Best Of

.

Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .

A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.

Change the law if you're unhappy with it.

A tall ask, that, for nico67.

And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.

I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.

I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.

I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.

What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.

Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.

Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.

Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.

It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."

Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.

Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".

I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.

But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.

No, I think the Home Secretary has to lay a statutory instrument before Parliament to add a group to the list.

As was done in this case.

Following the same procedures that are followed in other cases too.

Surprising to see that Tommy Robinson has a 24% popularity rating, with a further 14% being neutral.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/explore/public_figure/Tommy_Robinson

I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.

I'd have guessed 15%.

it's 2025 and racism is in

Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).

So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.

Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats

I note approval is 20% for Badenoch, 15% for Jenrick. Stride doesn't seem to be rated.

I note this ranking is derived from the yougov ratings quickfire round that is optional at the end of their surveys, so I don't think is population weighted like their regular polls

Stride has a net approval of -18% compared to -35% for Badenoch, -44% for Starmer, -31% for Farage and -37% for Corbyn and -6% for Davey in the latest weighted Yougov favourability ratings survey

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52586-political-favourability-ratings-july-2025

Very naughty! Stride has the lowest favourable rating of any of them, at 6%. The only reason his net approval isn't so bad is because 70% haven't heard of him.

Big potential volatility here. Almost three quarters of the population have the experience of getting to know Mel Stride ahead of them.

'I'd like to talk to you about Mel Stride. Have you considered having a Mel Stride installed? Would you like a brochure detailing the optional extras that come with a Mel Stride? 6% of people who already have a Mel Stride like their Mel Stride, only 24% are dissatisfied with their Stride. Mel Stride!'

Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .

A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.

Change the law if you're unhappy with it.

A tall ask, that, for nico67.

And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.

I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.

I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.

I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.

What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.

Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.

Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.

Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.

It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."

Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.

You're close to having a point, those objecting to the rule of law, many of them passionate supporters of "the rule of law" otherwise are raging hypocrites driven by their antipathy to Israel.

I'm enjoying calling out their hypocrisy, yes. I'm not being inconsistent with my principles either, I'd entirely be comfortable with the law being liberalised so people can support terrorists whether they be Islamic, neo-Nazi or Palestinian despite the fact I oppose them all.

What I'm not OK with is authoritarian laws being applied to some but not others.

Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .

A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.

Change the law if you're unhappy with it.

A tall ask, that, for nico67.

And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.

I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.

I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.

I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.

What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.

Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.

Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.

People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.

When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?

Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.

I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.

If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.

You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.

The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.

So the provisions within the law were met.

What violence in the UK had the other 2 groups done? And were they more or less violent than PA? Violence includes damage to property as PA did.

Why aren't you whinging about all the other groups on the list who haven't killed people?

Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard.
Almost as if they're a different species.

Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.

Have you ever considered standing for political office?

I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.

But think about all those freebie suits and shoes you could get.

But the politics of envy would kick in.

I'd get criticised for turning up to parliament or a constituency surgery wearing £700 Louis Vuitton shoes, £500 Turnbull & Asser shirt, and £3,500 bespoke suit, and that's me slumming it.

Edit - And I haven't even mentioned the watches.

Not if you were the candidate in Kensington and Bayswater or Chelsea and Fulham, there you would still be considered underdressed and slovenly

Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .

A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.

Change the law if you're unhappy with it.

A tall ask, that, for nico67.

And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.

I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.

I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.

I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.

What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.

Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.

Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.

People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.

When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?

Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.

I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.

If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.

You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.

The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.

Yes, I think Blair's law was authoritarian and should be repealed, I said so.

Many of Blair's laws were authoritarian and he got his way many attempts that were defeated were even worse.

However his law was passed, decades ago now, and yes PA well and truly meet the definition. As much, if not more, than most other proscribed groups.

So campaign to repeal and liberalise the law. I have no qualms with liberalism.

Pretending the law was not broken or suggesting selective application of the law? That is worse.

The rule of law means these guys are terrorists and anyone supporting them is breaking the law too.