along the voters who might be tempted to defect to the more fringe lunatic parties like Reclaim. The party have to weigh up if her repulsive views will put off more moderate voters than she attract the further to the right elements. Personally, I think she'll stay on. Why are her views hate filled and repulsive? They are sensible and fairly moderate." thats in your opinion,and mine is she is a repulsive vile peice of shit who is trying and hoping to stir up trouble | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If she is sacked it will be real shame as she is the only one with sensible policies. These are thwarted at every turn by the wokie leftie blob in her department. Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches. This is what I'm saying. There is an element of the electorate that lap up her hate based rhetoric and distraction tactics. She brings along the voters who might be tempted to defect to the more fringe lunatic parties like Reclaim. The party have to weigh up if her repulsive views will put off more moderate voters than she attract the further to the right elements. Personally, I think she'll stay on. Why are her views hate filled and repulsive? They are sensible and fairly moderate." **************************************** Absolutely. (well, to most normally adjusted and decent folk they are.......) Eva. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If she is sacked it will be real shame as she is the only one with sensible policies. These are thwarted at every turn by the wokie leftie blob in her department. Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches. This is what I'm saying. There is an element of the electorate that lap up her hate based rhetoric and distraction tactics. She brings along the voters who might be tempted to defect to the more fringe lunatic parties like Reclaim. The party have to weigh up if her repulsive views will put off more moderate voters than she attract the further to the right elements. Personally, I think she'll stay on. Why are her views hate filled and repulsive? They are sensible and fairly moderate." She was not so long ago asked by a holocaust survivor, to stop using language about migrants that reminded the elderly lady about the Nazi's. https://news.sky.com/story/holocaust-survivor-says-home-secretarys-words-and-actions-are-similar-to-those-of-nazi-germany-12786451 She in true arsonist fashion refused. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You’d think she was desperate to get herself sacked… maybe being a minister is too much for her! Getting herself sacked would increase her bona fides with the right wing of the party But I can’t think of anything more depressing as seeing either sue ellen or kemi as the Tory party leader…. " Sadly, I think that you are right. It does appear to be posturing for the aftermath of the next election. If the Tories were in a stronger electoral position, then I wonder whether she would be speaking outside of the sphere of cabinet collective responsibility. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's good that we have an MP that speaks their mind and isn't bothered what others think. Much better than yes men cosying up to their leaders." This only works if they have good stuff on their mind to speak about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's good that we have an MP that speaks their mind and isn't bothered what others think. Much better than yes men cosying up to their leaders. This only works if they have good stuff on their mind to speak about." And, of course, she has. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's good that we have an MP that speaks their mind and isn't bothered what others think. Much better than yes men cosying up to their leaders. This only works if they have good stuff on their mind to speak about. And, of course, she has."
I can't tell if you're trolling or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's good that we have an MP that speaks their mind and isn't bothered what others think. Much better than yes men cosying up to their leaders." Speaking your mind can be done without fanning the flames and dog-whistling. Genuinely since BoJo (inclusive) I feel that there has been more dog whistling than I can remember. I’m not a conservative voter, but at least we never saw David Cameron or Theresa May openly stoking tensions. If you are in a position of power then surely you should be calming tensions, not increasing them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reshuffle. I struggle to see why people rate her. Not because my views on policy are massively different but because she spends so much time bemoaning shit she owns. But that is on trend I guess. This whole government has been a shit show in actually making policy despite the huge majority. " Where do you put her in a reshuffle… she is out of depth at the home office, and was horrendously inept at justice… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's good that we have an MP that speaks their mind and isn't bothered what others think. Much better than yes men cosying up to their leaders." I agree, I'd much rather know her opinions and am fed up with this cabinet shared responsibility shite. If an MP can't say what they think we're back in monkey in a suit territory | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reshuffle. I struggle to see why people rate her. Not because my views on policy are massively different but because she spends so much time bemoaning shit she owns. But that is on trend I guess. This whole government has been a shit show in actually making policy despite the huge majority. Where do you put her in a reshuffle… she is out of depth at the home office, and was horrendously inept at justice… " Cleaning the bog cos of her gob  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reshuffle. I struggle to see why people rate her. Not because my views on policy are massively different but because she spends so much time bemoaning shit she owns. But that is on trend I guess. This whole government has been a shit show in actually making policy despite the huge majority. Where do you put her in a reshuffle… she is out of depth at the home office, and was horrendously inept at justice… " Are you confusing opposition challenge for her being out of her depth? I’m looking forward to your examples of being out of her depth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches." What? Seriously? From the House of Commons Hansard on the 9th of Nov. A few quotes will suffice: Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the operational independence of the Metropolitan police. Jeff Smith: Does the Minister agree with the Home Secretary that "senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters"? Rachel Hopkins: Words matter, so in the Home Secretary’s absence, can the Minister explain in what way protest marches in the UK relating to Israel and Gaza are “disturbingly reminiscent of Ulster”, and does he agree? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches." "What? Seriously? From the House of Commons Hansard on the 9th of Nov. A few quotes will suffice: Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the operational independence of the Metropolitan police. Jeff Smith: Does the Minister agree with the Home Secretary that "senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters"? Rachel Hopkins: Words matter, so in the Home Secretary’s absence, can the Minister explain in what way protest marches in the UK relating to Israel and Gaza are “disturbingly reminiscent of Ulster”, and does he agree?" How do those questions asked in the House of Commons demonstrate that Suella Braverman's recent Times article was incorrect? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fridays do seem a very popular day for PM's who have "utmost confidence" in their Cabinet Ministers to have a bit of a wobble and sack them. It's now Friday, +3 mins. I'm hedging sometime between 12-2pm." She is still there....it may take a little longer than you envisaged | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If she is sacked it will be real shame as she is the only one with sensible policies. These are thwarted at every turn by the wokie leftie blob in her department. Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches."  
She's only interested in getting the Tory party trashed at the general election, fuck the country and her party. Her solitary goal is to get to be leader, after they have lost. That some awful lot agree with her atrocious hatred, is tragic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fridays do seem a very popular day for PM's who have "utmost confidence" in their Cabinet Ministers to have a bit of a wobble and sack them. It's now Friday, +3 mins. I'm hedging sometime between 12-2pm. She is still there....it may take a little longer than you envisaged "I'm guessing she's still in place in a week. Sunday has little moral backbone, as we saw in the pandemic and giving her back the job, after she was sacked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She’s just playing to a certain element in the Tory party with a view to the leadership of the party after the next election Sunak will be off to Cali as soon as he possibly can after the Tory defeat at the next election, leaving the likes of Badenoch and Braverman to fight it out Never met a culture war that she can’t stoke even further for the sake of headlines and no minority that she can’t throw under the bus The level of discourse spouted out by those elected to represent modern Britain is quite disgusting and highly disturbing given Sunak and Braverman are themselves the children of immigrants Honestly I’m ashamed - we are all not like them at all" No we are not and the fact that we have a public school head boy as PM and head girl as Home Secretary should be a dire warning to us all about the state of our political system. History repeats itself again with more incompetent bullshitters running the country because they want their place in the history books. Perhaps AI will save us? I can imagine that a computer would given the right inputs and parameters run the country a lot more efficiently and effectively than the clowns we have been saddled with for the past 13 years Either that or put the wages up to competitive levels like in Singapore and see if we can attract some competent people into government? Just a thought | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As ex forces I regularly attended trooping the colour. One year during the ceremony a free tommy Robinson protest was allowed down Whitehall right beside were the Queen was being honored. Should the met have banned that? " No, even race hate enthusiasts should be allowed to protest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Question: would she need to be in the cabinet to be in the running for PM?" If a prime minister resigns or is forced out by a vote of no confidence then the cabinet have "first dibs" on putting themselves forward as a new pm. A vote is taken by the party mps and if they can't agree it is offered to all tory party citizen members. If that fails then backbenchers can put themselves forward Short answer yes and sue Ellen is a cabinet member | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If she is sacked it will be real shame as she is the only one with sensible policies. These are thwarted at every turn by the wokie leftie blob in her department. Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches." Lefties in a right wing government. That's some 8 shaped political spectrum lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As ex forces I regularly attended trooping the colour. One year during the ceremony a free tommy Robinson protest was allowed down Whitehall right beside were the Queen was being honored. Should the met have banned that? No, even race hate enthusiasts should be allowed to protest. " Agree 100% even though edl marches etc go against everything I stand for I believe even one has the right to protest. Banning protesting, striking etc is the thin end of the wedge to taking away your freedom. People fought and died for your freedom. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As ex forces I regularly attended trooping the colour. One year during the ceremony a free tommy Robinson protest was allowed down Whitehall right beside were the Queen was being honored. Should the met have banned that? No, even race hate enthusiasts should be allowed to protest. Agree 100% even though edl marches etc go against everything I stand for I believe even one has the right to protest. Banning protesting, striking etc is the thin end of the wedge to taking away your freedom. People fought and died for your freedom." Very strong agree. The freedom to express dissent is vital for a healthy democracy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sky news has an interesting "explainer" on their front page of their site called "Suella Braverman's long list of controversies". Some of the examples of her rabid culture war rhetoric demonising and blaming: Foreigners Indian people Homeless people People to eat tofu and oppose racism Pakistani people Civil servants. She's like a caricature of a far right politician. " Stated that multiculturalism doesn't work. As the daughter of Indian immigrants she seems to have done ok! You couldn't make it up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As ex forces I regularly attended trooping the colour. One year during the ceremony a free tommy Robinson protest was allowed down Whitehall right beside were the Queen was being honored. Should the met have banned that? No, even race hate enthusiasts should be allowed to protest. Agree 100% even though edl marches etc go against everything I stand for I believe even one has the right to protest. Banning protesting, striking etc is the thin end of the wedge to taking away your freedom. People fought and died for your freedom." This..  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Been watching the news all day so far highlights have been Far right protesters kicking down barriers and trying to push past the police that are trying to protect the cenotaph in order to protect the cenotaph???? Tommy Robinson didn't hang around just stirred the pot and disappeared in a taxi. He's still on probation! Police have caught them with knives, coshs and drugs. Well done patriots thank you for your service " thats what stephen yaxley-lennon does, whipsup a bit of trouble then scarppers when it kicks off, put himself across as some big man when in reality he is an immature little boy who surrounds himself with people 3 times the size of him, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Been watching the news all day so far highlights have been Far right protesters kicking down barriers and trying to push past the police that are trying to protect the cenotaph in order to protect the cenotaph???? Tommy Robinson didn't hang around just stirred the pot and disappeared in a taxi. He's still on probation! Police have caught them with knives, coshs and drugs. Well done patriots thank you for your service " People like Tommy never will hang around. They see themselves as some sort of General, inspiring their troops into action but not actually getting dirty themselves. It's quite common, the hate preachers are the same. Happy for a young kid to be a suicide bomber but don't do it themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 " Good job Braverman concentrated everyone's ire on the Palestinian peace march and didn't mention the far right racists and their thugs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 " They should be nicked too.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Let’s hope so. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"300,000 prp-Palestinians on the March. Over 100 counter protesters arrested." 12 Hamas supporters arrested | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. " Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though" This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed" "Your point being? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"150 protestors currently detained on Grosvenor place. Getting spicy out there. Saw the clip where they tried to knife the lad who had the Hamas is ISIS sign. Hope they find him. " I have seen that too, terrible | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"300,000 prp-Palestinians on the March. Over 100 counter protesters arrested. 12 Hamas supporters arrested" What is your point? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"300,000 prp-Palestinians on the March. Over 100 counter protesters arrested. 12 Hamas supporters arrested What is your point?" I'm relaying info. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
Your point being?"You can do this. I have faith in you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"300,000 prp-Palestinians on the March. Over 100 counter protesters arrested. 12 Hamas supporters arrested What is your point? I'm relaying info." Excellent, do you have anything to shed light on the why’s and how’s to the info you are relaying? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
Your point being?
You can do this. I have faith in you. "Are you afraid of saying what you actually think? I rarely read anything other than sarcasm, or tenuous links to possible thoughts. I’m confident you have something of worth to say, and I would love to hear it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
Your point being?
You can do this. I have faith in you.
Are you afraid of saying what you actually think? I rarely read anything other than sarcasm, or tenuous links to possible thoughts.
I’m confident you have something of worth to say, and I would love to hear it "I'll ignore the personal attacks and give you another clue. Top five stories in the Daily Express site right now. From top story. 1. Royal family go out to a thing... 2. Pro-Palestine mob defaces WWI memorial and scales buildings as police lose control 3. Live-event Now 150 pro-Palestine yobs yelling 'f*** pigs' arrested after explosives hurled at police 4. Something about Princess Kate. 5. Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed – watch Then you have to scroll a good bit for the next story about the Marches. It looks like an opinion piece "Braverman was right". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"300,000 prp-Palestinians on the March. Over 100 counter protesters arrested. 12 Hamas supporters arrested What is your point? I'm relaying info. Excellent, do you have anything to shed light on the why’s and how’s to the info you are relaying?" No, I'll let you watch the news. If I were to make a point, and the figure stays at 12, that's 0.004% of pro Palestinian marchers caused trouble. I'd call that a a damn successful march. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"300,000 prp-Palestinians on the March. Over 100 counter protesters arrested. 12 Hamas supporters arrested What is your point? I'm relaying info. Excellent, do you have anything to shed light on the why’s and how’s to the info you are relaying? No, I'll let you watch the news. If I were to make a point, and the figure stays at 12, that's 0.004% of pro Palestinian marchers caused trouble. I'd call that a a damn successful march." Based on your stats I would agree, but the devil is in the detail | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
Your point being?
You can do this. I have faith in you.
Are you afraid of saying what you actually think? I rarely read anything other than sarcasm, or tenuous links to possible thoughts.
I’m confident you have something of worth to say, and I would love to hear it
I'll ignore the personal attacks and give you another clue.
Top five stories in the Daily Express site right now. From top story.
1. Royal family go out to a thing...
2. Pro-Palestine mob defaces WWI memorial and scales buildings as police lose control
3. Live-event
Now 150 pro-Palestine yobs yelling 'f*** pigs' arrested after explosives hurled at police
4. Something about Princess Kate.
5. Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed – watch
Then you have to scroll a good bit for the next story about the Marches. It looks like an opinion piece "Braverman was right".
"Hold Ona second, you were quoting a lot more outlets and now decide to focus on 1? Tell me which of the stories they are promoting on their front page / top links is untrue and why? The view point might not be yours, but is the story correct or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
Your point being?
You can do this. I have faith in you.
Are you afraid of saying what you actually think? I rarely read anything other than sarcasm, or tenuous links to possible thoughts.
I’m confident you have something of worth to say, and I would love to hear it
I'll ignore the personal attacks and give you another clue.
Top five stories in the Daily Express site right now. From top story.
1. Royal family go out to a thing...
2. Pro-Palestine mob defaces WWI memorial and scales buildings as police lose control
3. Live-event
Now 150 pro-Palestine yobs yelling 'f*** pigs' arrested after explosives hurled at police
4. Something about Princess Kate.
5. Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed – watch
Then you have to scroll a good bit for the next story about the Marches. It looks like an opinion piece "Braverman was right".
Hold Ona second, you were quoting a lot more outlets and now decide to focus on 1?
"Correct. It's an example. " Tell me which of the stories they are promoting on their front page / top links is untrue and why? " I didn't say and of them are "untrue". Where did you get that from? " The view point might not be yours, but is the story correct or not?" The "view point" might not be in line with reality. Has absolutely nothing to do with me. I'll give you a question to ponder that might help. Someone who reads the Daily Express, do you think they either: A. Have a full and balanced view of the events of the day. Or B. Have an biased and one sided view and haven't even been presented with the main elements that caused trouble today? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
Your point being?
You can do this. I have faith in you.
Are you afraid of saying what you actually think? I rarely read anything other than sarcasm, or tenuous links to possible thoughts.
I’m confident you have something of worth to say, and I would love to hear it
I'll ignore the personal attacks and give you another clue.
Top five stories in the Daily Express site right now. From top story.
1. Royal family go out to a thing...
2. Pro-Palestine mob defaces WWI memorial and scales buildings as police lose control
3. Live-event
Now 150 pro-Palestine yobs yelling 'f*** pigs' arrested after explosives hurled at police
4. Something about Princess Kate.
5. Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed – watch
Then you have to scroll a good bit for the next story about the Marches. It looks like an opinion piece "Braverman was right".
Hold Ona second, you were quoting a lot more outlets and now decide to focus on 1?
Correct. It's an example.
Tell me which of the stories they are promoting on their front page / top links is untrue and why?
I didn't say and of them are "untrue". Where did you get that from?
The view point might not be yours, but is the story correct or not?
The "view point" might not be in line with reality. Has absolutely nothing to do with me.
I'll give you a question to ponder that might help.
Someone who reads the Daily Express, do you think they either:
A. Have a full and balanced view of the events of the day.
Or
B. Have an biased and one sided view and haven't even been presented with the main elements that caused trouble today?
"I don’t know how every individual will respond to the outlet they choose as their source of news. I respect that people have differing views, such as you. You are the polar opposite to me in thinking, I will not dismiss your views, or consider them a personal attack if not aligned to me. I do however want a reasonable debate with information and consideration from a view point, it is that dialogue that brings things closer, not further apart | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
Your point being?
You can do this. I have faith in you.
Are you afraid of saying what you actually think? I rarely read anything other than sarcasm, or tenuous links to possible thoughts.
I’m confident you have something of worth to say, and I would love to hear it
I'll ignore the personal attacks and give you another clue.
Top five stories in the Daily Express site right now. From top story.
1. Royal family go out to a thing...
2. Pro-Palestine mob defaces WWI memorial and scales buildings as police lose control
3. Live-event
Now 150 pro-Palestine yobs yelling 'f*** pigs' arrested after explosives hurled at police
4. Something about Princess Kate.
5. Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed – watch
Then you have to scroll a good bit for the next story about the Marches. It looks like an opinion piece "Braverman was right".
Hold Ona second, you were quoting a lot more outlets and now decide to focus on 1?
Correct. It's an example.
Tell me which of the stories they are promoting on their front page / top links is untrue and why?
I didn't say and of them are "untrue". Where did you get that from?
The view point might not be yours, but is the story correct or not?
The "view point" might not be in line with reality. Has absolutely nothing to do with me.
I'll give you a question to ponder that might help.
Someone who reads the Daily Express, do you think they either:
A. Have a full and balanced view of the events of the day.
Or
B. Have an biased and one sided view and haven't even been presented with the main elements that caused trouble today?
"I get where you are coming from. Just seen a tweet from Channel 4 saying the only scuffles today were from the far right. Yet that was patently untrue it’s kicking off again as we speak as they are fighting among themselves. No matter what side of the spectrum you side with there is always bias. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
Your point being?
You can do this. I have faith in you.
Are you afraid of saying what you actually think? I rarely read anything other than sarcasm, or tenuous links to possible thoughts.
I’m confident you have something of worth to say, and I would love to hear it
I'll ignore the personal attacks and give you another clue.
Top five stories in the Daily Express site right now. From top story.
1. Royal family go out to a thing...
2. Pro-Palestine mob defaces WWI memorial and scales buildings as police lose control
3. Live-event
Now 150 pro-Palestine yobs yelling 'f*** pigs' arrested after explosives hurled at police
4. Something about Princess Kate.
5. Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed – watch
Then you have to scroll a good bit for the next story about the Marches. It looks like an opinion piece "Braverman was right".
Hold Ona second, you were quoting a lot more outlets and now decide to focus on 1?
Correct. It's an example.
Tell me which of the stories they are promoting on their front page / top links is untrue and why?
I didn't say and of them are "untrue". Where did you get that from?
The view point might not be yours, but is the story correct or not?
The "view point" might not be in line with reality. Has absolutely nothing to do with me.
I'll give you a question to ponder that might help.
Someone who reads the Daily Express, do you think they either:
A. Have a full and balanced view of the events of the day.
Or
B. Have an biased and one sided view and haven't even been presented with the main elements that caused trouble today?
I don’t know how every individual will respond to the outlet they choose as their source of news.
I respect that people have differing views, such as you. You are the polar opposite to me in thinking, I will not dismiss your views, or consider them a personal attack if not aligned to me.
I do however want a reasonable debate with information and consideration from a view point, it is that dialogue that brings things closer, not further apart "If your opinion is that someone who gets their news from the Daily Express today is getting anything except biased perspective, then where is there room for reasonable debate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed" "These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be"Do you see the difference in how they are reported? Or as I showed, what's being reported in the Daily Express? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be
Do you see the difference in how they are reported?
Or as I showed, what's being reported in the Daily Express?"Up until now I had only seen the BBC which reported the trouble makers on both sides which is reasonable in my opinion. Since your mentioned the likes of the express I took a look and decided to read the article instead of just the headline. Again the trouble makers of both sides were reported. They describe the counter protesters as extremist right wing thugs intent on violence. After describing the actions of these people it then goes on to describe the actions of some from the main protest group. So both sides being condemned for the actions. Personally I think that is correct way to report. I would not be in favour of only reporting the crimes of one side and hushing up the crimes of the other side | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be
Do you see the difference in how they are reported?
Or as I showed, what's being reported in the Daily Express?
Up until now I had only seen the BBC which reported the trouble makers on both sides which is reasonable in my opinion. Since your mentioned the likes of the express I took a look and decided to read the article instead of just the headline. Again the trouble makers of both sides were reported. They describe the counter protesters as extremist right wing thugs intent on violence. After describing the actions of these people it then goes on to describe the actions of some from the main protest group. So both sides being condemned for the actions. Personally I think that is correct way to report. I would not be in favour of only reporting the crimes of one side and hushing up the crimes of the other side"How deep did you have to dig in th Daily Express to find that? I couldn't see anything anywhere. The bias of that news site is ridiculously comical. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How do those questions asked in the House of Commons demonstrate that Suella Braverman's recent Times article was incorrect?" Because the Minister present, Chris Philp, was not able to answer the questions convincingly, it seems to me. For example, the reply to the question on "playing favourites" was, "It is up to the police to apply the law. It is important that the police apply the law even-handedly, and that is what I am sure all Members of the House want them to do". Hm. That's not exactly saying, "I entirely agree with the Home Secretary". It seems to me more like a half-hearted avoid-the-question sort of answer that amounts to a mumbled "er, not really, no". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be
Do you see the difference in how they are reported?
Or as I showed, what's being reported in the Daily Express?
Up until now I had only seen the BBC which reported the trouble makers on both sides which is reasonable in my opinion. Since your mentioned the likes of the express I took a look and decided to read the article instead of just the headline. Again the trouble makers of both sides were reported. They describe the counter protesters as extremist right wing thugs intent on violence. After describing the actions of these people it then goes on to describe the actions of some from the main protest group. So both sides being condemned for the actions. Personally I think that is correct way to report. I would not be in favour of only reporting the crimes of one side and hushing up the crimes of the other side
How deep did you have to dig in th Daily Express to find that? I couldn't see anything anywhere.
The bias of that news site is ridiculously comical."You are highlighting my point I made further up.... Why not do some further reading, it is easy to find on the Express site. Informed contribution helps all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be
Do you see the difference in how they are reported?
Or as I showed, what's being reported in the Daily Express?
Up until now I had only seen the BBC which reported the trouble makers on both sides which is reasonable in my opinion. Since your mentioned the likes of the express I took a look and decided to read the article instead of just the headline. Again the trouble makers of both sides were reported. They describe the counter protesters as extremist right wing thugs intent on violence. After describing the actions of these people it then goes on to describe the actions of some from the main protest group. So both sides being condemned for the actions. Personally I think that is correct way to report. I would not be in favour of only reporting the crimes of one side and hushing up the crimes of the other side
How deep did you have to dig in th Daily Express to find that? I couldn't see anything anywhere.
The bias of that news site is ridiculously comical."It's their headline article so no digging required. It is literally the first article. The title had the word extremist in it which is now changed to thugs but the article itself is unchanged. As I say a lot of the article is lambasting the far right extremists thugs (their words) for their actions. Only later on in the article is there mention of the trouble from those to do with the main march. So they have reported both sides and actually focused more on what they describe as EDL extremist thugs. Not sure what the problem is with that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Her article in the Times was correct, as were all her recent speeches."" "What? Seriously? From the House of Commons Hansard on the 9th of Nov. A few quotes will suffice: Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the operational independence of the Metropolitan police. Jeff Smith: Does the Minister agree with the Home Secretary that "senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters"? Rachel Hopkins: Words matter, so in the Home Secretary’s absence, can the Minister explain in what way protest marches in the UK relating to Israel and Gaza are “disturbingly reminiscent of Ulster”, and does he agree?" "How do those questions asked in the House of Commons demonstrate that Suella Braverman's recent Times article was incorrect?" "Because the Minister present, Chris Philp, was not able to answer the questions convincingly, it seems to me. For example, the reply to the question on "playing favourites" was, "It is up to the police to apply the law. It is important that the police apply the law even-handedly, and that is what I am sure all Members of the House want them to do". Hm. That's not exactly saying, "I entirely agree with the Home Secretary". It seems to me more like a half-hearted avoid-the-question sort of answer that amounts to a mumbled "er, not really, no"." Oh, so those few quotes didn't suffice then. Even if I'd gone to Hansard and read the full debate, all I would have got is Chris Philp not positively agreeing with Suella Braverman. That's scarcely proof that her article in the Times was incorrect. Was anything else said in the House that 'proves' her article was incorrect? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be
Do you see the difference in how they are reported?
Or as I showed, what's being reported in the Daily Express?
Up until now I had only seen the BBC which reported the trouble makers on both sides which is reasonable in my opinion. Since your mentioned the likes of the express I took a look and decided to read the article instead of just the headline. Again the trouble makers of both sides were reported. They describe the counter protesters as extremist right wing thugs intent on violence. After describing the actions of these people it then goes on to describe the actions of some from the main protest group. So both sides being condemned for the actions. Personally I think that is correct way to report. I would not be in favour of only reporting the crimes of one side and hushing up the crimes of the other side
How deep did you have to dig in th Daily Express to find that? I couldn't see anything anywhere.
The bias of that news site is ridiculously comical.
You are highlighting my point I made further up.... Why not do some further reading, it is easy to find on the Express site.
Informed contribution helps all."I think we've reached a satisfactory conclusion. You think the Daily Express has a balanced view. 'nuff said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Looked like the Jewish community were targeted in North London again as well.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of racist and anti semites being outed by Twitter this morning following the peace March yesterday and the Mets subsequent please to ID them.
Looked like the Jewish community were targeted in North London again as well. "Twitter are outing haters? Which is good if course but they've just given two if the most vocal haters in this country their access back.. I is puzzled.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of racist and anti semites being outed by Twitter this morning following the peace March yesterday and the Mets subsequent please to ID them.
Looked like the Jewish community were targeted in North London again as well.
Twitter are outing haters?
Which is good if course but they've just given two if the most vocal haters in this country their access back..
I is puzzled.."Well not the Twitter command so to speak the wider audience are doing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of racist and anti semites being outed by Twitter this morning following the peace March yesterday and the Mets subsequent please to ID them.
Looked like the Jewish community were targeted in North London again as well.
Twitter are outing haters?
Which is good if course but they've just given two if the most vocal haters in this country their access back..
I is puzzled..
Well not the Twitter command so to speak the wider audience are doing it. "Isn't that all Twitter is these days since Musk took over and unbanned all the bigots? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of racist and anti semites being outed by Twitter this morning following the peace March yesterday and the Mets subsequent please to ID them.
Looked like the Jewish community were targeted in North London again as well.
Twitter are outing haters?
Which is good if course but they've just given two if the most vocal haters in this country their access back..
I is puzzled..
Well not the Twitter command so to speak the wider audience are doing it. "Ah got it thanks.. Good to hear that.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of racist and anti semites being outed by Twitter this morning following the peace March yesterday and the Mets subsequent please to ID them.
Looked like the Jewish community were targeted in North London again as well.
Twitter are outing haters?
Which is good if course but they've just given two if the most vocal haters in this country their access back..
I is puzzled..
Well not the Twitter command so to speak the wider audience are doing it.
Isn't that all Twitter is these days since Musk took over and unbanned all the bigots?"Nope. Don’t always look on the downside my friend. There are plenty of good people as you can see by the racists and anti semites being identified. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be
Do you see the difference in how they are reported?
Or as I showed, what's being reported in the Daily Express?
Up until now I had only seen the BBC which reported the trouble makers on both sides which is reasonable in my opinion. Since your mentioned the likes of the express I took a look and decided to read the article instead of just the headline. Again the trouble makers of both sides were reported. They describe the counter protesters as extremist right wing thugs intent on violence. After describing the actions of these people it then goes on to describe the actions of some from the main protest group. So both sides being condemned for the actions. Personally I think that is correct way to report. I would not be in favour of only reporting the crimes of one side and hushing up the crimes of the other side
How deep did you have to dig in th Daily Express to find that? I couldn't see anything anywhere.
The bias of that news site is ridiculously comical.
You are highlighting my point I made further up.... Why not do some further reading, it is easy to find on the Express site.
Informed contribution helps all.
I think we've reached a satisfactory conclusion.
You think the Daily Express has a balanced view. 'nuff said. "I believe you mentioned the express when attempting to show how biased the reporting was. I took a look and see that their headline article was lambasting what they describe as far right extremists, intent on violence. Far less was said about those from the main march that caused trouble. You then asked how far I had to dig to find the article. I replied (a few posts above) that no digging required as it was front page, first article. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be
Do you see the difference in how they are reported?
Or as I showed, what's being reported in the Daily Express?
Up until now I had only seen the BBC which reported the trouble makers on both sides which is reasonable in my opinion. Since your mentioned the likes of the express I took a look and decided to read the article instead of just the headline. Again the trouble makers of both sides were reported. They describe the counter protesters as extremist right wing thugs intent on violence. After describing the actions of these people it then goes on to describe the actions of some from the main protest group. So both sides being condemned for the actions. Personally I think that is correct way to report. I would not be in favour of only reporting the crimes of one side and hushing up the crimes of the other side
How deep did you have to dig in th Daily Express to find that? I couldn't see anything anywhere.
The bias of that news site is ridiculously comical.
You are highlighting my point I made further up.... Why not do some further reading, it is easy to find on the Express site.
Informed contribution helps all.
I think we've reached a satisfactory conclusion.
You think the Daily Express has a balanced view. 'nuff said.
I believe you mentioned the express when attempting to show how biased the reporting was. I took a look and see that their headline article was lambasting what they describe as far right extremists, intent on violence. Far less was said about those from the main march that caused trouble. You then asked how far I had to dig to find the article. I replied (a few posts above) that no digging required as it was front page, first article. "We saw different things. I showed the top five articles at the time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of racist and anti semites being outed by Twitter this morning following the peace March yesterday and the Mets subsequent please to ID them.
Looked like the Jewish community were targeted in North London again as well.
Twitter are outing haters?
Which is good if course but they've just given two if the most vocal haters in this country their access back..
I is puzzled..
Well not the Twitter command so to speak the wider audience are doing it.
Isn't that all Twitter is these days since Musk took over and unbanned all the bigots?
Nope.
Don’t always look on the downside my friend. There are plenty of good people as you can see by the racists and anti semites being identified. "
I don't use it, so I was just going off what I've heard. Which was clearly inaccurate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of racist and anti semites being outed by Twitter this morning following the peace March yesterday and the Mets subsequent please to ID them.
Looked like the Jewish community were targeted in North London again as well. "bbc are reporting three ppl. Can you share any links to where it is more? (I'm surprised only 3 as this seems to not included the alleged stabbing which one would have thought would have made more news) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of racist and anti semites being outed by Twitter this morning following the peace March yesterday and the Mets subsequent please to ID them.
Looked like the Jewish community were targeted in North London again as well. bbc are reporting three ppl. Can you share any links to where it is more?
(I'm surprised only 3 as this seems to not included the alleged stabbing which one would have thought would have made more news)"Not sure I can share the link from X? Either way if you look on the Met account you will see who they are looking for. Guess over the coming days when they look at bidycam and CCTV more are coming | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of racist and anti semites being outed by Twitter this morning following the peace March yesterday and the Mets subsequent please to ID them.
Looked like the Jewish community were targeted in North London again as well. bbc are reporting three ppl. Can you share any links to where it is more?
(I'm surprised only 3 as this seems to not included the alleged stabbing which one would have thought would have made more news)
Not sure I can share the link from X?
Either way if you look on the Met account you will see who they are looking for.
Guess over the coming days when they look at bidycam and CCTV more are coming " looks like it's up to 5 now. Although BBC mentioned something about a placard with a star of David, and that's not there.
Still no mention of the stabbing. Do you know what's happened with that ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be"************************************* Because certain people on here don't seem to accept the facts concerning many subjects and, consequently, find the slightest excuse(s) to rebuke these proven facts, thereby exhibiting their own seemingly extreme bias. Which, (political bias) is the subject of their own accusation. They generally have nothing else to offer, after being shown the facts by many other contributors (and at great length, I may add) finally turning to short, stabbing rebukes, usually containing accusations of being personally 'insulted'. Some time back on this forum were two such characters, both whom who were almost impossible to engage in any reasonable debate without them resorting to these ridiculous and often supercilious 'tactics'. After some time, both went 'UNLOS', I often wonder, (reading here more than I can contribute due to my career), if any have rejoined and carried on with their games. I do see similarities every so often between these past members and certain current posters............! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(attempted stabbing) " Seen they are looking to ID him that’s it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(attempted stabbing) Seen they are looking to ID him that’s it. " is he one of the pics on their twitter thread? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC now reporting pro Hamas flags and slogans on display but police are struggling to identify the culprits and not acting as of yet. The counter protest arrests are currently over 80 They should be nicked too.. Not sure if any were though but missed the last couple of hours so that may have changed. I read that Michael Gove was confronted at a train station and had to be taken away by the police, still not sure if anyone there was arrested. Seems most of the counter protesters were in a pub and some were armed. Not sure if all those arrested were for that reason though This is an excellent example of how the media works. Independent "‘Shame on you!’: Pro-Palestine protesters surround Michael Gove in Victoria Station" Telegraph - "Michael Gove bundled out of Victoria station after being mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters". Dail Outrage - "Michael Gove is mobbed by pro-Palestine supporters chanting 'shame on you' as he walks through London Victoria station" Daily Express "Michael Gove is violently mobbed by protesters in ugly scenes with police crushed"
These things do seem to be / have happened so what's the concern with it being reported. The counter protesters being arrested has been widely reported now these events are being reported so don't personally see a reason why they should not be
Do you see the difference in how they are reported?
Or as I showed, what's being reported in the Daily Express?
Up until now I had only seen the BBC which reported the trouble makers on both sides which is reasonable in my opinion. Since your mentioned the likes of the express I took a look and decided to read the article instead of just the headline. Again the trouble makers of both sides were reported. They describe the counter protesters as extremist right wing thugs intent on violence. After describing the actions of these people it then goes on to describe the actions of some from the main protest group. So both sides being condemned for the actions. Personally I think that is correct way to report. I would not be in favour of only reporting the crimes of one side and hushing up the crimes of the other side
How deep did you have to dig in th Daily Express to find that? I couldn't see anything anywhere.
The bias of that news site is ridiculously comical.
You are highlighting my point I made further up.... Why not do some further reading, it is easy to find on the Express site.
Informed contribution helps all.
I think we've reached a satisfactory conclusion.
You think the Daily Express has a balanced view. 'nuff said.
I believe you mentioned the express when attempting to show how biased the reporting was. I took a look and see that their headline article was lambasting what they describe as far right extremists, intent on violence. Far less was said about those from the main march that caused trouble. You then asked how far I had to dig to find the article. I replied (a few posts above) that no digging required as it was front page, first article.
We saw different things. I showed the top five articles at the time."Did you read the articles? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer." That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke" I hope this is the case. However I couldn't tell you how she is trying to do it. That's the issue with policy via twitter, articles and press statements. I'm hoping there is detail somewhere.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke" What facts are those ? 2.4 million council houses and flats sold on right to buy and not replaced Significant reductions in grants to social housing landlords 169% increase in homelessness since 2010 New home targets removed from local authorities under this government Local housing allowance frozen in the face of rising rents 100,000 families illegally housed long term in hotels/Bb (42 nights is legal timescale) - a 95% increase since 2011 Increased taxes on landlords which has resulted in 38% increase in section 21 evictions Localism act to used to remove 137,000 from LA housing waiting lists 50% increase in LA waiting lists from 1.1M in 2010, to currently 1.6M | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke" Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent? 
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents."boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was anything else said in the House that 'proves' her article was incorrect?" No, it seems hard to find proof when it's subjective. But does the Minister's lack of enthusiasm tell a story? What would Braverman like the police to do? Should the chief say, "We must admit the Home Secretary is right. We have been far too gentle on 'left wing protesters' despite evidence that there was little reason to fear damage to property or risk to life in those cases"? What is a left wing protest, anyway? Junior doctors or criminal barristers who say they're underpaid? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left."What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation? Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?"Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
"and therein is the big issue. Addiction is fucking horrible. And in many cases the underlying reason why someone has turned to these chemicals is even worse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
"You'd make a "good" politician - you've avoided all three questions
Even so I'm going to respond to your theory of who make up a portion of the homeless - why do you think these people are drug or alcohol addicts? Could it be a strategy to ease their mental suffering, making it a mental health issue? There will be research re men turning to substance abuse while women turn to therapy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
You'd make a "good" politician - you've avoided all three questions
Even so I'm going to respond to your theory of who make up a portion of the homeless - why do you think these people are drug or alcohol addicts? Could it be a strategy to ease their mental suffering, making it a mental health issue? There will be research re men turning to substance abuse while women turn to therapy."Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments. She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, she doesn’t want drug users creating tent villages inside our towns and cities, that are their by their own choice. IE have refused help. If they have not been offered help, that is a different problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
and therein is the big issue. Addiction is fucking horrible. And in many cases the underlying reason why someone has turned to these chemicals is even worse. "I agree and living in a tent in a hostile environment, the streets, is no place for them to be when they are off their heads or not. And let’s be honest, people don’t want to be confronted or have to live next to a make shift drug den, people under the influence of drugs in front of families, no | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
You'd make a "good" politician - you've avoided all three questions
Even so I'm going to respond to your theory of who make up a portion of the homeless - why do you think these people are drug or alcohol addicts? Could it be a strategy to ease their mental suffering, making it a mental health issue? There will be research re men turning to substance abuse while women turn to therapy.
Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments.
She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, she doesn’t want drug users creating tent villages inside our towns and cities, that are their by their own choice. IE have refused help. If they have not been offered help, that is a different problem."She wants no tents to the exTENT of willing to fine providers.
Just because you think some people have been offered help and refused doesn't make it so. "Here's a bed but you can only use it if you stop with the substance abuse... We're not going to help you with your addiction that's your problem", hmmmmm. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them. " Alcoholism and drug use are coping mechanisms that some people use, self medication it's called and it's pretty common place especially those with underlying mental health issues.. The high amount of ex service personnel who choose that route is well known and accepted over decades of those treating them and with PTSD being one of the main causes.. Not saying that it's right that people do use such things to cope but behind every statistic or easy target by some politician who hasn't got the foggiest and just wants an easy cliché to use to deflect from their own failings is a person.. Some of whom ended up in that position after serving this country.. Just a thought and not just on days such as today..  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them. Alcoholism and drug use are coping mechanisms that some people use, self medication it's called and it's pretty common place especially those with underlying mental health issues.. The high amount of ex service personnel who choose that route is well known and accepted over decades of those treating them and with PTSD being one of the main causes.. Not saying that it's right that people do use such things to cope but behind every statistic or easy target by some politician who hasn't got the foggiest and just wants an easy cliché to use to deflect from their own failings is a person.. Some of whom ended up in that position after serving this country.. Just a thought and not just on days such as today.. "Accepting help, recognising they help is the first step isn’t it? Building villages of tents to form a community is not the answer. This reminds me of the Big Issue, giving purpose finding life again by selling and talking control. It needs to start somewhere, doing nothing is in my books not an option I’m not saying it is easy, or we wouldn’t have addiction | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
You'd make a "good" politician - you've avoided all three questions
Even so I'm going to respond to your theory of who make up a portion of the homeless - why do you think these people are drug or alcohol addicts? Could it be a strategy to ease their mental suffering, making it a mental health issue? There will be research re men turning to substance abuse while women turn to therapy.
Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments.
She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, she doesn’t want drug users creating tent villages inside our towns and cities, that are their by their own choice. IE have refused help. If they have not been offered help, that is a different problem.
She wants no tents to the exTENT of willing to fine providers.
Just because you think some people have been offered help and refused doesn't make it so. "Here's a bed but you can only use it if you stop with the substance abuse... We're not going to help you with your addiction that's your problem", hmmmmm."I think you would be surprised at the toughness needed to be a charity. Giving people the things they need to continue doing the things that are killing them, is helping them get their quicker, was what I was told. Cruel to be kind, but I take onboard that is not a one size fits all fix. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
You'd make a "good" politician - you've avoided all three questions
Even so I'm going to respond to your theory of who make up a portion of the homeless - why do you think these people are drug or alcohol addicts? Could it be a strategy to ease their mental suffering, making it a mental health issue? There will be research re men turning to substance abuse while women turn to therapy.
Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments.
She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, she doesn’t want drug users creating tent villages inside our towns and cities, that are their by their own choice. IE have refused help. If they have not been offered help, that is a different problem.
She wants no tents to the exTENT of willing to fine providers.
Just because you think some people have been offered help and refused doesn't make it so. "Here's a bed but you can only use it if you stop with the substance abuse... We're not going to help you with your addiction that's your problem", hmmmmm.
I think you would be surprised at the toughness needed to be a charity.
Giving people the things they need to continue doing the things that are killing them, is helping them get their quicker, was what I was told.
Cruel to be kind, but I take onboard that is not a one size fits all fix."who told you that and what credentials did they have? Did they have any views on the sorting out the underlying issues ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
You'd make a "good" politician - you've avoided all three questions
Even so I'm going to respond to your theory of who make up a portion of the homeless - why do you think these people are drug or alcohol addicts? Could it be a strategy to ease their mental suffering, making it a mental health issue? There will be research re men turning to substance abuse while women turn to therapy.
Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments.
She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, she doesn’t want drug users creating tent villages inside our towns and cities, that are their by their own choice. IE have refused help. If they have not been offered help, that is a different problem.
She wants no tents to the exTENT of willing to fine providers.
Just because you think some people have been offered help and refused doesn't make it so. "Here's a bed but you can only use it if you stop with the substance abuse... We're not going to help you with your addiction that's your problem", hmmmmm.
I think you would be surprised at the toughness needed to be a charity.
Giving people the things they need to continue doing the things that are killing them, is helping them get their quicker, was what I was told.
Cruel to be kind, but I take onboard that is not a one size fits all fix.who told you that and what credentials did they have? Did they have any views on the sorting out the underlying issues ?"Have a google, call a couple of charities that are providing shelter, let me know what you find out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
You'd make a "good" politician - you've avoided all three questions
Even so I'm going to respond to your theory of who make up a portion of the homeless - why do you think these people are drug or alcohol addicts? Could it be a strategy to ease their mental suffering, making it a mental health issue? There will be research re men turning to substance abuse while women turn to therapy.
Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments.
She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, she doesn’t want drug users creating tent villages inside our towns and cities, that are their by their own choice. IE have refused help. If they have not been offered help, that is a different problem.
She wants no tents to the exTENT of willing to fine providers.
Just because you think some people have been offered help and refused doesn't make it so. "Here's a bed but you can only use it if you stop with the substance abuse... We're not going to help you with your addiction that's your problem", hmmmmm.
I think you would be surprised at the toughness needed to be a charity.
Giving people the things they need to continue doing the things that are killing them, is helping them get their quicker, was what I was told.
Cruel to be kind, but I take onboard that is not a one size fits all fix.who told you that and what credentials did they have? Did they have any views on the sorting out the underlying issues ?
Have a google, call a couple of charities that are providing shelter, let me know what you find out.
"are you saying charities told you this ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
You'd make a "good" politician - you've avoided all three questions
Even so I'm going to respond to your theory of who make up a portion of the homeless - why do you think these people are drug or alcohol addicts? Could it be a strategy to ease their mental suffering, making it a mental health issue? There will be research re men turning to substance abuse while women turn to therapy.
Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments.
She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, she doesn’t want drug users creating tent villages inside our towns and cities, that are their by their own choice. IE have refused help. If they have not been offered help, that is a different problem.
She wants no tents to the exTENT of willing to fine providers.
Just because you think some people have been offered help and refused doesn't make it so. "Here's a bed but you can only use it if you stop with the substance abuse... We're not going to help you with your addiction that's your problem", hmmmmm.
I think you would be surprised at the toughness needed to be a charity.
Giving people the things they need to continue doing the things that are killing them, is helping them get their quicker, was what I was told.
Cruel to be kind, but I take onboard that is not a one size fits all fix.who told you that and what credentials did they have? Did they have any views on the sorting out the underlying issues ?
Have a google, call a couple of charities that are providing shelter, let me know what you find out.
are you saying charities told you this ?
"Yes. I’m not sure why you are struggling with this? If I go out and feed a person in a tent, that same person who has been offered shelter, food and medical assistance, why would they take the route that applies conditions? It is far easier to take from strangers and continue doing what they want to do. This is complex, often people supply and support those that need professional help, but as long as people continue to support them they have no reason to take professional help and maybe turn their lives around. Charity is more than donations to a charity or an individual | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With regards to the gob that is SB, there is an amusing take on The Last Leg. For example, having her own TV show: Homeless under the Hammer. That would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that she is trying to get the homeless, in homes and out of tents. But let’s not get facts in the way of a joke Is your point that humour shouldn't be used against SB? Is your point about her intent? Or out of tent?
Is your point about the words? If so you're wrong. Her words were about actions getting people out of tents, IE preventing charities donating tents.
boom boom
Her words and her intent is people should not be living in tents and if we can get them out of them we should. Unfortunately there are people who are living on the streets of our towns an cities through their own choice and that should not be allowed to happen, we can see the slums and no go areas created in San Francisco an LA, driven by drugs and alcohol abuse.
She wants charities to stop providing tents to encourage people to take the help being offered.
This is a long way off the headlines and the poor journalism that is being traded off for stoking up the left.
What is the percentage of homeless people who have made homelessness a lifestyle choice? What percentage of these have made that choice willingly, IE without mental health factors and without having become "institutionalised" into that way of living would not be able to cope in an alternative situation?
Finally, do you believe everything that comes out of a Tory's mouth to have good intentions?
Drug addicts and alcoholics mainly, and they refuse help because they need to be clean to go into most places that will house them.
You'd make a "good" politician - you've avoided all three questions
Even so I'm going to respond to your theory of who make up a portion of the homeless - why do you think these people are drug or alcohol addicts? Could it be a strategy to ease their mental suffering, making it a mental health issue? There will be research re men turning to substance abuse while women turn to therapy.
Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments.
She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, she doesn’t want drug users creating tent villages inside our towns and cities, that are their by their own choice. IE have refused help. If they have not been offered help, that is a different problem.
She wants no tents to the exTENT of willing to fine providers.
Just because you think some people have been offered help and refused doesn't make it so. "Here's a bed but you can only use it if you stop with the substance abuse... We're not going to help you with your addiction that's your problem", hmmmmm.
I think you would be surprised at the toughness needed to be a charity.
Giving people the things they need to continue doing the things that are killing them, is helping them get their quicker, was what I was told.
Cruel to be kind, but I take onboard that is not a one size fits all fix.who told you that and what credentials did they have? Did they have any views on the sorting out the underlying issues ?
Have a google, call a couple of charities that are providing shelter, let me know what you find out.
are you saying charities told you this ?
Yes.
I’m not sure why you are struggling with this? If I go out and feed a person in a tent, that same person who has been offered shelter, food and medical assistance, why would they take the route that applies conditions? It is far easier to take from strangers and continue doing what they want to do.
This is complex, often people supply and support those that need professional help, but as long as people continue to support them they have no reason to take professional help and maybe turn their lives around.
Charity is more than donations to a charity or an individual "I'm suprised because all my interactions with addictions have shown it to be more complex then being resolved by going cold turkey. You break the addiction after professional help, not in order to get the help. As I said above, I'm keen to hear the details. But I'd never say someone battling with addiction, especially brought in by trauma, is making a lifestyle choice. Many of us are, by the grace of God, not in their shoes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments. She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, " Quick question, do you genuinely believe this to be true? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like the police have finally started to address the problem. Gave some homeless tent dwellers in Camden 48 hours to leave then, when they didn't, the police moved them on and binned the tents. Usual lefties moaning but hopefully this is the start of proper enforcement of the law." Which law is it that prevents a person from erecting a tent on public land? And which law gives the police the power to confiscate and destroy the tents? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments. She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, Quick question, do you genuinely believe this to be true?" I think people don't want drug addicts living in tents in their roads or towns. Do you think people who want to live in tents, taking drugs and building small communities for the same types of people should be allowed to do that wherever they want? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like the police have finally started to address the problem. Gave some homeless tent dwellers in Camden 48 hours to leave then, when they didn't, the police moved them on and binned the tents. Usual lefties moaning but hopefully this is the start of proper enforcement of the law. Which law is it that prevents a person from erecting a tent on public land? And which law gives the police the power to confiscate and destroy the tents?" I believe they were on private land belonging to UCL. Wild camping in England is generally illegal without the landowners' permission. As for binning the tents, I don't know. Maybe fly tipping? Clearance of rubbish? Removal of an obstruction? Public health? I'm sure something could be found. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments. She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, Quick question, do you genuinely believe this to be true? I think people don't want drug addicts living in tents in their roads or towns. Do you think people who want to live in tents, taking drugs and building small communities for the same types of people should be allowed to do that wherever they want? " I'll answer your random unrelated questions if you answer my question about what you said. I'm am genuinely interested. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like the police have finally started to address the problem. Gave some homeless tent dwellers in Camden 48 hours to leave then, when they didn't, the police moved them on and binned the tents. Usual lefties moaning but hopefully this is the start of proper enforcement of the law. Which law is it that prevents a person from erecting a tent on public land? And which law gives the police the power to confiscate and destroy the tents? I believe they were on private land belonging to UCL. Wild camping in England is generally illegal without the landowners' permission. As for binning the tents, I don't know. Maybe fly tipping? Clearance of rubbish? Removal of an obstruction? Public health? I'm sure something could be found." So the police achieved: A. Relocating homeless people to a different place. Problem not solved. B. Destroying their shelters coming up to the winter. Problem worsened. Why is it only the "Usual lefties" who don't want the police to be arseholes to the most vulnerable people in society, do you really think so poorly of right wingers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like the police have finally started to address the problem. Gave some homeless tent dwellers in Camden 48 hours to leave then, when they didn't, the police moved them on and binned the tents. Usual lefties moaning but hopefully this is the start of proper enforcement of the law." "Which law is it that prevents a person from erecting a tent on public land? And which law gives the police the power to confiscate and destroy the tents?" "I believe they were on private land belonging to UCL. Wild camping in England is generally illegal without the landowners' permission." Wild camping isn't illegal, there's no law prohibiting it. However the land owner can sue for trespass (which is a civil, not a criminal offence), and then have people moved on. The police should not be involved in the prosecution of civil offences. "As for binning the tents, I don't know. Maybe fly tipping? Clearance of rubbish? Removal of an obstruction? Public health? I'm sure something could be found." Ah, so you're one of those people that think the police should just find some reason to punish those that you don't like, regardless of what the law says. It looks like you're also quite happy with the state trampling on people's human rights, as long as they are people that you don't agree with. Got it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"David Cameron set for a return to politics! Rumours of Foreign Secretary!" Does seem bizarre him marching up to number Ten after Cleverly went in, could be a coincidence in that he was going there at this time.. But, Foreign Secretary after his debacle over Libya.. desperation from Sunak or is there a cunning plan.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments. She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, Quick question, do you genuinely believe this to be true? I think people don't want drug addicts living in tents in their roads or towns. Do you think people who want to live in tents, taking drugs and building small communities for the same types of people should be allowed to do that wherever they want? I'll answer your random unrelated questions if you answer my question about what you said. I'm am genuinely interested." I’m not sure what you want me to say, I don’t care if she / Government want to help those who are making a choice to live on the streets or not. I’m telling you that people in towns and cities up and down the country don’t want drug addicts pitching up tents and creating communities on their streets. It’s not nice watching a people off their heads, using doorways as urinals. If they refuse help, do we say oh well that’s fair enough carry on regardless? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments. She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, Quick question, do you genuinely believe this to be true? I think people don't want drug addicts living in tents in their roads or towns. Do you think people who want to live in tents, taking drugs and building small communities for the same types of people should be allowed to do that wherever they want? I'll answer your random unrelated questions if you answer my question about what you said. I'm am genuinely interested. I’m not sure what you want me to say, I don’t care if she / Government want to help those who are making a choice to live on the streets or not. I’m telling you that people in towns and cities up and down the country don’t want drug addicts pitching up tents and creating communities on their streets. It’s not nice watching a people off their heads, using doorways as urinals. If they refuse help, do we say oh well that’s fair enough carry on regardless? " if imagine most would agree we don't want that. My issue is that throwing away all of someone's worldly possessions won't solve this. Before tents there were boxes. It won't suddenly kick start them into the many many years of addiction kicking and therapy needed. Even if that was available. And using terms like lifestyle choice minimises their issues. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's gone.. Sacked.. "Real shame. Hope her replacement will be tough on the issues needing sorting, but I don't hold out much hope. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like the police have finally started to address the problem. Gave some homeless tent dwellers in Camden 48 hours to leave then, when they didn't, the police moved them on and binned the tents. Usual lefties moaning but hopefully this is the start of proper enforcement of the law. Which law is it that prevents a person from erecting a tent on public land? And which law gives the police the power to confiscate and destroy the tents? I believe they were on private land belonging to UCL. Wild camping in England is generally illegal without the landowners' permission. Wild camping isn't illegal, there's no law prohibiting it. However the land owner can sue for trespass (which is a civil, not a criminal offence), and then have people moved on. The police should not be involved in the prosecution of civil offences. As for binning the tents, I don't know. Maybe fly tipping? Clearance of rubbish? Removal of an obstruction? Public health? I'm sure something could be found. Ah, so you're one of those people that think the police should just find some reason to punish those that you don't like, regardless of what the law says. It looks like you're also quite happy with the state trampling on people's human rights, as long as they are people that you don't agree with. Got it " The Vagrancy Act is still current and applies in this case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's gone.. Sacked..
Real shame. Hope her replacement will be tough on the issues needing sorting, but I don't hold out much hope."was she actually tough on the issues? I struggle to think of one policy she put through. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's gone.. Sacked..
Real shame. Hope her replacement will be tough on the issues needing sorting, but I don't hold out much hope.was she actually tough on the issues? I struggle to think of one policy she put through. "No, all the good ideas were thwarted by the left wing Civil Service blob, aided by traitorous lawyers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like the police have finally started to address the problem. Gave some homeless tent dwellers in Camden 48 hours to leave then, when they didn't, the police moved them on and binned the tents. Usual lefties moaning but hopefully this is the start of proper enforcement of the law." "Which law is it that prevents a person from erecting a tent on public land? And which law gives the police the power to confiscate and destroy the tents?" "I believe they were on private land belonging to UCL. Wild camping in England is generally illegal without the landowners' permission." "Wild camping isn't illegal, there's no law prohibiting it. However the land owner can sue for trespass (which is a civil, not a criminal offence), and then have people moved on. The police should not be involved in the prosecution of civil offences." "As for binning the tents, I don't know. Maybe fly tipping? Clearance of rubbish? Removal of an obstruction? Public health? I'm sure something could be found." "Ah, so you're one of those people that think the police should just find some reason to punish those that you don't like, regardless of what the law says. It looks like you're also quite happy with the state trampling on people's human rights, as long as they are people that you don't agree with. Got it." "The Vagrancy Act is still current and applies in this case." Some sections of the Vagrancy Act 1824 are still in law, but none of them apply in this case. Unless someone is trading without a licence, a pr*stitute "behaving in a riotous or indecent manner", or begging, they don't fall under that Act. You can't be arrested, or moved on, just for being homeless. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments. She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless, Quick question, do you genuinely believe this to be true? I think people don't want drug addicts living in tents in their roads or towns. Do you think people who want to live in tents, taking drugs and building small communities for the same types of people should be allowed to do that wherever they want? I'll answer your random unrelated questions if you answer my question about what you said. I'm am genuinely interested. I’m not sure what you want me to say, I don’t care if she / Government want to help those who are making a choice to live on the streets or not. I’m telling you that people in towns and cities up and down the country don’t want drug addicts pitching up tents and creating communities on their streets. It’s not nice watching a people off their heads, using doorways as urinals. If they refuse help, do we say oh well that’s fair enough carry on regardless? " You said: "Your point is valid but not the focus of Bravermen’s comments. She wants help for people living in tents that are genuinely homeless," And I asked. "Quick question, do you genuinely believe this to be true?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's gone.. Sacked..
Real shame. Hope her replacement will be tough on the issues needing sorting, but I don't hold out much hope.was she actually tough on the issues? I struggle to think of one policy she put through.
No, all the good ideas were thwarted by the left wing Civil Service blob, aided by traitorous lawyers."house. Which ones are you think of here ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's gone.. Sacked..
Real shame. Hope her replacement will be tough on the issues needing sorting, but I don't hold out much hope.was she actually tough on the issues? I struggle to think of one policy she put through. "Don't worry about that. She was excellent and bringing the far right into the Tory fold by stoking culture wars and blaming everything on the most marginalized people in society and energising the likes of the EDL. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's gone.. Sacked..
Real shame. Hope her replacement will be tough on the issues needing sorting, but I don't hold out much hope.was she actually tough on the issues? I struggle to think of one policy she put through.
No, all the good ideas were thwarted by the left wing Civil Service blob, aided by traitorous lawyers.house.
Which ones are you think of here ?"Aliens maybe? Chem trails | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
The new Foreign Secretary who refused to appear before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to explain the complete shit show his interference in Libya was ..
Such gravitas.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lord Cameron..
The new Foreign Secretary who refused to appear before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to explain the complete shit show his interference in Libya was ..
Such gravitas.."Is Sunak having to scrape the barrel ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lord Cameron..
The new Foreign Secretary who refused to appear before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to explain the complete shit show his interference in Libya was ..
Such gravitas..
Is Sunak having to scrape the barrel ?"Could be, problem is Boris and the Brexit cultists got rid of some very experienced and decent people during his crusade.. There's not a lot left given the length of time this lot have been in power which is normal whichever side an administration is from .. Sunak has pissed off the right and is possibly aware that he needs to try and move to the centre maybe.. But Cameron? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lord Cameron..
The new Foreign Secretary who refused to appear before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to explain the complete shit show his interference in Libya was ..
Such gravitas.."Correction.. Baron Cameron.. Who can't be called to the despatch box.. There's democracy.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Baron Cameron.. Who can't be called to the despatch box.. There's democracy.." Please could you explain this to an ignoramus like me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like the police have finally started to address the problem. Gave some homeless tent dwellers in Camden 48 hours to leave then, when they didn't, the police moved them on and binned the tents. Usual lefties moaning but hopefully this is the start of proper enforcement of the law." They tried that in Manchester, the homeless community wanted to highlight the councils treatment towards them, so the council and police moved them on and binned their tents. they arrested 7 homeless and on their court appearance the judge threw the case out and made the council pay all costs as the judge said these men should not be before him as they have committed no crime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's not an MP. But sits in the house of Lords. So technically can still be a cabinet minister. More evidence today that Sunak is a socialist. Or his handlers are " You heard it here first. Cameron (or his handler) is a socialist. Shocking news (if true). He does a superb job of hiding it, absolutely zero socialist policies and no socialist rhetoric. Astounding cover up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is it because he isn't an MP ?" Yes.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is it because he isn't an MP ? Yes.." Truss and Johnson were both previously Foreign Secretary. I wonder if they were considered today ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's gone.. Sacked..
Real shame. Hope her replacement will be tough on the issues needing sorting, but I don't hold out much hope.was she actually tough on the issues? I struggle to think of one policy she put through.
No, all the good ideas were thwarted by the left wing Civil Service blob, aided by traitorous lawyers."They weren’t but keep telling yourself that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is it because he isn't an MP ? Yes.. Truss and Johnson were both previously Foreign Secretary. I wonder if they were considered today ?" Perhaps..
Interesting times..
He's got baggage has the new Foreign Secretary, Greensill Capital and lobbying, Libya etc so as you said earlier it could be the barrel is being scraped.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" He's got baggage has the new Foreign Secretary, Greensill Capital and lobbying, Libya etc so as you said earlier it could be the barrel is being scraped.." Lord Heseltine is only 90. We could have given him a go. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" He's got baggage has the new Foreign Secretary, Greensill Capital and lobbying, Libya etc so as you said earlier it could be the barrel is being scraped.. Lord Heseltine is only 90. We could have given him a go. " Thatcher’s dead and she would still do a better job! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" He's got baggage has the new Foreign Secretary, Greensill Capital and lobbying, Libya etc so as you said earlier it could be the barrel is being scraped.. Lord Heseltine is only 90. We could have given him a go. " They could do worse, him and Ken Clarke.. 
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
